Post ridiculous munchkin ideas!
A Munchkin is the sort of person who, faced with a role-playing game, reads through the rulebooks over and over until he finds a way to combine three innocuous-seeming magical items into a cycle of infinite wish spells. Or who, in real life, composes a surprisingly effective diet out of drinking a quarter-cup of extra-light olive oil at least one hour before and after tasting anything else. Or combines liquid nitrogen and antifreeze and life-insurance policies into a ridiculously cheap method of defeating the invincible specter of unavoidable Death. Or figures out how to build the real-life version of the cycle of infinite wish spells.
It seems that many here might have outlandish ideas for ways of improving our lives. For instance, a recent post advocated installing really bright lights as a way to boost alertness and productivity. We should not adopt such hacks into our dogma until we're pretty sure they work; however, one way of knowing whether a crazy idea works is to try implementing it, and you may have more ideas than you're planning to implement.
So: please post all such lifehack ideas! Even if you haven't tried them, even if they seem unlikely to work. Post them separately, unless some other way would be more appropriate. If you've tried some idea and it hasn't worked, it would be useful to post that too.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (1240)
I suggest a move to Main.
Hang on, this is the discussion section. The entire post is an invitation to discussion - that is not just its primary, but practically its sole purpose.
Do you suggest a move to Main because more people read Main? That may be true, but anecdotally at least one person reads everything on the site. Furthermore, it seems like abusing the category.
Is it because Main posts have higher status? That's.. probably true, but again seems like conflating category and status.
The solution is probably a code tweak, so although I'm not trying to oppose the move - you're probably right - getting to the bottom of why it's a good idea might let us avoid this situation in the future.
tl;dr: Excess body fat and obesity are an immune response to gram-negative gut bacteria, not a metabolic problem. Fix it by taking oral polymyxin, or a comparable antibiotic. Further research into good antibiotics for this purpose would be appreciated.
Earlier this year, an article found that bacteria from an obese human could cause obesity in mice. They isolated the bacteria, put it in some randomly chosen mice, and after a few months the mice with the bacteria were fat and had diabetes problems while the control group was healthy. With a second experiment they found that the mechanism is the molecule lipopolysacharride (LPS aka endotoxin), found in the membrane of all gram-negative bacteria. When gram negative bacteria become established in the gut, the LPS triggers a inflammation response from the immune system which causes both fat accumulation and diabetes in the long run. So they've established very firmly that gut bacteria are sufficient to cause excess body fat, but whether that's the main source in the general human population is unknown. (source: http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v7/n4/pdf/ismej2012153a.pdf, apologies if it's behind an academic firewall)
So how does one get rid of gram-negative bacteria? It turns out that there is a common antiobiotic, polymyxin, which specifically targets LPS itself and kills bacteria which produce LPS. Polymyxin is among the most common topical antibiotics (along with neosporin), and can also be taken intravenously or orally. Intravenously it is a mild neurotoxin, but this is not an issue if taken orally.
Finally, it turns out that a study published back in 2006 administered polymyxin intravenously to rats. They found a 46% drop in adipose fat mass in rats given polymyxin. They had no idea what the mechanism was, hypothesized some vague connection to insulin signalling, and it just went down as one of those weird results. But now, in light of the more recent results, we can be pretty sure that gram-negative gut bacteria were the issue. The importance of this study is that it suggests gram-negative bacteria are a major cause of excess body fat in the general rat population, not just a special case of the 2013 study. So, it's reasonable to suspect that polymyxin would fix most human obesity too. (source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10989-005-9009-9)
My basic sanity check for any sort of experiment purporting to show a new mechanism responsible for obesity, is "under this mechanism, does it make sense for lots of people to be obese now in America, but hardly anyone a hundred years ago in America, or today in countries like Japan where people have high access to resources but eat less?"
If a mechanism for obesity leaves you confused by the patterns of obesity that occur in the real world, then it's probably better not to afford it much likelihood.
I'm not sure what your response is supposed to be saying to the grandparent. Wouldn't this make total sense if gut flora changed in the united states over the past 100 years? especially if you consider that period includes the introduction and widespread use of antibiotics as well as diet changes, chemical effects that are known to change gut flora. Because gut flora is acquired from the mother, it makes sense that different ethnic groups in different parts of the world would have different compositions also. Gut flora in various societies doesn't seem to have been studied very much (I'm a lazy googler and only found one study that was tangential) but I wouldn't be surprised if different nations had different gut flora.
Quack quack goes the duck. I wouldn't use such an experimental treatment even on your pet rat.
(It does sound vaguely promising, like thousands of other candidate substances in translational medicine that didn't pan out.)
Edit: The paper is not from the journal Nature, it is instead from a different journal which is also published by the same company. The paper was published in The ISME Journal, with an impact factor of 7.4, compared to Nature's impact factor of 31! So next time, please do your research.
The paper is open access, but your link is blocked unless entered directly (they probably don't accept any non-site values for the HTTP referer field). This link should work.
Also, before you start taking antibiotics, here's the relevant part from that abstract:
No mention of using antibiotics, polymyxin isn't mentioned once. As for the second study, there are reasons you don't administer polymyxin intravenously, and its intravenous efficacy is much different from when taken orally.
No, there were no antibiotics used in the ISMEJ article: " The volunteer lost 30.1 kg after 9 weeks, and 51.4 kg after 23 weeks, on a diet composed of whole grains, traditional Chinese medicinal foods and prebiotics (WTP diet, Supplementary Information; Supplementary Figure 1)"
No.
Ah, but the cool thing is that you don't need an experimental treatment. We're talking bog-standard antibiotics, nothing unusual. The only unusual thing is what you'd be trying to do with those antibiotics.
And unlike the usual vaguely promising substances, the effect sizes were huge in both experiments. You don't get a 46% drop in adipose fat from random noise.
If you have a reasonable ammount of money that you would like to save long-term and (potentially) remonetize 10+ years later on (for example for your retirement or whatever) then decide against playing the stock market (duh) or putting it in low interest bank accounts and buy the right stamps instead.
My dad is a passionate collector, but I have hardly any interst in collecting useless historical artefacts because I'm more interested in the future of humanity than its past. However even without any historical interest in the particular subject, stamps are an amazing thing to put your money into, because:
Few stamps ever fall significantly in value, some remain stagnant and most rise significantly over time. So having many rather than a few really valuable ones is good and in a timeframe of decades many individual stamps can easily double or triple their value.
They are very small, light and portable. Unlike most other art-objects you could potentially remonetize quickly. Much lighter than coins or anything else, really.
If you remonetize them, you don't pay extra taxes which you may have to pay for gains from playing the stock market. If there will be a tax on that at some Point in the future (which is unlikely for some reasons I won't get into), it can be easily avoided - illegally and probably legally as well.
You can remonetize them very, very quickly for a very good price by knowing the right person / auction house.
Unlike numbers on a bank account they are inflation proof.
No inheritance tax, your significant others will get all the dough if they remonetize it themselves.
The downsides are that you have to put some significant time into this topic to know what a good deal is, learn how the market and auction houses operate and to build a diverse or highly specialized and sought-after collection that is very likely to rise in value compared to other possible collections you could compile (which overall will almost certainly rise in value too, but maybe not as much as a collection you put some thought into).
Also you obviously need to keep them safe from theft and environmental hazards. (If you want to make the collection a one-time endeavor instead of an ongoing process, you can finish up your collection and put it in a small or medium safe deposit box in any bank.) Consider optimal storage conditions as well, since stamps are essentially made of fancy paper.
If none of this interests you, then at least take this advice: If you ever inherit a stamp collection, don't sell it on a flea market, inform yourself and sell it properly. Just recently a friend of my dad asked his advice on a collection he was about to sell for low double digits to learn that it was worth at least 20000$.
If you are single, frequent online dating sites and look for people who match your Myers-Briggs personality type.
Whether or not Myers-Briggs measures something real, it definitely worked in at least one happily married case. :-)
so did "find god's match for you"
if we're looking at all the successful cases, but none of the unsuccessful ones, of course we're going to get positive results. also, as positive results go, "at least one" success is hardly reassuring
If you're a fast reader, you can return an ebook from Amazon within 7 days of purchase really frickin easily. You can buy and return most popular books with a few clicks, without getting off your butt. Sure, libraries are great, but you have to wait if they don't have your book, you have to transport yourself there and back, and many of them are closed when inspiration strikes at midnight and you realize you want to stay up all night reading some book you literally just heard about but suddenly must have RIGHT NOW (or maybe that's just me). It's way better to have a bigger library on your computer. You can try books out and if they're stupid, at least you only lose the time it took to read it. If you use the kindle cloud reader, you can read on your computer. Then when you're done, you refund it, and you don't have to go through the annoying process of shipping anything anywhere, or worry about packaging or it being in the same condition.
Plus if you travel with your laptop, you can then have an unlimited supply of books that weigh nothing, as long as you have internet access, that are effectively free and in a convenient format.
