For humans problems can seem intractable for a long time and then suddenly become easy. Forming a coherent chemistry was taking a very long time until Lavoisier thought to look at the mass of reactants and products. And then we had a periodic table 100 years after that. Compare this to little progress from having bounced around in alchemy for 2000 years or so.

So identifying and understanding angles of attacks is important for tackling the thorny problems that face us today.

The Decline Effect and the Scientific Method (article @ the New Yorker)

First, as a physicist, I do have to point out that this article concerns mainly softer sciences, e.g. psychology, medicine, etc.

A summary of explanations for this effect:

• "The most likely explanation for the decline is an obvious one: regression to the mean. As the experiment is repeated, that is, an early statistical fluke gets cancelled out."
• "Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found."
• "Richard Palmer... suspects that an equally significant issue is the selective reporting of results—the data that scientists choose to document in the first place. ... Palmer emphasizes that selective reporting is not the same as scientific fraud. Rather, the problem seems to be one of subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions, as researchers struggle to make sense of their results."
• "According to Ioannidis, the main problem is that too many researchers engage in what he calls “significance chasing,” or finding ways to interpret the data so that it passes the statistical test of significance—the ninety-five-per-cent boundary invented by Ronald Fisher. ... The current “obsession” with replicability distracts from the real problem, which is faulty design."

These problems are with the proper usage of the scientific method, not the principle of the method itself. Certainly, it's important to address them. I think the reason they appear so often in the softer sciences is that biological entities are enormously complex, and so higher-level ideas that make large generalizations are more susceptible to random error and statistical anomalies, as well as personal bias, conscious and unconscious.

For those who haven't read it, take a look at Richard Feynman on cargo cult science if you want a good lecture on experimental design.

Related to: The Quantum Physics Sequence, particular Decoherence is Pointless.

If you really understand quantum mechanics (or the linked post on decoherence) you shouldn't get anything out of this post, but understanding this really cleared things up for me, so hopefully it will clear things up for someone else too.

Here at lesswrong we are probably all good Solomonoff inductors and so tend to reject collapse. We believe that a measurement destroys interference because it entangles some degrees of freedom from a quantum system with its environment. Of course, this process doesn't occur sharply and discontinuously. It happens gradually, as the degree of entanglement is increased. But what exactly does "gradually" mean here? Lets focus on a particular example.

Suppose I run the classic two-slit experiment, but I measure which slit the electron goes through. Of course, I don't observe an interference pattern. What happens if we "measure it  less"? Lets go to the extreme: I change the polarization of a single photon depending on which slit the electron went through (its either polarized vertically or horizontally), and I send that photon off to space (where its polarization will not be coupled to any other degrees of freedom). Do I now see just a little bit of an interference pattern?

A naive guess is that strength of the interference pattern drops off exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom entangled with the measurement of which slit the electron went through. In a certain sense, this is completely correct. But if I were to perform the experiment exactly as I described---in particular, if I were to polarize the photon perfectly horizontally in the one case and perfectly vertically in the other case---then I would observe no interference at all. (This may or may not be possible, depending on the way nature chose to implement electrons, photons, and slits. Whether or not you can measure exactly is really not philosophically important to quantum mechanics, and I feel completely confident saying that science doesn't yet know the answer. So I guess I'm not yet decided on whether decoherence really happens "gradually." )

The important thing is that two paths leading to the same state only interfere if they lead to exactly the same state. The two ways for the electron to get to the center of the screen interfere by default because nature has no record of how the electron got there. If you measure at all, even with one degree of freedom, then the two ways for the electron to get to the same place on the screen don't lead to the exactly same state and so interference doesn't occur.

The exponential dependence on the number of degrees of freedom comes from the error in our measurement devices. If I prepare one photon polarized either horizontally or vertically, and I do it very precisely, then I am very unlikely to mistake one case for the other and I will therefore see very little interference. If I do it somewhat less precisely, then the probability of a measurement error increases and so does the strength of the interference pattern. However, if I create 1000 photons, each polarized approximately correctly, then by taking a majority vote I can almost certainly correctly learn which slit the electron went through, and the interference pattern disappears again. The probability of error drops off exponentially, and so does the interference.

