Thanks for the helpful summary. Does this imply that young people should invest in cryptocurrency?
Looking at the Samuelson share equation, I'm not sure that premia have been established for crypto? But they do seem more volatile, and perhaps you can invoke CAPM or something to therefore claim they have a premium?
My impression is that they are also easier to leverage, although I'm less sure of that.
Note that this can act as a Faraday cage around your phone and potentially reduce your reception.With the fullback of my phone covered in copper I got ~0.2 Mbps on 4G. When I removed a 1 in.² on the upper left (where the antenna is on a Google pixel 3) it went up to 13 Mbps.I assume having everything except for a small square covered is still pretty good, so I'm doing that.
I don't think the app has much of an incentive to do this – each individual person wants to look more attractive, but if everyone looks 10% more attractive I'm not sure the community as a whole is benefited.Some apps do provide feedback on which photos you should choose though, which is kind of similar.
Thanks! Do you have an analogous confusion about why people are leaving metaphorical $20 bills on the ground? (E.g. you wonder why people are wasting all their time on Tinder instead of hanging out with their friends or whatever you think is more effective.) Or do you think that people are behaving in a pretty optimal manner?
Thanks! I agree that trying too hard or seeming fake is a big turnoff and would decrease your chances of success, but choosing better photos seems like a pretty covert activity (and one which seems to have reasonably high social approval).
If you think it feels wrong that most people don't care, consider that you care enough about the subject to write a blog post about it so you're not an average person regarding dating.
Thanks! This just increases my confusion though: the main thing that evolution optimized us for matters so little to the average person that they don't even want to write a blog post about it?
Good point, yeah – it's a lexical ordering, not a unanimous agreement.
This can be formalized in the following sense:1. Suppose your set of values are lattice-ordered, and2. Suppose they admit some sort of group structure that preserves this ordering: if you prefer apples to oranges, then you prefer two apples to two oranges, and so forth.Then:1. As long as you don't have "infinitely" good outcomes, your preferences can be represented by a utility function.2. If you have "infinitely" good outcomes, your preferences can be represented by a set of agents, each of which has a utility function, and your overall preference is equivalent to these subagents "unanimously agreeing".The former claim is due to Holders theorem, and the latter is a result of the Hahn embedding theorem. I wrote a little bit more about this here.
Does anyone know what Petrov's address is, or any way to reach him?
The Madison, WI effective altruism group would like to write him thank-you letters for our next meetup this Petrov Day.