If I think style choices are best left up to the poster I should vote for all the options?

is "luminous" a modifier for beliefs, people, or both?

Both - it's just easier that way. A luminous person has lots of luminous brain-items (not necessarily just beliefs); a luminous brain-item is known to the person who has it, even if they're not generally very luminous.

"tl;dr" summary, indicated by "tl;dr" abbreviation.

Karma balance.

Précis, consisting of one or two sentences, italics.

Karma balance.

Formal abstract, consisting of one or a few paragraphs, indented.

Karma balance.

No summary.

Karma balance.

Poll: when making a new substantive top-level post, what kinds of summary are acceptable?

This is a checkbox poll, and therefore votes for multiple options may be entered - for each option, a separate karma balance will be offered. In the event that some important option is immediately noticed to be missing, another poster may offer an option-karma balance pair without destroying the poll.

Between one-input, one-output programs and complex UIs are simple UIs, such as a program that loops in reading input and output, and maintains state while doing so.

The complex UIs are mostly a matter of wrapping this sort of "event loop" around a given framework or UI library. Some frameworks instead have their own event loop that does this, and instead you write callbacks and other code that the event loop calls at the appropriate times.

I like this problem because it seems to operate on the same intuitions that lead to one-boxing and two-boxing for those who don't do any actual analysis, but the one-boxing intuition leads you astray (though not by much).

Personally, I'd take the £10 on reflection but would have refused the £10 based on my intuitions. I'm pretty sure Omega wouldn't be giving me £10, since if confronted with the situation I would be forced to think, "If I say 'no' now, there's lots of money in that envelope."

There are two kinds of fools:

One says, "This is old therefore it is good.": Conservatism, when the person is holding beliefs for irrational reasons (fear, ick-factor, a desire to avoid all change, etc.)

The other one says, "This is new therefore it is better.": Change advocates, when they fail to take into account the possibility that conservative positions may be robust or long standing solutions to difficult problems that made sense for a large period of time or in certain cultures.

Both sides can hold the correct position for irrational reasons, and one should put thought into it, and obtain more knowledge, before deciding which is correct.

Good point - I still think it is relevant to note that those with low standards will be more willing to post, but given that your evidence is independent, the "bear in mind" is unwarranted.

"Discrimination when considering changing things is important" is what I got from it.

Do you mean to imply I am underestimating the community average standard? I was basing my assessment on karma scores on posts I consider low quality, not so much on what people decide to post.

I suspect that you're also overgeneralizing.

I don't see how that could possibly be true when all I do is describe my own experience (mostly actual, partly imagined) as one example how things can be different than how Jesse seems to expect them to be in a way that matches the words Morendil uses.

Tell me what reasoning I was supposed to find your comment, as it related to the parent's point, and if we can agree there's something non-foolish about it, I'll revise my comment. Sound good?

I suspect that you're also overgeneralizing. In particular, you probably underestimating what it means to be good at getting information from feelings-- they don't have to be "vague".

I'll grant you that the idea might be worth testing - for example, by radiocarbon dating calibrated on other dendro data - but I don't think it has been shown convincingly enough to outweigh the historical accounts.

I'm sorry if you felt I was advocating a position when instead I understood and was in agreement with his points. I was merely supplying an interesting quote about half of them.

I do not appreciate being called a fool when you make no attempt to discern my reasoning.

Another case of "let them eat cake". The very gap in my understanding is the jump between writing input once/output once algorithms, to multi-resource complex-UI programs, when existing open source applications have source files that don't make sense to me and no one on the project finds it worth their time to bring me up to speed.

By "evidence", I refer to events that change an agent's strength of belief in a theory, and the measure of evidence is the measure of this change in belief, that is, the likelihood-ratio and log likelihood-ratio you refer to.

I never meant for "evidence" to refer to the posterior strength of belief. "Log odds" was only meant to specify a particular measurement of strength in belief.