Another issue (which is related in my head, probably just because I finally understood it around the same time) is the possibility of a "quantum eraser" which destroys the polarized photon as it heads into space. If I destroy the photon (or somehow erase the information about its polarization) then it seems like I should see the interference pattern---now the two different paths for the electron led to exactly the same state again. But if I destroy the photon after checking for the interference pattern, how can this be possible?

The answer to this apparent paradox is that erasing the data in the photon is impossible if you have already checked for an interference pattern, by the reversibility of quantum mechanics. In order to erase the data in the photon, you need to measure which slit the electron went through a second time in a way that precisely cancels out your first measurement; there is no way around this. This conveniently prevents any sort of faster than light communication. In order to restore the interference pattern, you need to bring the photon back into physical proximity with the electron.

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-and-how-psychological-data-is.html

Psychology has a serious problem. You may have heard about its over-dependence on WEIRD participants - that is, those from Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich Democracies. More specifically, as regular readers will be aware, countless psychology studies involve undergraduate students, particularly psych undergrads. Apart from the obvious fact that this limits the generalisability of the findings, Edward Witt and his colleagues provide evidence in a new paper for two further problems, this time involving self-selection biases.

Just over 500 Michigan State University undergrads (75 per cent were female) had the option, at a time of their choosing during the Spring 2010 semester, to volunteer either for an on-line personality study, or a face-to-face version. The data collection was always arranged for Wednesdays at 12.30pm to control for time of day/week effects. Also, the same personality survey was administered by computer in the same way in both experiment types, it's just that in the face-to-face version it was made clear that the students had to attend the research lab, and an experimenter would be present.

Just 30 per cent of the sample opted for the face-to-face version. Predictably enough, these folk tended to score more highly on extraversion. The effect size was small (d=-.26) but statistically significant. Regards more specific personality traits, the students who chose the face-to-face version were also more altruistic and less cautious.

What about choice of semester week? As you might expect, it was the more conscientious students who opted for dates earlier in the semester (r=.-.20). What's more, men were far more likely to volunteer later in the semester, even after controlling for average personality difference between the sexes. For example, 18 per cent of week one participants were male compared with 52 per cent in the final, 13th week.

In other words, the kind of people who volunteer for research will likely vary according to the time of semester and the mode of data collection. Imagine you used false negative feedback on a cognitive task to explore effects on confidence and performance. Participants tested at the start of semester, who are typically more conscientious and motivated, are likely to be affected in a different way than participants who volunteer later in the semester.

This isn't the first time that self-selection biases have been reported in psychology. A 2007 study, for example, suggested that people who volunteer for a 'prison study' are likely to score higher than average on aggressiveness and social dominance, thus challenging the generalisability of Zimbardo's seminal work. However, despite the occasional study highlighting these effects, there seems to be little enthusiasm in the social psychological community to do much about it.

So what to do? The specific issues raised in the current study could be addressed by sampling throughout a semester and replicating effects using different data collection methods. 'Many papers based on college students make reference to the real world implications of their findings for phenomena like aggression, basic cognitive processes, prejudice, and mental health,' the researchers said. 'Nonetheless, the use of convenience samples place limitations on the kinds of inferences drawn from research. In the end, we strongly endorse the idea that psychological science will be improved as researchers pay increased attention to the attributes of the participants in their studies.'
_________________________________

Witt, E., Donnellan, M., and Orlando, M. (2011). Timing and selection effects within a psychology subject pool: Personality and sex matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 (3), 355-359 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.019

An article at The Edge has scientific experts in various fields give their favorite examples of theories that were wrong in their fields. Most relevantly to Less Wrong, many of those scientists discuss what their disciplines did that was wrong which resulted in the misconceptions. For example, Irene Pepperberg not surprisingly discusses the failure for scientists to appreciate avian intelligence. She emphasizes that this failure resulted from a combination of different factors, including the lack of appreciation that high level cognition could occur without the mammalian cortex, and that many early studies used pigeons which just aren't that bright.

[Note: My last thread was poorly worded in places and gave people the wrong impression that I was interested in talking about growing and shaping the Less Wrong community.  I was really hoping to talk about something a bit different.  Here's my revision with a completely redone methodology.]

