I actually think that utility monsters (of a limited form) do exist: they're called children.
People will often go out of their way to satisfy the preferences of children, even at some inconvenience to themselves. Fortunately, childrens' preferences are often pretty easy to satisfy, but in general it seems that we weight them higher than we do those of most adults, suggesting that they are at least minor utility monsters.
My understanding of 'Utility Monster' is someone who gets increasing utility per resource unit when greater resources are spent (greater than linear return). For example it would get utility of 1x when getting one cupcake, and utility of >2x when getting 2 cupcakes.
If such a monster existed, you would increase the average utility by giving ALL of everyone's resources to it.
A child may get more enjoyment from the same amount of resource than an adult in some situations, but you don't raise the average utility by giving the entire cupcake to just one of your 2 children.
I am already a Fitocracy member so I can't use the invite code, right? I'd still join the LW group on Fitocracy - but I couldn't find it in a search. Can you say what the name of the group is?
This should be interesting. I've sent you my strategy by private message.
If the board is 3^^^3, per side and set up randomly, then it almost certainly would be instantiated with googolplexes of Turing-complete simulations of our entire universe by complete chance alone (similar to Boltzmann Brains), and there would be vastly more universes very much like ours.
Most of these universes would be wiped out quickly by local disturbances before they got very far, but still vast numbers would have enough clear or static space around them to permit reasonable durations. What's a reasonable size and duration: 10^150? 10^(10^150)? The size of 3^^^3 absolutely dwarfs these.
I think some of these comments are failing to account for how much space (3^^^3)^2 actually is. For any universe the size of ours, it is practically infinite.
There would also be completely alien structures, more "natively" suited to GOL physics. These could be organisms with cells 10^100 by 10^100 units wide if necessary. They would notice individual attacking gliders as much as we notice a single high-energy photon or alpha particle.
I too have (accidentally) consumed less than 800 calories in a day (got caught up in something and lost track of time). I felt noticeably worse.
Does anyone know if/how much people can get used to such a diet? For people that fasted regularly (more than one day), is it always like that, or do you sort of get used to it? Being distracted by being hungry is a pretty big downside for me since I spend a lot of time programming, and distractions make me considerably less productive.
The feeling of hunger never disappeared, but it got easier to accept.
Some days that were really busy at work flew by without a problem at all. It was easier for me when I was engaged in a task that demanded most of my concentration.
What has always fascinated me about fasting, particularly water fasting, is the issue of cravings versus hunger. Skipping a meal or two usually produces cravings. Cravings could signal a need but more likely mean an addiction (and I'm using that definition loosely here. think coffee, salt, wheat).
My understanding is that 24 hours is the minimum for the detection of unhealthy cravings and that 3-7 days is the average time needed to overcome them. The idea that skipping meals (some even consider skipping snack-time IF) will produce beneficial effects I can only guess is the result of giving the body an unlikely time to rest.
I exercise regularly and found that exercising on the non-fasting days was not a problem.
Did you mean that fasting days?
No, I meant that exercising on feast days was no problem.
I did not try to exercise on fasting days more than a couple of times. It wasn't terrible, but I don't know if it's healthy.
In aged subjects they improve things like: ... activity level.
Could you expand on this? I'm curious, because it doesn't match my personal experience; I find that if I eat less or skip meals, my activity level is reduced, to such a degree that I wouldn't do calorie restriction or intermittent fasting even if it did increase lifespan by a significant amount. Biochemistries vary, of course, and I'm not exactly biotypical, but it seems intuitively that consuming more calories ought to correlate with activity, since they're a resource that calories consume.
Some articles said that the CR subjects exhibited more restlessness, or "foraging" type behavior. This hypothesis wasn't tested as far as I know, though.
Based on my experience, I didn't feel less active or lethargic, just hungry. I think my body conserved its calories by reducing resting metabolic rate: Decreases in pulse, blood pressure, body temperature, body mass. My desire to exercise did not diminish, and neither did my capacity for aerobic exercises like running and swimming.
...improve the quality of life.
...found it somewhat tolerable.
Maybe you meant something like "improve physical health and functioning".
Which isn't the same thing as quality of life.
Maybe I didn't use the best choice of words. Food did taste pretty amazing on the feast days, though.
Life extension is a relevant topic here, and I was wondering if people are aware of the apparently life-extending effects of calorie restriction (CR) and intermittent fasting (IF). To the extent of my knowledge, this is the best method using currently realized technology that has shown repeated and significant life-extension benefits.
Studies show that reducing calories by 20% to 40% from ad libitum feeding (but maintaining the supply of required protein and micro-nutrients) gives improvements in markers related to aging, and extends life span in rodents and other organisms.
Other rodent studies have also shown similar results in subjects which were kept on various intermittent fasting schedules. Rats that were fed only on alternating days gained up to 25% lifespan (see Table 2).
The benefits of IF are seen even if the total calorie intake is the same as in ad libitum subjects.
There are ongoing full-lifespan studies in rhesus macaques to test the effects in primates, but none of these studies have completed. This abstract of the interim results appears promising, though.
Studies of CR and IF on humans have shown effects consistent with reduced mortality, including:
- Improved triglyceride profiles (a marker for heart disease)
- Increased insulin sensitivity
- Reduced cell proliferation (a marker for cancer)
Generally, these diet modifications appear to not just extend life span, but improve the quality of life too. In aged subjects they improve things like: muscle mass, cognition, energy, appearance, and activity level.
Have people heard about this or tried it? If you are trying to maximize your chance of surviving to the point that technology can lengthen lifespan indefinitely, it seems like something worth exploring.
I tried an IF schedule for about 6 months during 2010. I followed a schedule of 3 x ~thirty hour fasts every 7 days and found it somewhat tolerable. I exercise regularly and found that exercising on the non-fasting days was not a problem. I'm thinking of starting up such a schedule again.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Could this be a trick question?
The top of the paper says "1d12" or "2d6", right? The first number is either "1" or "2". If this interpretation is correct, then knowing the first number has a value of 500 pounds.
As has already been stated, you have a 50% chance of guessing correctly to win 1000, so you already have an expected value of 500. To raise that to 100%, you should be willing to pay 500.