If you're a slow reader, just buy it, read for a week, return it, then buy it again (and return it again after a week). Repeat until finished.
(Sigh.) It's bad enough that you've chosen to defect; it's downright evil to try to popularize the notion of defecting. The more people do this sort of thing, the more likely it is that Amazon changes their policies, affecting those of us who are co-operating (i.e., not exploiting the policy).
If you must obtain ebooks by extralegal means, there are such things as torrents and ebook sites, where you will find far more books than you will ever be able to read, and where you will only be committing copyright infringement, instead of infringement, wire fraud, theft of resources, and violation of that stupid US anti-hacking law that Aaron Swartz was being prosecuted under. (Oh, and let's not forget the part where you just came pretty close to admitting that you've committed those crimes already.)
Advocating law-breaking on LW for ethical reasons might be one thing; advocating it for reasons of petty selfishness is quite another.
[Edited to add: this comment is not about protecting Amazon; it's about 1) not promoting illegal activities on LW, and 2) it not being a good idea to get into a habit of defecting on agreements (whether social/informal or legal/formal because of self-serving rationalizations like, "they can afford it" or "I can get away with it".]
Amazon can take care of itself. It doesn't need your paternalistic moralizing intervention. If Amazon believes that on net having a policy that allows returns of possibly already consumed goods will produce more profit than a more defensive strategy then it can do so. Save your shaming for people who need your defence or who are being 'expolited' in a way that isn't straightforward (albeit miserly) use of the deliberately included features of a powerful website.
Something actually ethical to recommend would be the use of calibre to convert and remove DRM and then returning the book while keeping it. That's clearly illegal and something I incidentally haven't done. I've never bothered looking in to the 'return book' kindle feature for those books I have purchased from amazon. (I just use that tool for the purpose of getting things into a format TextAloud can convert to mp3.)
It would help you argument is you were not to invent quite ridiculous notions just to make something look more scary.
Amazon has fired customers before for making too many returns[0]. So be aware that this may get your account banned at some point.
0
Have you seen an instance of this happening to someone who did not return multiple large purchases? I am worried about this happening, but in every instance I read about, the person who got banned had returned multiple TV's or computers, not small items. However, the ebook return policy has only been in place for around a year, so it might not show up.
With ebook returns, it seems like they only disallow you from refunding ebooks in the future, but do not ban your account
Wear a rubber band around your wrist and snap it to decondition behaviors. I originally used this to stop myself cracking my knuckles or biting my lip, but it didn't have any apparent effect.
I then tried using it to destroy my sense of humour (partly because I thought this might boost productivity, by generally making actions' dopamine rewards match their actual usefulness). This seemed to actually work well; I now experience humour-type amusement 20%-50% as often as I did two months ago.
I would recommend other people think carefully before trying this; many people have told me this could lead to bad places.
Relatedly, you could get an electroshock collar (used to train dogs, or for BDSM), which would let you automate the deconditioning.
and I thought LW was against spock-rationality
I'm against Spock too, but reversed stupidity is not intelligence. It seems unlikely that your level of humour is exactly what you want. People try to strengthen or weaken their own emotions all the time, by becoming more confident, less anxious, less depressed, more motivated. The grandparent is evidence that you can do such self-modification easily through punishment or reinforcement.
This seems close to a fully general argument. That said, I'm not sure it's wrong-- but tread carefully.
Bitcoin hoarding for charity: Buy some amount of bitcoin, and keep it in a series of of wallets dedicated to various causes. Precommit to hoarding all of the amounts for a significant time, but spend the ones with the most warm-fuzzy results the soonest because that results in pumping up the value of bitcoin.
Eventually, at a point where the value cannot be pumped further by expending more on warm-fuzzies, spend hoarded amounts on utilitarian-optimal causes in a way that leverages economies of scale to achieve maximum impact.
It seems that nearsightedness is caused at least partly by spending lots of time looking at things that are close to you, such as books or computer screens. So maybe what we need is some way of making these things look like they're further away, without the inconvenience of actually moving them further away.
Fortunately, there exists an invention that can solve this problem: glasses. The idea is thus to use glasses that are the opposite of what optometrists would prescribe for nearsightedness (or that are just weaker than what they'd prescribe). There is some evidence to support the use of these "anticorrective" glasses, but I am incapable of telling whether they're a good idea.
More information here.
This one is the sort of thing where there are a bunch of assumption that shrouds reasonable on their own, but implasible in conjunction:
A1: you don't have to perfectly transfer your entire conectome to still be "the same person"; only things that are actually part of your current identity are needed
A2: if your identity changes gradually over time, even into something that if the change was faster it'd be considered disruptive, you're still "the same person".
A3: the human identity can be very extensively modified using behavioural techniques, hypnosis, and drugs that occur in the wild.
Then: you should be able to achieve immortality in a stone-age environment, by first modifying your own identity down to extremely small so it can be entirely transferred verbally, then modifying a victim more abruptly to a sufficiently similar state, and finally building that mind up again to be functional. Repeat for as long as you can maintain the dynasty.
EDIT: Hey! The OP specifically asked for outlandish ideas that seem like they wouldn't work! Am I just being judged relative the many ridiculously good posts here?
Sounds like the Buddha and his followers to me.
You know, I read a short story in which a person did exactly that: told his life story to a hypnotized subject, then convinced the subject that he had become the hypnotist. And apparently this had been going on for several "generations" now...
Oooh, link please? This sounds exactly right.
It might take some time to track down. I know that I read it on the Erotic Mind Control Stories Archive (a site that is, in general, Not Safe For Work) but I don't remember the title or author.
If you happen to be a fairly wealthy but not so famous female American socialite, you could leak a sex tape, get yourself on some reality TV shows, stage a fake wedding for the media that nets you $18 million, and spin all this into a variety of fragrance and cosmetic product lines.
And marry Kanye.
This is a well known one, but I only recently got around to actually doing it, so I suspect that there are others that also haven't done it yet.
Learn to touch type. The kind of person you probably are if you are reading Less Wrong spends a remarkable fraction of the day typing at a computer. As such, even a small increase in typing speed and skill can save you huge amount of time and effort. And it is not at all hard to learn. This investment of a small amount of time and energy to learn to touch type pays back huge dividends in time saved.
One other point: If you are going to learn to touch type, there is no point whatsoever to doing so in the Qwerty keyboard layout. It is just as easy or easier to learn a better layout (like Dvorak or Colemak), which also will give you a bigger boost to your typing speed and efficiency.
Goodness yes. I favour my rant on the topic in the Procedural Knowledge Gaps post a couple of years ago.
I see you already have people replying that they are special snowflakes who don't need this despite spending their lives attached to a computer. They are wrong.
I would say QWERTY is still a vast improvement over not bothering at all, and setting one's keymap to Dvorak and remembering that the letters on one's keyboard are lies would count as a trivial inconvenience, which is why I didn't mention it. (And I'm still on QWERTY myself.)
What if you spend a lot of time using keyboards purchased by someone else?
The keyboard is irrelevant if you don't look at the keys, it's the keyboard layout that's relevant, and that's a software setting. I was very confused the first time I used a computer whose keyboard layout had been changed to Dvorak.
But there is something of a problem if you share a computer with someone who uses Qwerty, I guess. Switching back and forth might get annoying (although maybe you can set an AutoHotKey to do it?).
I have to admit, I hadn't thought of that.
Other people use my computer fairly often, and I just set it to shift back and forth with command+shift+1. I can change it before I give it to them, so others won't even know if I don't want them to.
This is a highly dubious claim. I (occupations: software engineer, student (CS major)) spend a remarkable fraction of the day at a computer... but do I spend most of that typing? I do not. I'm doing more typing right now, writing this comment, than I do in a much larger period of doing actual work. Even if you only look at the time I spend actively coding (rather than reading documentation / literature, thinking about a problem, debugging, tinkering, etc.) that's still not mostly typing.
Furthermore, citation needed on the claim that touch-typing, as opposed to the way I type now, will save a "huge amount of time and effort".
So very citation needed on this one. (Counter-citation: http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html.)
After having finished the basic course in Dvorak and touch typing for a few weeks now, here is an update on my results: I spent a total of 30 hours learning to touch type, but even once I could touch type properly, I was still really slow, at about 20 wpm immediately after finishing the lessons, half of my original speed. Ten days later, after forcing myself to avoid the QWERTY layout which resulted in some inconvenience, in particular with keyboard shortcuts, I am now typing at about 30 wpm in Dvorak, which is still significantly slower than my previous, unconventional but obviously not so bad, typing in QWERTY.
The idea that I will probably spend tens of thousands of hours typing in my life still stands, though, and the touch typing is getting more and more natural each day, I'll try to update my results again after several months to see if there is actually a significant increase in typing speed over the long run.
On a side note, comfort is definitely better when touch typing "properly" in Dvorak than when typing "improperly" but faster in QWERTY, however this may be related to the way I positioned my hands on the keyboard rather than to the initial keyboard layout.