How many people would invest their time to read the LW sequences if they were introduced to them?

So in other words, I’m trying to estimate the theoretical upper-bound on the number of individuals world-wide who have the ability, desire, and time to read intellectual material online and who also have at least some pre-disposition to wanting to think rationally.

I’m not trying to evangelize to unprepared, “reach” candidates who maybe, possibly would like to read parts of the sequences.  I’m just looking for likely size of the core audience who already has the ability, the time, and doesn’t need to jump through any major hoops to stomach the sequences (like deconverting from religion or radically changing their habits -- like suddenly devoting more of their time to using computers or reading.)

The reason I’m investigating this is because I want to build more rationalists.  I know some smart people whose opinions I respect (like Michael Vassar) who contend we shouldn’t spend much time trying to reach more people with the sequences.  They think the majority of people smart enough to follow the sequences and who do weird, eccentric things like “read in their spare time”, are already here.  This is my second attempt to figure this out in the last couple days, and unlike my rough 2M person figure I got with my previous, hasty analysis, this more detailed analysis leaves me with a much lower world-wide target audience of only 17,000.

Filter


Total Population


Filters Away (%)




Everyone


6,880,000,000

 



Speaks English + Internet Access


536,000,000


92.2%




Atheist/Agnostic


40,000,000


92.55%




Believes in evolution | Atheist/Agnostic


30,400,000


24%




“NT” (Rational) MBTI


3,952,000


87%




IQ 130+ (SD 15; US/UK-Atheist-NT 108 IQ)


284,544


92.8%




30 min/day reading or on computers


 16,930


94.05%

Yep, that’s right.  There are basically only a few thousand relatively bright people in the world who think reason makes sense and devote at least 2% of their day to arcane activities like “reading” and "using computers".

Considering we have 6,438 Less Wrong logins created and a daily readership of around 5,500 people between logged in and anonymous readers, I now actually find it believable that we may have already reached a very large fraction of all the people in the world who we could theoretically convince to read the sequences.

This actually matters because it makes me update in favor of different, more realistic growth strategies than buying AdWords or doing SEO to try and reach the small number of people left in our current target audience.  Like translating the sequences into Chinese.  Or creating an economic disaster that leaves most of the Westerner world unemployed (kidding!).  Or waiting until Eliezer publishes his rationality book so that we can reach the vast majority of our potential, future audience who currently still reads but doesn’t have time to do anti-social, low-prestige things like “reading blogs”.


For those of you who want to consider my methodology, here’s the rationale for each step that I used to disqualify potential sequence readers:

Doesn’t Speak English or have Internet Access:  The sequences are English-only (right now) and online-only (right now).  Don’t think there’s any contention here.  This figure is the largest of the 3 figures I've found but all were around 500,000,000.

Not Atheist/Agnostic: Not being an Atheist or Agnostic is a huge warning sign.  93% of LW is atheist/agnostic for a reason.  It’s probably a combo of  1) it’s hard to stomach reading the sequences if you’re a theist, and 2) you probably don’t use thinking to guide the formation of your beliefs anyway so lessons in rationality are a complete waste of time for you.  These people really needs to have the healing power of Dawkins come into their hearts before we can help them.  Also, note that even though it wasn't mentioned in Yvain's top-level survey post, the raw data showed that around 1/3rd of LW users who gave a reason for participating on LW cite "Atheism".

Evolution denialist: If you can’t be bothered to be moved to correct beliefs about the second most obvious conclusion in the world by the mountains of evidence in favor of it, you’re effectively saying you don’t think induction or science can work at all.  These people also need to go through Dawkins before we can help them.

Not “NT” on the Myers-Briggs typology: Lots of people complain about the MBTI.  But in this case, I don’t think it matters that the MBTI isn’t cleaving reality perfectly at the joints or that these types aren’t natural categories.  I realize Jung types aren’t made of quarks and aren’t fundamental.  But I’ve also met lots of people at the Less Wrong meet-ups.  There’s an even split of E/I and P/J in our community.  But there is a uniform, overwhelmingly strong disposition towards N and T.  And we shouldn’t be surprised by this at all.  People who are S instead of N take things at face value and resist using induction or intuition to extend their reasoning.  These people can guess the teacher’s password, but they're not doing the same thing that you call "thinking".  And if you’re not a T (Thinking), then that means you’re F (Feeling).  And if you’re using feelings to chose beliefs in lieu of thinking, there’s nothing we can do for you -- you’re permanently disqualified from enjoying the blessings of rationality.  Note:  I looked hard to see if I could find data suggesting that being NT and being Atheist correlated because I didn’t want to “double subtract” out the same people twice.  It turns out several studies have looked for this correlation with thousands of participants... and it doesn’t exist.

