Also, a little bit of recommended reading: What is EA? - http://www.effectivealtruism.org/about-ea What Evidence Filtered Evidence - http://lesswrong.com/lw/jt/what_evidence_filtered_evidence/

There are very few majors / areas of study where a single focus isn't significantly improved with a minor - and frequently, if it's not your major, Comp Sci is a great additional skillset. This is especially true if you need to take the credits anyways, and can choose between random course, or completing a minor with just a bit more work.

You want to do science? Almost no area doesn't need programming as well - it will help you get into grad school. You want to work in business? You'll spend half your day working on spreadsheets, and a CS background is invaluable for making that work better.

You want to do computer programming already? Great, what type? because a minor elsewhere will be a bonus! Video games? Comp Sci + Graphic Design or Literature Corporate work? Comp Sci + Business, Accounting, or Finance.

I want existing friends to be more aware of my preferences and interests so that they'll be able to match and meet them more often (ie suggesting an activity I will like). I guess I can do that by constructing a profile with just likes and such. I will do that.

I also want to meet people who share those interests, so I will begin joining and participating in appropriate groups.

I also want to interact more with other rationalists, but from what I've seen nothing of merit comes from rationalist facebook groups (based on LessWrong associated groups).

Thanks for your extremely actionable suggestion and question. I don't know how you came up with the appropriate question to ask me!

How should I use facebook, assuming I have a facebook but don't post anything, just message as of now?

We're talking about ways to systematically lose money, which means you would need to systematically throw yourself into the front-runner's path

Simply making random trades in a market where some participants are front runners will mean that some of those trades are with front runners where you lose money.

I would call that systematically losing money. On the other hand it doesn't give you an ability to forcast where you will lose the money to make the opposite bet and win money.

Do you think our disagreement is about the way the EMH is defined or are you pointing to something more substantial?

Anonymous voting is the default, and I always leave it on.

Then a person placing a dumb trade is creating a mispricing, which will be consumed by some market agent.

Well, that looks like an "offering to buy a stock for $1 more than its current price" scenario. You can easily lose a lot of money by buying things at the offer and selling them at the bid :-)

But let's imagine a scenario where everything is happening pre-tax, there are no transaction costs, we're operating in risk-adjusted terms and, to make things simple, the risk-free rate is zero. Moreover, the markets are orderly and liquid.

Assuming you can competently express a market view, can you systematically lose money by consistently taking the wrong side under EMH?

Today's blog post by Yvain starts:

Anxiety disorders are the most common class of psychiatric disorders. Their US prevalence is about 20%. They’re also among the least recognized and least treated...

I had not. And I will avoid that in the future. However, that has very little bearing on my overall post. Please ignore the single sentence that references works of fiction.