All of the evidence I have seen suggests that touchtyping is worth learning.
To what extent is that because you're a slow typist? (Do you know your wpm?)
Dvorak, Colemak, or the superior QGMLWY generally will not increase typing speed for touchtypers, as typing speed for most applications is limited by thinking speed. They will increase efficiency, and one can estimate the reduced effort for any particular corpus with an effort model like carpalx's, and so alternate layouts are primarily useful for people who want to prevent or manage repetitive stress injuries.
Links? :)
(Or, if this evidence is anecdotal or otherwise not easily linkable — please do elaborate!)
I don't know my wpm, but your question baffles me. How would my typing speed affect the fact that at some given moment I need to read several pages of documentation, sketch out a UI layout, look through code, think, etc.?
Your yourself say in your very next paragraph that "typing speed for most applications is limited by thinking speed" (and I think that's only an upper bound on the practical limitation).
I don't know what an "effort model" is, but I take from your comment that if I am not concerned about RSIs, Dvorak etc. should not interest me. Confirm/deny? Also, even assuming I am concerned about RSIs, do I understand correctly that the RSI prevention/management advantages of the alternate layouts you mention are for touch typists specifically, not just anyone typing in any way?
While we don't spend all our time in front of a computer typing, it does seem to represent a non negligible portion of our days. Assuming an hour a day of typing on average for the rest of your life, the time you will spend typing is tens of thousands of hours.
I'm currently learning Dvorak and it looks like it's going to take about 30-40 hours to be able to type properly. So the gains in efficiency don't have to be very significant to pay off.
To check how efficient the time investment is I checked my typing speed. Like you, probably, I'm not a touch typer but I felt like I was typing pretty decently before, and measured at 40 wpm on both of the two websites that I tried, with no mistakes. I'll check my speeds with Dvorak once I'm done with the lessons, and again after a few months of practice, to settle this debate hopefully, but just from having done the first ten or so lessons I can already see that Dvorak is going to be a major improvement, if not in speed, definitely in terms of comfort.
You make an interesting point about likely spending over 10k hours typing over the course of the rest of our respective lives, although I note that even if you are right, I'd have to invest 30-40 hours now in order to learn to touch-type, whereas the gains would be spread out over a longer period. That said, please post your results when you get them, I am definitely interested in hearing about it.
I do note that you conflate two distinct issues: whether touch-typing is worth learning, and whether Dvorak is a meaningful (or any) improvement over QWERTY. I am definitely far more suspicious of the latter claim than the former (see my link in the grandparent for a thorough debunking).
Get moderately good at painting. Post your work online under a pseudonym. Fake your own death, or rather the death of your pseudonymous self, in a tragic and dramatic fashion. Sell your work at an elevated price.
Work at a desk facing your boss. It does wonders keeping you productive. My boss happens to make this possible by bringing his work into the lab for several hours a day.
All of the munchkin ideas I can think of aren't so much unlikely to work as hideously unethical. That fits with the classic munchkin, but it takes them off the table as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather not signal willingness to entertain immoral ideas, since there's no disclaimer I could issue that would adequately signal the truth of my being against them.
Use a throwaway account?
Well, it's too late now. If a new account shows up and posts hideously unethical suggestions, kinda obvious who it is.
Worse, anyone at all can now start a new account, post whatever horrid and disgusting ideas they want and everyone will think they are Luke's.
That's actually better, not worse, it gives plausible deniability.
Which is why I said it. So maybe he'll actually post.
... and at the same time, maybe he won't!
You just did :-D
I actually have a fun hobby of dreaming about unethical-but-legal startup ideas. Then again, whether something is unethical depends on how you define your own ethics, or alternatively, invent some self-justifications.
Munchkin ideas are often unethical but legal. This is because a Munchkin is by definition a way of following the letter of the rules while violating unspoken convention. In some cases, ethics, in contrast to law, means precisely that one follows uncodified rules of behavior.
Get a bunch of capital.
Go to a poor country (specifically, a country where food and buildings are cheap).
Build a great big school.
Offer the following deal to parents of gifted children: they send their children to you, and you'll educate them for free, for ten years. At the end of ten years, the newly educated young adults either go to college, get a job, or be a bum. If at any point they do start working, you get (say) 10% of their income for 10 years.
Do it smartly: Skimp on "humanities"; no ancient literature for these kids. Reading, writing, math, science, programming. Get them ready for future jobs by giving them deep, versatile, malleable skills.
Do it cheaply: Use technology as efficiently as possible, so you don't have to pay for too many instructors. A campus wide internet connection and a $100 netbook per kid should get most of the possible value; maybe have some real computers for the programmers. Obviously you still need some instructors.
Do it morally (this might rule it out completely, since you are kind of creating indentured servants, and also because you are sucking cognitive resources from that area).
Profit!
This is feasible because the biggest resource is still human cognitive resources. I'd bet that poor countries have untapped smart brains.
Quick cost analysis: Assuming they get good programming jobs, you'd be getting at most, say, 10000 USD per year per kid or $100,000 USD per kid. A country low on this listpercapita) has a GDP of under 5000 USD. Assuming you want decent facilities and educators, you'll need, say, 3 times the GDP per student per year. If you're giving them 10 years of education, that's $150,000 in cost. This doesn't work out even assuming a 100% success rate in getting them very high-end jobs. If you go for a very, very cheap place you might be able to get that to, say, $5000 a year in expenses per kid which works out if you get good success rates.
So this gives some obvious ways to get this to work: * You need to go for really as cheap a country as you can find and take full advantage of tech to reduce costs * More than 10% for 10 years might be necessary. * Alternative sources for funding - alumni donations are the current system most places use but would be weird to have on top of mandatory payments * Don't educate them for 10 years or only do part-time education for some of it. (Can you give them the netbooks and have them study on their own for half the year while they live with their family?)
This kind of a plan sounds great, but is IMO close to untenable in the real world.
Out of what ? Sure, you can build the building itself. But you also need (among other things) electric power, a reliable food supply, clean water, medical care, computers, plus a ton of muscle to protect you from people who will want to take all of the previously mentioned stuff. Poor countries have none of that. Well, they might have some muscle, but reliable security is tough to buy.
You will be overwhelmed with offers in a matter of days. How do you decide which children are gifted ?
How will you enforce that ? Actually, before you can enforce anything, where will your graduates find work ?
Where will you get them ? Do your kids speak English ? Do your instructors ?
Trust me, this will be the least of your worries.
Right, let's get started. Ten years sounds like a nice round number, but is it optimal? To answer that first we need to consider what age children to admit. We want them young enough to become fluent in English quickly; all the high paying jobs are in English speaking countries, barring Asia - should we consider teaching Chinese as well? Maybe, but let's think about that later.
To ensure they still have a wide range of pronounceable phonemes, they should be younger than seven. The younger the better, though, and we don't want them to learn wrong things we'll have to reteach, so before schooling age: at the maximum, five. Should we go younger, though?
Well, what do children learn from their families? Affection might be one, assuming they're from an affectionate family. If they live in a culture where many children are the norm, then they may learn responsibility as well. They may also learn abuse, if that's their family culture. Perhaps they'll gain life experience? I'm not confident about that.
Well, if we go younger, then how young? Pre-bowel control training? Certainly not pre-solid foods; breast-feeding will contribute to their IQ. Children learn from anything and everything pre-four or so - this could be an advantage for language learning but also a waste of resources if they'll be learning in their home environments anyway. I want to move on, so let's settle on 3~5 for now.
How long to teach them for? Assuming efficient teaching and excellent recall of learnt material, from three to thirteen may be enough, but we have puberty to consider. Should we keep them in an environment with similarly aged children? I don't think that's the right question, as it assumes similarly aged children are naturally nasty to each other around puberty. This gets into teaching structure, but assuming curriculum can be ability gated rather than age gated, children of different ages will all work together; I don't imagine an age gap of greater than three years, though, considering they should all be gifted - responsibility may not be an effect.*
Oh! In the absence of parents, the younger children might need emotional support. Older children can provide that! The school structure could accommodate this by rooming older children with younger children, or just naturally bringing them together for activities. The first generation will need adult role models in order to jumpstart the cycle.
The school should have a library - humanities will be included for pleasure reading. To promote easy bonding via shared interests, publicly listed clubs will be encouraged to the exclusion of the formation of cliques. An older child rearing younger child social dynamic may contribute to this atmosphere.
A caveat: beware the 'utopian society' experimental villages. We should look at cultures that have the desired values already, and use them as foundations.
* That was a bit of a tangent - sorry about that. So, if they won't tear each other apart emotionally during puberty, should we still keep them? Teens started working when in their low teens in the past, but whether they can handle a present day adult job I'm unsure. Oh, right, I've been presuming we'll teach them everything they'd learn at university plus possibly more. Social experiences must be included in that, so maybe they should stay on - if only just to work on original projects.