Lower than IQ 130: Another non-natural category that people like to argue about.  Plus, this feels super elitist, right?  Excluding people just because they're "not smart enough". But it’s really not asking that much when you consider that IQ 100 means you’re buying lottery tickets, installing malware on your computer, and spending most of your free time watching TV.  Those aren’t the “stupid people” who are way down on the other side of the Gaussian -- that’s what a normal 90 - 110 IQ looks like.  Real stupid is so non-functional that you never even see it... probably because you don’t hang out in prisons, asylums and homeless shelters.  Really.  And 130 isn’t all that “special“ once you find yourself being a white (+6IQ) college graduate (+5IQ) atheist (+4IQ) who's ”NT” on Myers-Briggs (+5IQ).  In Yvain’s survey, the average IQ on LW was 145.88.  And only 4 out of 68 LWers reported IQs below 130... the lowest being 120.  I find it inconceivable that EVERYONE lied on this survey.  I also find it highly unlikely that only the top 1/2 reported.  But even if everyone who didn’t report was as low as the lowest IQ reported by anyone on Less Wrong, the average IQ would still be over 130.  Note:   I took the IQ boost from being atheist and being MBTI-“N” into account when figuring out the proportion of 130+ IQ conditional on the other traits already being factored in.

Having no free time: So you speak English, you don’t hate science, you don’t hate reason, and you’re somewhat bright.  Seem like you’re a natural part of our target audience, right?  Nope... wrong!  There’s at least one more big hurdle: Having some free time.  Most people who are already awesome enough to have passed through all these filters are winning so hard at life (by American standards of success) that they are wayyy too busy to do boring, anti-social & low-prestige tasks like reading online forums in their spare time (which they don’t have much of).  In fact, it’s kind of like how knowing a bit about biases can hurt you and make you even more biased.  Being a bit rational can skyrocket you to such a high level of narrowly-defined American-style "success" that you become a constantly-busy, middle-class wage-slave who zaps away all your free time in exchange for a mortgage and a car payment. Nice job buddy. Thanks for increasing my GDP epsilon%... now you are left with whatever rationality you started out with minus the effects of your bias dragging you back down to average over the ensuing years.  The only ways I see out of this dilemma are 1) being in a relatively unstructured period of your life (ie, unemployed, college student, semi-retired, etc) or 2) having a completely broken motivation system which keeps you in a perpetually unstructured life against your will (akrasia) or perhaps 3) being a full-time computer professional who can multi-task and pass off reading online during your work day as actually working.  That said, if you're unlucky enough to have a full-time job or you’re married with children, you’ve already fallen out of the population of people who read or use computers at least 30 minutes / day.  This is because having a spouse cuts your time spent reading and using computers in half.  Having children cuts reading in half and reduces computer usage by 1/3rd.  And having a job similarly cuts both reading and computer usage in half.  Unfortunately, most people suffer from several of these afflictions.  I can’t find data that’s conditional on being an IQ 130+ Atheist but my educated guess is employment is probably much better than average due to being so much more capable and I’d speculate that relationships and children are about the same or perhaps a touch lower.  All things equal, I think applying statistics from the general US civilian population and extrapolating is an acceptable approximation in this situation even if it likely overestimates the number of people who truly have 30 minutes of free time / day (the average amount of time needed just to read LW according to Yvain’s survey).  83% of people are employed full-time so they’re gone.  Of the remaining 17% who are unemployed, 10% of the men and 50% of the women are married and have children so that’s another 5.1% off the top level leaving only 11.9% of people.  Of that 11.9% left, the AVERAGE person has 1 hour they spend reading and ”Playing games and computer use for leisure“.  Let’s be optimistic and assume they somehow devote half of their entire leisure budget to reading Less Wrong, that still only leaves 5.95%.  Note: These numbers are a bit rough.  If someone wants to go through the micro-data files of the US Time Use Survey for me and count the exact number of people who do more than 1 hour of "reading" and "Playing games and computer use for leisure", I welcome this help.

