Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Alicorn 17 March 2017 01:46:56AM 21 points [-]

If you like this idea but have nothing much to say please comment under this comment so there can be a record of interested parties.

Comment author: Coscott 17 March 2017 04:01:14AM 1 point [-]

I am a very interested party. I am also interested in all things related to a child-friendly group house that is close to MIRICFAR.

Comment author: Manfred 13 March 2015 11:30:22PM 3 points [-]

I always thought pi hour was 3 in the afternoon. (3.14 15:9:26), or plausibly 2 in the afternoon (3.14 1:59:26) if you go with hours mod 12 and then choose the one where you're awake.

Comment author: Coscott 13 March 2015 11:39:47PM 8 points [-]

not in 2015 it isnt.

Comment author: Coscott 13 March 2015 03:17:28PM *  22 points [-]

The cover is incorrect :(

EDIT: If you do not understand this post, read essay 268 from the book!

Comment author: polymathwannabe 11 March 2015 05:02:31AM *  -1 points [-]

No, what he did was divide the sidereal day by 366,24 and got 235 seconds, so there would be as many Stone's periods in a day as there are days in a year.

Comment author: Coscott 11 March 2015 03:26:46PM 1 point [-]

Yes, and my claim is that that is what you did too without knowing it. Think about what sidereal and solar day mean, and how you would calculate one from the other.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 11 March 2015 03:45:48AM -1 points [-]

I mean, close to 3'54".

Comment author: Coscott 11 March 2015 04:21:21AM 0 points [-]

If the sidereal day and the solar day mean what I am guessing they mean, your 3:55 and Lumifer's 3:55 come from the same place.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 10 March 2015 11:18:36PM *  -1 points [-]

Another close figure: The sidereal day is 3 minutes, 56 seconds shorter than the solar day. If the solar day has a negative leap second, the difference is 3'55".

Comment author: Coscott 11 March 2015 01:49:11AM 0 points [-]

I do not know what some terms mean, but I think that is not another close figure, that is the same figure.

Comment author: TobyBartels 10 March 2015 07:58:10PM 5 points [-]

No love for Emma Watson?

Comment author: Coscott 11 March 2015 01:45:27AM *  1 point [-]

There is no way Emma Watson can get behind a story that angered feminists so much.

Comment author: Coscott 10 March 2015 09:12:58PM 20 points [-]

Two quotes that are scary together:

"There can only be one king upon the chessboard. There can only be one piece whose value is beyond price. That piece is not the world, it is the world's peoples, wizard and Muggle alike, goblins and house-elves and all." - Albus Dumbledore

"I shall not... by any act of mine... destroy the world... I shall take no chances... in not destroying the world..." - Harry Potter

Harry is unfriendly. When it comes time for harry to choose between saving all the people and a small chance at saving the world, you will all learn to regret helping him get out of the box.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 March 2015 08:53:45PM 9 points [-]

I want a leatherbound hardcopy. This is not fanboyism. I very, very bad at reading on my tablet or laptop, too many distractions. I take a paper book, go to bed, shut out everything, and read even the hardest topics. The leatherbound part is part sentimental, part rational: I think I want to leave a heirloom of great books in durable versions to my daughter.

Comment author: Coscott 04 March 2015 03:28:04AM 12 points [-]

I want a leatherbound hardcopy. This is fanboyism.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 March 2015 05:14:21AM 1 point [-]

Who is narrating he audio book?

Comment author: Coscott 03 March 2015 05:26:54AM 3 points [-]

View more: Next