We could use some parents of the children for security - but must not allow them access to the kids as they are unnecessary confounds. I'm thinking of a large gated complex hundreds of acres in circumference for physical activities and to diminish any feeling of being trapped. I'm thinking a country without an armed militia, militant group, or bothersome government would be ideal. Eurasia might have some candidates, but I'm not sure how fertile the land is, and Russia and China have bothersome governments. South America, perhaps? Is there a governmentally stable African country with fertile, undeveloped land? PR of Congo comes to mind, but I don't know much about their government's politics.
That's enough for now - if I come back to this, I'll write below the line.
Upvoted. This is a quite interesting thought experiment, and maybe even worth a post of its own. I encourage you to write more on this subject.
It's common knowledge that taller people are more successful. This effect is also pretty strong - for instance, tall people make an average of $789 per inch per year and this has been shown repeatedly in a set of four large-scale salary survey studies.
We don't know that it's causation, but it seems very likely that people judge others' general fitness, consciously or not, by looking at their height (which makes evopsych sense, considering for instance that malnutrition decreases height).
I can think of two ways to Goodhart this (are there more?): you can improve your posture, or you can raise your feet off the ground using elevator shoes or heel lifts, giving you say 2'' (which is $1,600 per year, plus nonmonetary gains) for less than $20.
It's not as cheap as platform shoes, but it would be economically beneficial and very munchkiny to get limb lengthening surgery. Even a modest 2 inch procedure would easily pay itself back in 10 years.
Cost: $10,000 in India +incidentals
Benefit $800 x 2 x 10 years = $16,000.
Intelligence is correlated with height.
I am climbing on my ladder to contemplate the best ways to use this information.
Standing on the shoulders of giants, indeed.
A tulpa is an "imaginary friend" (a vivid hallucination of an external consciousness) created through intense prolonged visualization/practice (about an hour a day for two months). People who claim to have created tulpas say that the hallucination looks and sounds realistic. Some claim that the tulpa can remember things they've consciously forgotten or is better than them at mental math.
Here's an FAQ, a list of guides and a subreddit.
Not sure whether this is actually possible (I'd guess it would be basically impossible for the 3% of people who are incapable of mental imagery, for instance); many people on the subreddit are unreliable, such as occult enthusiasts (who believe in magick and think that tulpas are more than just hallucinations) and 13-year-old boys.
If this is real, there's probably some way of using this to develop skills faster or become more productive.
I asked the subreddit about possible practical uses of tulpas, and was told that
Ask them if they're utilitarians.
If they say yes, suggest that according to some versions of utilitarianism they may be ethically obligated to mass produce tulpas until they run out of space in their heads.
It's interesting that demons in computer science are called that way. They have exactly the same functionality as the demons that occult enthusiasts proclaim to use.
Even if you don't believe in the occult, be aware that out culture has a lot of stories about how summoning demons might be a bad idea.
You are moving in territory where you don't have mainstream psychology knowledge that guides you and shows you where the dangers lie. You are left with a mental framework of occult defense against evil forces. It's the only knowledge that you can access to guide that way. Having to learn to protect yourself against evil spirits when you don't believe in spirits is a quite messed up.
I had an experience where my arm moved around if I didn't try to control it consciously after doing "spirit healing". I didn't believe in spirits and was fairly confident that it's just my brain doing weird stuff. On the other hand I had to face the fact that the brain doing weird stuff might not be harmless. Fortunately the thing went away after a few month with the help of a person who called it a specter without me saying anything specific about it.
You can always say: "Well, it's just my mind doing something strange." At the same time it's a hard confrontation.
This is incredibly pedantic. (Also rather unjustified, due to my own lack of knowledge regarding occult enthusiasts.) However:
Although daemons in computer science are rather akin to daemons in classical mythology (sort of, kind of, close enough), they really don't particularly resemble our modern conception of demons. I mean, they can totally get a programmer into "Sorcerer's Apprentice"-style shenanigans, but I've never heard of a daemon tempting anyone.
I have previously recommend to friends that alcohol is a moderately good way to develop empathy for those less intelligent than oneself. (That is, it is a good way for those who really cannot comprehend the way other people get confused by certain ideas). I wager that there are a wide array of methods to gain knowledge of some of the stranger confusions the human mind is a capable of. Ignoring chemical means, sleep deprivation is probably the simplest.
Also, congratulations for going through these experiences and retaining (what I assume is) a coherent and rational belief-system. A lot of people would not.
Since we're talking about Tulpas, I feel obligated to mention that I have one. In case anyone wants anecdata.
I have a bunch of LW relevant question I'd like to ask a tulpa, especially one of a LWer that's likely to be familiar with the concepts already:
Do you see yourself as non human?
Would you want to be more or less humanlike than you currently are?
What do you think about the possibility that your values might differ enough from human ones that many here might refer to you as Unfriendly?
Does being already bodiless and created give you different views of things like uploading and copies than your host?
I'll probably have more questions after getting the answer to these and/or in realtime conversation not in a public place. Also, getting thee answers from as many different tulpae as possible would be the best.
Edit: I also have some private questions for someone who's decently knowledgeable about them in general (have several, has been in the community for a long time).
Sure. pm me those private questions.
No. I'm a human.
I don't see the need to be any more or less human like, since I already am human. (My Tulpa, unlike myself, does not see being 'human-like' as a spectrum, but rather as a binary.)
I don't see it that way. I'm dependent on my host, and my values align more with my host than the average person does. Calling me unfriendly would be wrong.
Not really - I don't think much about uploading and copying, only my host does. I trust his opinions.
As someone with a tulpa, I figure I should probably share my experiences. Vigil has been around since I was 11 or 12, so I can't effectively compare my abilities before and after he showed up.
He has dedicated himself to improving our rationality, and has been a substantial help in pointing out fallacies in my thinking. However, we're skeptical that this is anything a more traditional inner monologue wouldn't figure out. The biggest apparent benefit is that being a tulpa allows him a greater degree of mental flexibility than me, making it easier for him to point out and avoid motivated thinking. Unfortunately, we haven't found a way to test this.
I'm afraid he doesn't know any "tricks" like accessing subconscious thoughts or super math skills.
While Vigil has been around for over a decade, I only found out about the tulpa community very recently, so I know very little about it. I also don't know anything about creating them intentionally, he just showed up one day.
If you have any questions for me or him, we're happy to answer.
...just to be clear on this, you have a persistent hallucination who follows you around and offers you rationality advice and points out fallacies in your thinking?
If I ever go insane, I hope it's like this.
Indeed, this style of insanity might beat sanity.
You are obligated by law to phrase those insights in the form "If X is Y, I don't want to be not-Y."
Relevant to this topic: Keith Johnstone's 'Masks'. It would be better to read the relevant section in his book "Impro" for the whole story (I got it at my university library) but this collection of quotes followed by this video should give enough of an introduction.
The idea is that while the people wear these masks, they are able to become a character with a personality different from the actor's original. The actor doesn't feel as if they are controlling the character. That being said, it doesn't happen immediately: It can take a few sessions for the actor to get the feel for the thing. The other thing is that the Masks usually have to learn to talk (albeit at an advanced pace) eventually taking on the vocabulary of their host. It's very interesting reading, to say the least.
If you're given a cookie that's hard to give up, but you're worried about calories.
You do not deserve the cookie, but can earn 1/2 of it by throwing 1/2 of it away.
Works every time.
So then you've received your 1/2 of a cookie, but since you're worried about calories, you can earn half of that (1/4 of a full cookie) by throwing half of it away ...
That's the way the cookie crumbles. (Also not that different from money being taxed repeatedly (taxed as income then VAT then taxed as income ... repeat ad paupertam.)
Zeno's Cookie?
How to find a mate when you have really specific tastes:
Why I think this will work: A while ago I posted a romantic/erotic story to Reddit (which is 3/4 male). I hadn't seen the fantasy represented in any romance/erotica I'd ever read, so I figured I was alone in desiring it. Imagine my surprise when two women sent me unsolicited PM's asking me to role-play.
Beware of these.
What is the fanbase of a median fiction or fanfiction? Probably somewhere between 0 and 1, including the author and their mother?
This works better when some of the MOTAS who read the fiction have also met you in the flesh (N=2). Also, having at least one protagonist who shares some of the more prominent features of your personality (i.e., your warped sense of humor if you're liable to inflict that on your mate) might be more effective at selecting on the audience (if they like the protagonist, they may be able to tolerate your own twisted humor) but here I haven't tried it your way for comparison.
But on the other hand, writers are routinely surprised by the audiences their material finds - and don't find. So you need some way of evaluating your current audience to see if your ideal mate is actually likely to be in it, or if your cute pony show turned out to have many nerdy male fans instead...
I've found that edX is a very nice way to get an elementary understanding of a number of new subjects. The downside is, I have to wait for a course I like to come around; they're not continuously available.
I'm not sure that this counts as ridiculous enough for this post, but it does seem to be working for me.
(Edit: Fixed the link.)
