= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nornagest comments on Irrationality Game II - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (380)
Upvoted because I can't think of any sense in which it's possible to reliably separate akrastic from non-akrastic media without a pretty good model of the reader. Wikipedia's a huge time sink, for example, yet it's a huge time sink because it consists of lots of educational but low-salience bits; that article on orogeny might be extremely useful if I'm trying to write a terrain generation algorithm, but I'll probably only have to do that at most once in my life.
On the other hand, it's probably possible to come up with an algorithm that reliably distinguishes some time-wasting content. Coming up with a set of criteria for image galleries, for example, would go a long way and seems doable.
Wikipedia was one example of a challengingly messy corpus, though I do think there's a sharp division between articles that make you know more stuff and articles that don't. I personally wouldn't consider the orogeny article akrasiatic.
It is possible I'm working from a quite specific definition of akrasia in this case.
(You need to put a backslash before any )'s in URLs, e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blossom_(TV_series\).)
(Done)
I would expect to have to do that either zero or at least two times.
I tend to be a one-evolving-draft sort of programmer. Fair point, though.