Additional evidence: I don't feel companionate love as strongly as you do (I expect I feel love closer to the average amount, skewed a bit on the low side), but still have the same negative sentiment towards Green. Internally to me the Greeny feelings don't feel like love, but maybe most Greens do in fact feel them similar? For me it feels more like "story-thinking" or "narrative fit". I think fiction is probably the most Green feeling thing I do, and it feels to me like people apply it to the real world and don't feel the sense of "uhh, this is Real Life, not a book".
I think the sense of feeling bad for not knowing basic stuff is valuable. The key to making it useful is that I try not to flinch away from learning the thing because of feeling bad. The only response to feeling bad for not knowing something is to either learn it or consciously decide it's not worth it right now.
I worry that without this sense I would have more fundamental gaps in my knowledge. It's an alarm bell much like noticing confusion. It probably helps to have prerequisite skills of having similar feelitgs spur yourself to action instead of just beating yourself up about it.
Some of my early inspirations for getting into physics were like that. Once while preparing for the science bowl in middle school I learned I didn't even know what the fundamental particles were. Later I learned I didn't even know how one converts electrical power into mechanical motion. Perhaps this has trained me to be excited instead of sad - following up on "Why the fuck do I not know this?" is often fruitful.
Note from the future that Kariko received the Nobel Prize in 2023 for the mRNA stuff
Additionally, it's been memed, and I think it's in part due to how with modern English writing it reads like someone shouting a mispelling. So many who say "RETVRN" are doing so ironically to make fun of the position, while others use it seriously due to its distinctiveness.
Meh? If 15° accuracy is good enough for you, that map of level curves shows you that most places on land will be fine, along with the parts of the ocean usually used for moving between land.
Ebbinghaus's work on memory, maybe? For some reason it looks like nobody had plotted memory decay curves despite the experimental apparatus consisting only of yourself, flashcards, a metronome, and either a strong work ethic or a masochistic desire to memorize nonsense as if trapped in a satire of education. He discovered some of the early famous results but more importantly was relatively early in doing empiricism in psychology (and like the first to do so for memory?). Wikipedia states:
With very few works published on memory in the previous two millennia, Ebbinghaus's works spurred memory research in the United States in the 1890s, with 32 papers published in 1894 alone.
But also, the fact that this was the 1890s makes me think it may not have been that long before someone found it anyways. But also also, the world wars could've delayed it in this alternate timeline. So, maybe?
The Bayesian Conspiracy podcast hosted by Eneasz Brodski (the HPMOR radiodrama guy) and Steven Zuber (from We Want MoR) has a Discord. By virtue of being smaller, it is easier to keep up with and imo easier to have conversations in.
There's the SlateStarCodex subreddit and a politics spinoff or something called The Motte
There's lots of low hanging fruit on Wikipedia. Now when I think "ugh, come on" or "that looks wrong" or "why doesn't this post have X??" etc. I either edit it immediately or write it down to edit (or procrastinate on editing) later. The most rewarding part is when I'm trying to recall something in a conversation, pull up a relevant Wikipedia page, scroll through to find the info... and then realize I'm the one that put it there.
This post and others like it was what got me to start editing. I imagine that somewhere out there is someone like my teenage self, reading Wikipedia and having a slightly easier time learning a bit more than I did.
That is a clever way to succinctly say it. However, I worry that I only understood that because I already was aware of the concept. Perhaps I should show this to some smart friends with basic math chops who don't already know about the whole naive bayes thing,
On the other hand, gain of function research is both probably not very useful and unnecessarily risky. Many think it likely that COVID was caused by it; even if you don't, it seems likely that such research could cause similar pandemics.
(I don't think this is the place to argue about whether COVID specifically was caused by gain of function research, so suggest that replies to this comment not be about that)