Full details here, but in summary: Take 2mg of melatonin 20 minutes before bed, and train yourself to think only of boring things and/or nothing after you lie down. Falling asleep becomes MUCH easier and more predictable.
Never buy anything from Amazon without checking eBay first. I think every generic thing in the world is available on eBay, IME at about half the price.
(May not be worth it for books and other media. But I just bought a pile of stuff for moving house with, down to replacement light bulbs for when we take our expensive daylight CFLs with us. And it's always fun to just casually buy six rolls of packing tape and a 100-metre roll of bubble wrap, even when you have an actual reason to.)
I have a horrible thought.
Most (legally acquired) debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy. That puts a floor on the amount of money one can lose. If your net worth is "almost nothing" and you can find suckers, er, I mean, organizations with loose standards that are willing to lend you money, then the expected utility of risky bets changes in a way that favors you - because going bankrupt while owing $10,000 isn't much different than going bankrupt while owing $500,000. Of course, going bankrupt is still pretty bad either way, but the upside of winning a risky, highly leveraged bet can also be correspondingly large...
Personally, I don't think this is a good idea and is probably unethical anyway, but it is the kind of crazy thing a certain kind of munchkin would do...
If you think it is unethical you shouldn't post it.
Mitt Romney made the vast majority of his money doing this. He'd buy a company cheaply that has a lot of debt (in particular, pension obligations). He'd then jump the queue for getting paid out and shaft all the other debt holders (in particular, pensioners).
Where are you going to find someone stupid enough to lend you $500k without assets and income? There are door to door lenders but they charge very high fees (though not nearly as much as pay day lenders) and lend relatively small amounts partially because of the risk of someone without much to lose doing this sort of strategy.
I thought this was what 90% of the economy is made of almost everyone doing?
If you don't have any collateral and someone loan's you $500,000 it's partly their problem for engaging in the loan.
Whether it's unethical would seem to me to depend on who you are raising the money from and what they perceive the rules of the game to be. From my perspective, doing the submissive, 'morally cautious', un-winning thing rather than the game theoretical thing is unethical.
This is called moral hazard. If the "suckers" who loaned you the money are "too big to fail" and in turn need bailing out, it is a form of negative externality.
Plenty of examples here in the recent financial crisis...
Sure, but it's a way to sell a small part of your soul for lots of money. You can then do an arbitrage operation, by using that money to buy lots of cheap soul, e.g. through efficient charity.
I knew someone who did this: bought large amounts of jewelry-making and other crafting supplies on credit, went bankrupt, and then made a living by using the supplies. It feels like theft to me.
A well-known trick for memorizing things verbatim is to make them rhyme and put them in a song. Most people reading this know the alphabet song, for instance, and you can use this to learn US states and capitals or chemical elements.
Maybe it would be possible to do this without the rhyming, by using text-to-speech software to convert the information into audio and then playing that over vocals-free music. Instead of text-to-speech software, you could buy/get an audiobook with the information, if one exists. It might be possible to use this, for instance, to memorize multiplication tables up to 100 easily. I haven't yet tried any of this.
I also intend to research whether hearing something repetitively while sleeping helps you to memorize it verbatim, and whether that would harm sleep.
Relatedly, I noticed recently that I knew the words in a 14-minute ASMR video almost verbatim because I had listened to it so often. So one idea is to pay someone skilled at producing ASMR to read you things you want to memorize.
In academia, Munchkining has recently taken off.
These techniques for getting tenure have long existed, but they have been codified only in the last few years.
Self-citation
Multiple publication of the same materials.
To aid in citing several of your own articles that are effectively the same article, rotate "first author" privileges among coauthors so that multiple self-citations don't occur near each other in the alphabetically ordered bibliography.
And many more. Here is a selection.
Living in a van seems like it could decrease your cost of living a lot more than it decreases your quality of life. Getting set up in a van would cost about $12k, so it could pay for itself in a year. Here is a good guide on this.
One could also consider going completely homeless; here is an article by a math student who did that.
In a related note, I was able to steal showers from a gym for several months because I would go straight to the locker room with my bag (acting as though I was going to sign in later) and shower, then leave in my street clothes. I was only called out once, while I was leaving; I just kept walking and didn't come back for a few days.
Until a few years ago, students were permitted to sleep overnight on the ubiquitous couches in the university student center of my Alma Mater. There are tales of a student who eschewed paying for housing and simply slept on the couches of the student center, and used locker room showers, for an entire year.
Unfortunately this individual's munchkinism led to the policy being revised to prevent this behavior - or so the tale goes.
To encourage yourself to do some massive, granular task:
Upon completion of each granule, give yourself a reward with some probability.
A reward is a small piece of food or a sip of a drink, etc.
Never eat or drink anything except as a reward for working on the task.
This really works extremely well for me; I have been doing this for about 2 months, at first only with anki reviews and more recently for several other things. The feeling is very similar to addictions like video games or entertaining websites; I often think "I should probably go do X, but let me instead do just one more anki card" and a half-hour later I realize I still haven't done X.
More things:
Make the rewards unlikely and small so that you stay constantly hungry. Bonus: caloric restriction.
Create a timed reminder, say half-hourly, to do just a few granules of the task. This encourages episodes of the "just one more" effect.
Put reinforcers within arm's reach, both temporally (make granules easy and quick, so that hunger feels like an urge to do the task rather than an urge to cheat the system) and spacially (so that you are constantly reminded of your hunger and tempted to do the task).
I repeat: this works extremely well for me and I strongly encourage other people to try it. More details here.
Here is a graph showing the number of Anki reviews I've done every month for the past year, as an example of the results this method can produce.
(The below is stated with no modulation for my level of confidence, which actually isn't very high.)
MDMA is a useful way to improve social skills permanently, or help make you more emotionally available.
While under the influence of it, you're very empathic, and very socially fearless. The experiences you have talking to people in this state can then transfer to when you're sober. For instance, you might notice that your openness is well-received, which lets you see that you've been under-confident.
Many people do something similar with alcohol: they learn to socialise when drunk, and that makes it easier to socialise when not drunk. I believe MDMA is better for this purpose, because it doesn't inhibit your memory at all, and you're more "yourself" than when drunk.
To get this benefit it's important to take a well-tolerated dose, and not to drink much: you don't want to be a mangled mess, or the next day you'll just be embarrassed, especially because you'll be mildly depressed from the come-down.
I've found MDMA to be quite addictive, and most users have trouble controlling their use once they are on the drug: they'll re-dose, even if they hadn't planned to, once the first dose begins to fade. So this "hack" is far from free of danger. But I believe the cost/benefit is still better than alcohol for many situations.
LASIK surgery is now pretty cheap, and depending on how much you spend on new glasses, optometrist appointments, contact lenses etc., it might actually pay for itself eventually. It should also save you time and effort, and might make you look better.
One of my best friends got LASIK and reported terrible results (to the point where worries about his vision problems were giving him suicidal thoughts).
I'm passing this along without endorsement: http://gettingstronger.org/2010/07/improve-eyesight-and-throw-away-your-glasses/
Another, contrary datapoint: I had LASIK myself, around a year ago. It went well. I do experience the most common side effect (starbursts/halos) but consider it more than worth it nonetheless.
"Pretty cheap"? I looked up the prices once in the name of VoI and saw numbers in the range of $2,500. I'm pretty sure I can improve my life more than LASIK would with $2,500 worth of other improvements.
Showering daily seems to be unhealthy; decreasing shower frequency would save time, and it might be easy to control body odor with antiperspirants. Here's an NYT article.
Relatedly, there exist forms of clothing that stay wrinkle- and odor-free for 100 days of wearing without washing, though at the moment a shirt costs $100.
I wouldn't do that. Whatever health benefits you get from not showering have to be weighted against the health problems caused by you banging your head against the wall after that nice girl/guy actually talks to you and you don't even remember what you said because you can see they know that's not wax on your hair.
No, pointing out the health benefits of not showering won't help. Don't mention damp cloths http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJQEl5vcAo
No, thinking that you are not playing the seduction game for whatever reason is not a valid excuse, it's just not playing to win by handicapping yourself. That's not very rational :|
Here's some actual advice related to personal hygiene and appearance in general:
It seems to be possible to create sexual fetishes through classical conditioning, and it's hypothesized that this is how most sexual fetishes are created. It might be possible to use this to increase motivation for some specific task. I have not tried this, though I have unsuccessfully tried using pornographic images as reinforcement for anki reviews, using my picture-flasher plugin.
This is for people interested in optimizing for academic fame (for a given level of talent and effort and other costs). Instead of trying to get a PhD and a job in academia (which is very costly and due to "publish or perish" forces you to work on topics that are currently popular in academia), get a job that leaves you with a lot of free time, or find a way to retire early. Use your free time to search for important problems that are being neglected by academia. When you find one, pick off some of the low-hanging fruit in that area and publish your results somewhere. Then, (A) if you're impatient for recognition, use your results to make an undeniable impact on the world (see Bitcoin for example), or (B) if you're patient, move on to another neglected topic and repeat, knowing that in a few years or decades, the neglected topic you found will likely become a hot topic and you'll be credited for being the first to investigate it.