Anyone have thoughtful feedback on refinements or additional filters I could add to this?  Do you know of better sources of statistics for any of the things I cite?  And most importantly, do you have new, creative outreach strategies we could use now that we know this?

According to the New Scientist, Daryl Bern has a paper to appear in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which claims that the participants in psychological experiments are able to predict the future. A preprint of this paper is available online. Here's a quote from the New Scientist article:

In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type.

In another study, Bem adapted research on "priming" – the effect of a subliminally presented word on a person's response to an image. For instance, if someone is momentarily flashed the word "ugly", it will take them longer to decide that a picture of a kitten is pleasant than if "beautiful" had been flashed. Running the experiment back-to-front, Bem found that the priming effect seemed to work backwards in time as well as forwards.

Question: even assuming the methodology is sound, given experimenter bias, publication bias and your priors on the existence of psi, what sort of p-values would you need to see in that paper in order to believe with, say, 50% probability that the effect measured is real?

>Elisabeth Lloyd: I don’t actually know. I think that it’s at a very problematic intersection of topics. I mean, you’re taking the intersection of human evolution, women, sexuality – once you take that intersection you’re bound to kind of get a disaster. More than that, when evolutionists have looked at this topic, I think that they’ve had quite a few items on their agenda, including telling the story about human origins that bolsters up the family, monogamy, a certain view of female sexuality that’s complimentary to a certain view of male sexuality. And all of those items have been on their agenda and it’s quite visible in their explanations.

>Natasha Mitchell: I guess it’s perplexed people partly, too, because women don’t need an orgasm to become pregnant, and so the question is: well, what’s its purpose? Well, is its purpose to give us pleasure so that we have sex, so that we can become pregnant, according to the classic evolutionary theories?

>Elisabeth Lloyd: The problem is even worse than it appears at first because not only is orgasm not necessary on the female side to become pregnant, there isn’t even any evidence that orgasm makes any difference at all to fertility, or pregnancy rate, or reproductive success. It seems intuitive that a female orgasm would motivate females to engage in intercourse which would naturally lead to more pregnancies or help with bonding or something like that, but the evidence simply doesn’t back that up.

The whole discussion. It backs my theory that using evolution to explain current traits seriously tempts people to make things up.

Novels

Blindsight, Peter Watts

Eighty years in the future, Earth becomes aware of an alien presence when thousands of micro-satellites surveil the Earth; through good luck, the incoming alien vessel is detected, and the ship Theseus, with its artificial intelligence captain and crew of five, are sent out to engage in first contact with the huge alien vessel called Rorschach. As they explore the vessel and attempt to analyze it and its inhabitants, the narrator considers his life and strives to understand himself and ponders the nature of intelligence and consciousness, their utility, and what an alien mind might be like. Eventually the crew realizes that they are greatly outmatched by the vessel and its unconscious but extremely capable inhabitants.

When the level of this threat becomes clear, Theseus runs a kamikaze mission using its antimatter as a payload, while Siri returns to Earth, which, as he grows nearer, it is apparent has been overrun by vampires. Non-sapient creatures are beginning to exterminate what may be the only bright spark on consciousness in the universe.

Ventus, Karl Schroeder

Ventus is well-written and fun, as well as having IME the most realistic treatment of nanotech I've yet encountered in SF. Schroeder is definitely an author to watch (this is his first novel). The setup is that some agents from the local galactic civilization have come to an off-limits world hunting a powerful cyborg who may be carrying the last copy of an extremely dangerous AI god. The tough part is that the world is off-limits because the nanotech on that world is controlled by AIs that destroy all technology not made by them, and aren't terribly human-friendly.

Crisis in Zefra, Karl Schroeder

In spring 2005, the Directorate of Land Strategic Concepts of National Defense Canada (that is to say, the army) hired me to write a dramatized future military scenario.  The book-length work, Crisis in Zefra, was set in a mythical African city-state, about 20 years in the future, and concerned a group of Canadian peacekeepers who are trying to ready the city for its first democratic vote while fighting an insurgency.  The project ran to 27,000 words and was published by the army as a bound paperback book.

