Contact: 0176 3066 164 (Janko)
You can also find the address in our google group (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/less-wrong-frankfurt)
Location: The meetup takes place in the apartment of the Frankfurt lesswrong core group.
If you know that you will come, please leave a message for us some days (or hours) in advance for dinner planning. We decided to focus more on the core ideas of lesswrong by going through Eliezer's book Rationality: From AI to Zombies
planned chapters for the next meetup:
The chapters will be an open discussion rather than a presentation. I encourage you to have a look at a few of the linked posts beforehand. :-)
Other topics are:
hope to see you
Janko
Hi!
I'm posting on behalf of Janko (see below)
Contact: Tel:0176 3066 164 (Janko)
less-wrong-frankfurt@googlegroups.com
The meetup takes place in the apartment of the Frankfurt lesswrong core group. The exact adress can be found in our google group or by calling me.
After a long period without meetups and some discussions later we decided to start again and do it biweekly.
We decided to focus more on the core ideas of lesswrong by going through Eliezer's book Rationality: From AI to Zombies
The chapters will be an open discussion rather than a presentaion. I encourage you to have a look at a few of the linked posts beforehand. :-) Other topics are:
hope to see you
Janko
Hi!
I'm posting on behalf of Janko (see below)
Contact: Tel:0176 3066 164 (Janko)
less-wrong-frankfurt@googlegroups.com
The meetup takes place in the apartment of the Frankfurt lesswrong core group. The exact adress can be found in our google group or by calling me.
After a long period without meetups and some discussions later we decided to start again and do it more regularly (maybe every two weeks).
We decided to focus more on the core ideas of lesswrong by going through Eliezer's book Rationality: From AI to Zombies
Kai will give a talk about the first chapters:
and maybe
Other topics are:
hope to see you
Janko
The certified electricity is usually from hydroelectric power plants which are already 100% depreciated and don't get any surplus from the renewable energy levy.
I don't think those hydroelectric power plants would shut down when nobody would pay a premium for green energy.
Yes, that's correct. This is why I stated market knowledge is neccessary - if you decide to buy a plan where this kind of energy is supported, you don't reach your goal of heightening the production of renewable energy. The first paragraph was intended as an intro that shows the pit falls. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
In Germany I'm not sure that you increase the amount of green energy that get produced by making a choice to be on a plan that "uses" green energy. The German energy market isn't free in the sense that you can raise demand for green energy to raise supply of green energy.
We have laws that everyone who wants to sell green energy into the market gets a gurantee that the energy is brought for a decent price.
You can do so, but it takes market knowledge to find such a plan. There are several plans that offer 100% renewable energy, usually certified in some way (example: http://www.tuev-nord.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-7251F8DB-F18E650D/tng_de/kriterienkatalog-oekostrom.pdf). The certified electricity is usually from hydroelectric power plants which are already 100% depreciated and don't get any surplus from the renewable energy levy.
However, there are some plans (for example http://www.gruenerstromlabel.de/english/) that come at a higher price, but also pay for installing new renewable power.
To answer the OP question: I'm not an EA-specialist, but I think that depends on your goals. If you agree with the version of utilitarianism that most EAs hold, buying the cheapest mix and donating the difference to GiveWell is best. If the goal of promoting renewable energy in your country is of similar importance as improving living conditions in developing countries, you should find out if in your country, solutions which actually cause investment in green energy exist and then buy those (the most effective solution would probably be to buy 100% renewable energy from depreciated hydroelectric plants and directly invest the difference in cost to higher-quality labels in green energy projects, but I assume this option isn't available to you).
Done. Skipped the digit ration questions to not put off answering the rest.
Deciding to play slot machines is not a choice people make because they think it will net them money, it's a choice they make because they think it will be fun.
I do not think that this is true for the majority of players.
It lost out partly because it came chronologically after Facebook - it wasn't able to map connections to people outside of Germany well, which Facebook could.
I don't think that's a good description of why things played out the way they did. Friendster also died.
On the other hand Xing is still strong in the face of LinkedIn.
I probably should have emphasized the "partly". Of course, other factors also played a role in its demise, but they did try to gain footing in other European countries rather late.
Concerning Xing: Yes, you're right, this went very differently. It would be interesting to compare the LinkedIn/Xing and Facebook/StudiVZ situations to find out the differences and commonalities, but to do so in detail is beyond the scope of a comment, I think.
if you are the last search engine or the last social network you win
Isn't this because what makes you the last one is the fact that you won?
It currently looks as if Facebook is "the last social network", at least for the time being. Why does it look like that? Because everyone uses Facebook. I bet there were lots of other social networks launched after Facebook, but no one calls whichever of them was chronologically last "the last social network".
In which case, "be the last and then you will win" is useless advice, because it is equivalent to "win and then you will win".
Case in point: before Facebook became large in Germany, there was a carbon copy called StudiVZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StudiVZ). It lost out partly because it came chronologically after Facebook - it wasn't able to map connections to people outside of Germany well, which Facebook could.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
The main thing that bothers me about the Boglehead program is the usual Goodhart's law deal: the more popular index funds become as a form of low-risk exposure to markets, the worse I'd expect them to perform as indices, and the less stable I'd expect them to be. I'm not sure what to actually do about this, though, or if it's even a problem worth worrying about.
I agree, and I think we can already observe the consequences: For example, since exchange traded funds have become more popular, their number increased from 276 to 3.906, and not all of them are passively managed any more. I don't know about the situation in the US, but in Germany, one of the largest direct banks incentivizes buying ETFs that are indexing risky underlying things (for example, one ETF follows the development of pension-funds in emerging markets). It does so by having lower trading costs for incentivized funds.
I think on a private level, one can still find index funds that are actually useful. On a global level, there are some worries that ETFs might contribute to a potential future crisis.