FWIK, some universities allow you to get PhD in computer science by submitting PhD thesis for review and paying some amount of money (~$1200 on my university). This way, one can follow your advice and still get PhD.
This reminds me of the story of Robert Edgar, who created the DNA and protein sequence alignment program MUSCLE.
He got a PhD in physics, but considers that a mistake. He did his bioinformatics work after selling a company and having free time. The bioinformatics work was notable enough that it's how I know of him.
His blog post, from which I learned this story: https://thewinnower.com/discussions/an-unemployed-gentleman-scholar
The Scientific 7-Minute Workout
Need some dead animal flesh in your diet on a budget? Organ meats are cheap, healthy, but (ymmv) still tasty. The chicken livers I got this week were less than a dollar per serving, and they're full of vitamins and protein. Chicken hearts are ~$2 per pound at my store and have a milder flavor if you find livers unpalatable. Not sure if I should have posted this here or in the Boring Advice Repository.
Must ... resist ... urge ... to plug vegetarianism ...
Related: chicken feet are also about $2/lb at my store, but yield many times more broth than a similar amount of meat or bones. It's also much tastier than canned broth, and you can make it very strong and store it compactly in the freezer for a long time. And you get to chase your roommate around with a terrifying scaly dinosaur foot whose claws open and close as you pull on the tendons.
Some butchers will give away soup bones for free as well.
Cold Thermogenesis
Taking very cold showers or baths. You gradually decrease the temperature of your shower over several weeks. I can now take a shower or bath with the water on just cold. Other people use ice to lower the temperature of their baths even further.
Some claim that it has significant health benefits, but I haven't noticed any although I haven't been doing it for very long. Still, it's neat to be able to modify your body to tolerate something that would have previously caused unbearable pain.
Here is some discussion of cold thermogenesis on a paleo website.
What is the chance of developing rheumatism as a side effect?
Use a tool like f.lux to change the color temperature of your screen depending on time of day.
Your eyes will be much happier when it matches the surrounding room, and/or lowering the temperature when it's close to bed-time will help you fall asleep.
Not ridiculous enough!
Why's that? Please remember the value of information here! Bright lights cost very little either upfront (maybe like <$100?) or on an ongoing basis (higher electrical bill), while an experiment may be very costly (or so I infer from the near-absence of anyone but me doing randomized self-experiments), and the benefits cumulatively large over the X years a bright light will last before breaking or burning out; hence, the best course may be simply to try it out.
I have discovered a way to carry a credit card balance indefinitely, interest-free, without making payments, using only an Amazon Kindle.
How my card works is, any purchases made during Month N get applied to the balance due in the middle of Month N+1. So if I make a purchase now, in May 2013, it goes on the balance due June 15th. If I don't pay the full May balance by June 15th, then and only then do they start charging interest. This is pretty typical of credit cards, I think.
Now the key loophole is that refunds are counted as payments, and are applied immediately, but purchases are applied to the balance due next month. So if I buy something on June 5th, and return it on June 6th, the purchase goes toward the balance due on July 15th, but the refund is applied as a payment on the balance due on June 15th! So you can pay your entire June balance with nothing but refunds, and you won't have to worry about paying for those purchases until July, at which time you can do the whole thing again. The debt is still there, of course, because all you've done is add and then subtract say $100 from your balance, but absolutely no interest is charged. This process is limited only by your credit line (which you cannot exceed at any time) and by the ease with which you can buy and return stuff each month.
Here's where the Kindle comes in. Repeatedly buying and returning items from a brick-and-mortar store is incredibly time-consuming and risky. You have to buy stuff, keep it in good shape, and then return it, interacting with human clerks each time, without raising suspicion. Not efficient. But if you have a Kindle, you know that when you buy a book, after you hit "Purchase" a screen comes up that asks if you have bought the item by accident, and if so, would you like to cancel the purchase. If you hit the button to cancel the purchase, what happens is that the purchase is still applied to your card, but it is refunded a couple of days later. Bingo. Automatic refunds, obtained at home at no risk, with no human oversight.
But e-books on Amazon are like $10, so you'd have to sit there all day hitting "buy" and "return" to shift a significant amount of debt, right? Wrong. If you know where to look, the Amazon kindle store has lots of handbooks, technical manuals, and textbooks that cost hundreds of dollars. Start out searching for "neurology handbook" and just surf the "similar books" list from there. Buy and return a few of those, and you're set for another month.
Obviously you have to pay off the debt at some point. This is not free money. But if you're in a tight spot for a few months, it's incredibly useful. And hey, if the inflation-adjusted prime rate is 0%, why should you have to pay interest? You're good for it.
This is by far the most munchkin-like idea I've ever had, and I'm pretty happy about it. I've been using it since January, making real payments toward my card as I can, and covering the rest with Amazon buy-and-returns. I know I'll pay down the debt when I have a better job, but in the meantime it is really nice not to have to pay any interest on it.
Better to think of ways to not spend money than think of ways to keep on living relying on other peoples' money.
You don't get rich that way, though. Sure, you can accumulate a comfortable amount of low-grade wealth, but all the real games are played with other people's money. The only difference between BForBandana's trick and the typical externalities exploited by your average high roller is the number of zeros involved in the figures.
No way! Our noble masters got their rightful place on top of the Holy Free Market due to their hard work, brilliance, laudable ambition and - as much ressentiment as it might cause in the weak and envious - their overall innate superiority that separates them from the lower orders!
...And even if they do use tricks like that on occasion, lazy and worthless commoners like you shouldn't dare imitate them. In the hands of the good and the great they do no harm, but just any unwashed pleb exploiting loopholes like those is dangerously subversive of the natural hierarchy.
I would worry the effect this may have on your credit rating if anyone catches you at it, together with possibly more serious effects. This could potentially be considered fraud. Altogether it seems much more sensible to simply live within your means and pay off your credit balance each month.
Upvoted for the fact that the author actually implemented the idea into practice. Too many other posts on this thread are just theorycrafting.
That was what impressed you? Not my creation of a real-life financial perpetual motion machine?
As far as I understand (and I could be wrong), your machine does not actually generate money, but merely defers payment until some future date. It does so by essentially exploiting a bug in the Kindle + Credit Card system, and it has an upper limit of whatever your max credit line is. My guess is that if this trick becomes popular, someone will patch the bug (probably Amazon, credit card companies are pretty slow).
So, don't get me wrong, it's a nice hack, but it's hardly perpetual or earth-shattering. One similar trick I know of is to have several credit cards, and use them to keep transferring the balance between them before interest accumulates; but this is less efficient, since the "free balance transfer" special offers occur relatively rarely.
Excessive returns will possibly get you banned from Amazon for life, with no warning, as many have discovered.
But probably not for e-books as there is no recognizable loss for Amazon controlling.
Boring munchkin technique #1: What if I told you there was a place you could go where they would give you books? paper or ebook, whichever you prefer. And if they didn't have the book you wanted, they would order it for you? And when you were done with the book. and didn't want it cluttering up your apartment any more, you could give it back to them; and they would store it for you until needed it again? So not only does this service get you books. It effectively increases the amount of living space you have, and the general neatness of your apartment or house. How much would you pay for such a service? $50 a month? $100 a month? $5000 a year? How much do you spend on books now that you have to store and manage?
Of course, you already know there is such a service, and it doesn't cost you even $10 a month. It's the public library. If you haven't stopped into your public library lately, it's time to check it out again. Public libraries have become a lot more effective in the last decade. You can now order books online, and have them delivered to your local branch, so if you remember a time when the library rarely had what you wanted, check again. It's no longer just a place to browse to find something to read. It's a place where you can find exactly the book you want. If library fines bother you, libraries will now send you email reminders to renew, and let you renew online. If you use ebooks, you don't even have to go to the library to pick up or return the books. Most libraries are much more convenient than they were even a few years ago.
It's not perfect. Most libraries don't have a lot of the more technical books, ebooks aren't as available as they should be (blame the publishers for that since they don't license a lot of ebooks to libraries) and occasionally you may have to bring a paper book back to the library before you're done with it because someone else wants to read it. However if your reading tastes aren't too esoteric, and you have access to a good library system in a major metropolitan area, then you can get 90% or more of your books from the public library. You will still buy a few books that they don't have available, or that you really want to consult every day for a year; but you can save a lot of money, time, and space by visiting your local library before you visit amazon.
Or you could get it even more conveniently, even faster, and even cheaper from the internet. Even if you for some reason hesitate to pirate, it's easy to find a legally free alternative to anything.
Time? I get the idea with most of them but it takes me a couple of hours to get down to the library and back whereas it's like a couple of minutes to order from Amazon or somewhere.