Accelerando, Charles Stross

The first three stories follow the character of "venture altruist" Manfred Macx starting in the early 21st century, the second three stories follow his daughter Amber, and the final three focus largely on her son Sirhan in the completely transformed world at the end of the century.

In Accelerando, the planets of the solar system are dismantled to form a Matrioshka brain, a vast computational device inhabited by minds inconceivably more complex than naturally evolved intelligences such as human beings. This proves to be a normal stage in the life cycle of an inhabited solar system; the galaxies are filled with Matrioshka brains. Intelligent consciousnesses outside of Matrioshka brains may communicate via wormhole networks.

The notion that the universe is dominated by a communications network of superintelligences bears comparison with Olaf Stapledon's early science-fiction novel Star Maker (1937), although Stapledon's advanced civilizations communicate psychically rather than informatically.

The Lifecycle of Software Objects, Ted Chiang

A triumphant combination of the rigorous extrapolation of artificial intelligence and artificial life, two of the high concepts of contemporary SF, with an exploration of its consequences for the ordinary people whose lives it derails. Ana Alvarado is a former zookeeper turned software tester. When Blue Gamma offers her a job as animal trainer for their digients--digital entities, spawned by genetic algorithms to provide pets for players in the future virtual reality of Data Earth--she discovers an unexpected affinity for her charges. So does Derek Brooks, an animator who designs digient body parts. The market for digients develops and expands, cools and declines after the pattern of the software industry. Meanwhile Ana, Derek, and their friends become increasingly attached to their cute and talkative charges, who are neither pets nor children but something wholly new. But as Blue Gamma goes bust and Data Earth itself fades into obsolescence, Ana and the remaining digient keepers face a series of increasingly unpleasant dilemmas, their worries sharpened by their charges' growing awareness of the world beyond their pocket universe, and the steady unwinding of their own lives and relationships into middle-aged regrets for lost opportunities. Keeping to the constraints of a novella while working on a scale of years is a harsh challenge. Chiang's prose is sparse and austere throughout, relying on hints and nudges to provide context. At times, the narrative teeters on the edge of arid didacticism; there are enough ideas to fill a lesser author's trilogy, but much of the background is present only by implication, forcing the reader to work to fill in the blanks. (Indeed, this story may be impenetrable to readers who aren't at least passingly familiar with computers, the Internet, and virtual worlds such as Second Life.)

Short Stories

The Island, Peter Watts

"The Island" is a standalone novelette. It is also one episode in a projected series of connected tales (a lá Stross's Accellerando or Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles) that start about a hundred years from now and extends unto the very end of time. And in some parallel universe where I not only get a foothold into the gaming industry but actually keep one, it is a mission level for what would be, in my opinion, an extremely kick-ass computer game.

The Things, Peter Watts

Short Stories by Peter Watts

Divided by Infinity, Robert Charles Wilson

In the year after Lorraine's death I contemplated suicide six times. Contemplated it seriously, I mean: six times sat with the fat bottle of Clonazepam within reaching distance, six times failed to reach for it, betrayed by some instinct for life or disgusted by my own weakness.

I can't say I wish I had succeeded, because in all likelihood I did succeed, on each and every occasion. Six deaths. No, not just six. An infinite number.

Times six.

There are greater and lesser infinities.

But I didn't know that then.

Crystal Nights, Greg Egan

Short Stories by Greg Egan

The Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover 

Vernor Vinge x Greg Egan crackfic.

Concepts contained in this story may cause SAN Checking in any mind not inherently stable at the third level of stress. Story may cause extreme existential confusion. Story is insane. The author recommends that anyone reading this story sign up with Alcor or the Cryonics Institute to have their brain preserved after death for later revival under controlled conditions. Readers not already familiar with this author should be warned that he is not bluffing.

Three Worlds Collide

A story to illustrate some points on naturalistic metaethics and diverse other issues of rational conduct.

Features Baby-Eating Aliens.

I recently recommended this novella. Now you don't need to buy the hardcover or wait for it to be reprinted. You can read it here.