If you are new to a scientific topic, note that the first half of a paper often tends to summarize common knowledge within the field that is necessary to understand the conclusion. Often this is more readable/interesting than the rest of the paper, suggesting that you can spend more time reading scientific papers by skipping the denser and more original parts.
My neck is asymmetrical because some years back I used to often lie in bed while using a laptop, and would prop my head up on my left elbow, but not my right because there was a wall in the way. In general, using a laptop while lying in bed is an ergonomics nightmare. The ideal would be to lie on your back with the laptop suspended in the air above you, except that that would make typing inconvenient.
So a friend recently blew my mind by informing me that prism glasses are a thing. These rotate your field of vision 90 degrees downwards, so that you can lie on your back and look straight up while still seeing your laptop. I have tried these and highly recommend them.
That said: You should probably not do non-sleep/sex things in bed because that can contribute to insomnia. I recommend trying a standing desk, by putting a box or a chair on top of your desk and putting your laptop on top of that, then just standing permanently; it will be painful at first. Also currently experimenting with only allowing myself to sit down with my laptop if I'm at the same time doing the highest-value thing I could be doing (which is usually ugh-fielded and unpleasant because otherwise I'd have already done it).
Another thing: I have a crankish theory that looking downwards lowers your unconscious estimation of your own social status (which seems to be partly what is meant by "confidence"/"self-esteem"). If that's true, prism glasses and standing desks could increase confidence.
Crankish? This is bog-standard body language / NLP thing. It is the opposite of power posing.
Oftentimes, when I'm not in a good mood, I simply decide to be in a good mood, and soon I am in a good mood. It's surprisingly effective. You just have to consciously tell yourself that you decide to be in a good mood and try to be in a good mood. Of course this doesn't work all the time. I'm generally a happy person, so it's perhaps easier for me.
Of note: doing this does expend willpower, but I've found the more often I do it, the more "in a good mood" feels like my default state, and the less willpower it takes on average to get there.
I was once in a horrible mood... I felt really guilty/regretful about something I'd done earlier, and felt terrible. Then I was distracted for about half an hour by math homework, and when I was walking outside a few minutes later I caught myself whistling. I was like "Whoa, self! You're supposed to be upset right now!" and almost descended back into the pit of despair, but then I stopped midstride and said "Wait a sec. Why would I want to be upset?" and so I didn't. I kept whistling and had a great day.
Sprinkle an emetic (a vomit-inducing drug) into foods that you want to stop eating, such as chocolate. It is well-known that nausea causes a long-lasting aversion to the food preceding it. (For instance, this is a problem for chemotherapy patients - the drug therapy causes nausea, which they then associate with food.)
I haven't tried any of this, but I'd be very surprised if this wasn't an easy, long-term solution to the problem of people wanting to eat food that they don't want to want to eat.
Maybe this could even be extended to non-food addictions, such as video games or mindless internet browsing. One person I know quit smoking cold turkey this way (by throwing up after smoking a cigarette, not with an emetic).
Why would I want to stop eating chocolate?
Less radically and more accessibly, adding a bitter ingredient seems to work (n = 1). Caffeine powder is cheap and bitter, but there are probably better options.
I would personally recommend against training your body out of finding particular foods pleasurable. Instead, I would recommend exploring alternative food combinations that satiate the same craving.
I.e., expand your palette rather than restrict it.
Also, mindfulness meditation can be useful here. I have a reasonable amount of anecdotal evidence (p ~= 0.7) that a lot of overeating problems center around focussing on the oral aspects of digestion rather than the gastrointestinal.
Remember that your stomach has enough neurons to make an entire second brain - a small one, but a brain nonetheless. Like any neural network, it needs training, and focus and attention are the best way to access it.
Sometime, sit down with a healthy meal with a reasonable amount of nuanced flavors (my particular favorite would be a vegetable stir-fry). Sit down and begin eating, and pay VERY close attention to your body. Don't just pay attention to tip-of-tongue flavors; focus on the feeling of chewing the food, focus on how it feels going down your esophagus, and ESPECIALLY focus on the feeling of the food hitting your stomach. After every bite, see if you can actually detect the different neurological changes occurring in your stomach nerves - see if you can actually feel the moments when your food starts making your stomach say "YES! MORE", the moments when your stomach says "hold on, gimme a minute to digest that one", and the moment when your stomach says "okay, that was enough".
When you're hungry, really EXPLORE the feeling of hunger, especially the particular churnings of your stomach and the particular bits of shakiness in your limbs, the specific WAY that your head feels light-headed. See if you can notice nuances between different kinds of 'hunger'.
Once you can perceive nuances in your 'hunger' sensations, see if you can find associations between those sensations and your reactions to different kinds of food. Really, really explore this. See if the "butterflies in your stomach" are helped more by starches or by proteins. See if the "jittery distractedness" is helped more by simple sugars or complex sugars. See if the "gnawing emptiness" is helped more by rice or by potatoes.
After doing this for about a year, you'll start noticing amazing things. You'll stop being hungry! Instead, you'll start noticing that you have cravings, the way a pregnant woman might. Instead of being hungry you'll say "God, I need an orange right now." And when you eat an orange, you'll suddenly stop feeling the craving - because your body was never hungry, it just really needed some vitamin C, and stuffing yourself until the craving shut down was never a healthy solution.
The first time I found myself craving broccoli and spinach I nearly flipped out - I never really LIKED those foods, and yet I desperately needed some fresh broccoli to chew on. As soon as I went to the store, bought a crown, and scarfed it down, I instantly felt better - after only a few ounces of greens.
Don't do anything like that unless you know something about how to undo it.
The theories about which foods are unhealthy keep changing, and you might find out that you personally need something which has be called unhealthy.
Urging caution sounds wise, but I think it's exactly wrong here. One's goal in giving advice should be to alter others' behavior in beneficial ways; people will probably tend to take fewer risks with emetics than is optimal (because they're risk-averse, and vomiting is unpleasant), so your advice is in the wrong direction. Caution (higher significance criterion) is the act of increasing missed opportunities (false negatives) so that you take less wrong actions (false positives); this is a tradeoff.
This is analogous to how, for instance, the FDA kills more people by delaying medications' approval than it saves by ensuring medication is safe before approving it.
All over this thread, people keep urging caution where my judgment is that they should be urging the exact opposite.
Bulimia studies might be a good place to start when evaluating the effects of such a program!
Is zslastman the someone you know who quit smoking this way, or can I count yours as a second data point? And if it’s someone else, can you give some details? This sounds like the best plan I saw on this thread.
Instead of hoping to find the one Super Cool Trick that'll let you become a superhuman overnight, read five or so (scientifically minded) self-help books addressing the biggest problem area in your life, make a moderate to large amount of effort to implement the knowledge in your life, and then repeat for your other problem areas, until in a year or two you become a superhuman.
This worked for me for productivity and depression, next is social skills/social anxiety.
Also, let your body occupy a lot of space in order to feel more relaxed, feel confident, and signal status.
Let your body occupy little space in order to feel less confident and signal lack of status, thus compensating for typical but unfortunate human tendencies to think much more highly of their opinions than is actually justifiable and to prop up ubiquitous and costly signaling games. Harness the power of negative thinking!
Well there has to be some advantage to these behaviors people say are bad for us. Like fearing rejection, being submissive, bad body language, not being confident, etc. Otherwise why do we naturally feel such strong instincts to do those things if there is such advantage to be had in doing otherwise?
Right. This is the "evolutionary optimality challenge" of Bostrom and Sandberg, which is "If the proposed intervention would result in an enhancement, why have we not already evolved to be that way?"
Gwern's excellent article on that lists some ways to escape the challenge; I'm not sure which are at play here, but I think dominance is generally a good idea.
Of course, if you've gone through the trouble of thinking it through that far, you probably don't want to decrease your confidence too much, or you may wind up deferring to those expansive, confident fools who didn't think it through at all :P
So I've recently decided to change my real name from an oriental one to John Adams. I am not white.
There’s a significant amount of evidence that shows that
(1) Common names have better reception in many areas, especially publication and job interviews.
(2) White names do significantly better than non-white names
(3) Last names that begin with the early letters of the alphabet have a significant advantage over last names beginning with the latter letters of the alphabet.
Source :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19020207 http://blog.simplejustice.us/files/66432-58232/SSQUKalistFinal.pdf http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sunrpe/2006_0013.html http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html
Therefore if I were to use "John", one of the most common 'white' first names, along with Adams, a 'white' surname that also begins with the letter A, it should stand that I would be conferred a number of advantages.
Furthermore, I have very little attachment to my family heritage. Switching names doesn’t cost me anything beyond a minor inconvenience of having to do paperwork. For some people, changing your name may be extremely worthwhile, depending on your current name, and how attached you are to it. At least, it may be worthwhile to consider it, and depending on the person, may be a very cheap optimization with significant benefits.
Next: change your LW nick to vaguely female to get more attention, and possibly lower other members' expectations about your rationality level.
My instinct is that this is stupid, but I have a feeling I may be mindkilled on this. Someone should test this; create sockpuppets with male and female names to see how common and critical replies are.
Would normally have downvoted, incidentally, but not going to in case I'm just siezing upon excuses to lower the status of perceived political opponents.
My prediction (based on prior expectations and observation of behaviours directed at existing lesswrong members) is that a female username will tend to be the target of less rivalry motivated aggression than a male username but can anticipate far more challenges and status attacks from female usernames that identify themselves strongly as high status.
Alicorn? AnnaSalamon, Julia_Galef and NancyLebovitz have never given the impression that they identify themselves strongly as high status.
I don't get that any of them identify themselves as higher status than they are. Certainly Anna, Alicorn, and Julia have very high community status.
What I meant was that, among these high-status users, only Alicorn strikes me as being vain enough to launch such challenges and status attacks.
Even if she were vain enough to launch status attacks on other members to elevate her own status, which I don't think she is, attacking other female members to lower their relative status sounds like the opposite of her track record.
Not my impression of her. Feel free to link to these attacks.
On a related topic, see my comments on whether status differences serve useful community functions. My current guess is that status differences are counterproductive on net for achieving community goals, but I'd be interested to read counterpoint if anyone's got any (especially you, Mr. High Status Person).
How does katydee find it?
I once considered changing my name to Ben Abard but decided that the original Eliezer Yudkowsky sounded more like a scientist.
I've always been mildly annoyed that I don't have an eastern European last name. All the cool mathematicians seem to have eastern European last names.
You mean, a lot of cool mathematicians are eastern European. But Terry Tao and Shinichi Mochizuki are not.
Man, this is that thing I was talking about earlier when someone takes a colloquial phrase that sounds like a universal quantifier and interprets it as literally a universal quantifier.
Yeah, people do that all the time.
There's kind of a growing movement around Rob Rhinehart's Soylent thing, dunno if you folks have heard of this.
Basically, he got tired of making food all the time and tried to figure out the absolute minimum required chemical compounds required for a healthy diet, and then posted the overall list, and has now been roughly food free for three months, along with a bunch of other people.
It seems awesome to me and I'm hoping this sort of idea becomes more prevalent. My favorite quote from him I can't now find, but it's something along the lines of "I enjoy going to the movie theater, but I don't particularly feel the need to go three times a day."
There's small reddit community/discourse groups around getting your own mixture.
As a vegetarian, I'm also excited at this.
And as, y'know, a LW-type-person, obviously.
Does anyone know what the time-line is on vitamin deficiencies? I mean might this be like cigarettes - increases your risk of something going wrong massively but only becomes apparent years down the line when you're already screwed.
If you are a human, then the biggest influence on your personality is your peer group. Choose your peers.
If you want to be better at math, surround yourself with mathematicians. If you want to be more productive, hang out with productive people. If you want to be outgoing or artistic or altruistic or polite or proactive or smart or just about anything else, find people who are better than you at that thing and become friends with them. The status-seeking conformity-loving parts of your mind will push you to become like them. (The incorrect but pithy version: "You are an average of the five people you spend the most time with.")
I've had a lot of success with this technique by going to the Less Wrong meetups in Boston, and by making a habit of attending any event where I'll be the stupidest person in the room (such as the average Less Wrong meetup).
Does anyone know off-hand whether this effect remains or is as strong with introverts?
I wish I could remember where I originally saw this quote:
"If you hang out with smart people, you will get smarter. If you hang out with dumb people, you will get dumber. If you hang out with rich people, they'll leave you with the bill and you will get poorer."
This isn't even to the level of a hypothesis yet, but I think periodontal disease, which effects a great deal of people, may be significantly ameliorated by taking an NSAID like ibuprofen 20-40 minutes prior to brushing and flossing, due to the reduced gum inflammation decreasing periodontal pocket depth and allowing access to the pathogenic bacteria.
Is there a similar advice repository that is one level more meta? I want to be able to invent ridiculous munchkin ideas on my own.
An idea that may be too removed from the general field of expertise here. For those who live in suburbs (and have gardens/front yards/...), look at your weeds. Some of them, like Conyza canadensis (incidentally, a very aggressive alien in Europe), may hyperaccumulate certain substances (in this particular case, Hg, Pb, As and some other things you don't want in your food beyond micro levels). If you leave them to grow until just fruiting and then take out with roots, you will reduce pollution there (and the aliens' spread). However, you will need to put them somewhere, which may be inconvenient.
While technically true, will it make any difference? How much heavy metals (e.g. in mcg) would one plant accumulate? How many plants will it take to reduce the heavy metal pollution of a patch of ground by, say, half?
I started doing this a while ago.
There are a lot of fake memory cards going around on ebay. You can tell they are fake because they are going for a lot less (a third or less of the price, exact amount varies) than other places. They actually are just hacked to be less capacity than they claim. You can verify the exact capacity by using a program called h2testw.
I buy a few cards, wait for them to ship, dispute the transaction, and usually I get the money back without having to send back the item. (Once I had to send it back, but ebay paid for the shipping. Usually not, though.)
Viola, free memory cards. If you have paypal credit, it's even better, as you don't have to pay until later and you may cancel it before the payment is due. I'm ripping off scammers, so no ethical problems either.
I'm thinking of doing this soon, but I still need to check whether it is possible.
The more capital you have, the more you can make at any given point.
ETA: This is probably a bad idea, as it could be seen as fraud. I failed to realize this when I first posted it.
You assume that Kiva pays nothing for paypal money transfer or the credit card.
It's plausible that Kiva pays that sum from the interest of the loans. It might also be that Kiva has indeed a deal with Paypal that allows them to receive money for free. If they have a deal somewhere in that deal it could be a clause that this doesn't count as a purchase.
You might trigger some fraud detection system if you try to do that with significant amounts of money. Maybe you even signed somewhere a clause that allows your bank, paypal or kiva to sue you for fraud.
In short, keep in mind that the system has lots of people with an incentive to prevent exploitation and it's unlikely that you managed to find a useful exploit that 1) bypasses all the checks and balances, and 2) if it ever did exist, was not already found and closed.
In addition, if you want to make money because a system of an organisation is broken, don't screw organizations like Kiva that produce a lot of public good.
What part of this is screwing Kiva? Temporarily lending money then getting it back is what Kiva is for.
I interpreted the suggestion is being about fastly moving money into and out of Kiva and not doing loans with the usual maturation time.
I've got one. I actually came up with this on my own, but I'm gratified to see that EY has adopted it
cashback credit cards. these things essentially reduce the cost of all expenditures by 1%.
...but that's not where they get munchkiny. where they get munchkiny is when you basically arbitrage two currencies of equal value.
as a hypothetical example, say you buy $1000 worth of dollar bills for $1000. by using the credit card, it costs $990, since you get $10 back. you then take it to the bank and deposit it for $1000, making a $10 profit. wash, rinse repeat
the catch is, most of them have an annual fee attached, so you it's a use it or it's not worth it scenario (note, though, that for most people, if they use it for rent and nothing else, they'll save about the same as the annual fee). also, most of them need good credit to acquire, so if you're a starving college student with loans, kiss that goodbye. also, you cannot directly withdraw cash and get the 1%, so you have to come up with a way ton efficiently exchange a purchasable resource for money.
Spread your genes without having children:
Donate to sperm/egg banks.
Sign up for genetic studies where your beneficial genes will be targeted if humanity decides to go a Gattacca-like route.
BTW, see Gwern's essay about that.
Encourage people who are genetically similar to you to reproduce.
Get brain-fog from eating an excessive amount of simple carbohydrates? Try donating whole blood (thereby causing new blood to be created that will be closer to default levels of blood-sugar, insulin, etc...).
This works. Donating blood seems to improve insulin sensitivity.
In India, the internet service provider "Tata Docomo" provides a wireless service called "Photon Plus" that uses a Huawei dongle to connect to the internet. I use this dongle and my plan consists of unlimited internet usage with speeds of 3.2 Mbps upto 5GB and then it is reduced to 153 Kbps (yeah! Imagine that!) for the rest of the month.
I have worked out a hack that gives me the full speed even after I have exhausted the 5GB data. I don't know if this is true about other service providers, but Tata Docomo tracks data usage every time I disconnect from the internet. So, if my earlier usage was 4GB and I have used 2GB in my current session, it won't be added to my total until I disconnect and end the session. So, even if I cross the 5GB limit in my current session, I still get the 3.2 Mbps as the records don't have me crossing the limit yet.
Thus, every month, I use the dongle for browsing etc until I reach close to the 5GB mark. Then I disconnect the dongle and then reconnect it, then I line up ALL the downloads that I have been saving for the month and don't disconnect again until all of them are completed.
Using this trick, I have been able to download more than 15GB data every month for the past 4 months. Unfortunately, there is a safety mechanism that the Tata Docome people have implemented, that disconnects the dongle automatically if it has been left connected for more than 24 hours. So, now I only have 24 hours to do my thing. But that is quite enough for my needs :)