Comment author: gwern 04 September 2016 06:52:05PM 2 points [-]

You could use liquid melatonin instead, and dilute it to a usably measurably small dose.

Comment author: Dorikka 04 September 2016 06:55:49PM 0 points [-]

Thanks. I haven't used liquid products much before. Anything you've noticed that's significantly different in terms of onset time, effect duration, etc?

Comment author: Dorikka 04 September 2016 06:01:19PM 1 point [-]

Anyone know where I can find melatonin tablets <300 mcg? Splitting 300 mcg into 75 mcg quarters still gives me morning sleepiness, thinking smaller dose will reduce remaining melatonin upon wake time. Thanks.

Comment author: rosyatrandom 02 March 2016 09:31:43AM *  2 points [-]

Surely, as rationalists, we should do a controlled test to determine if these are scams? This will require some blindly chosen users to respond in a variety of different ways, some of whom should go through with the possible scam, and report the results.

EDIT: I think it's time to come clean. No, I am not the scammer, but this post wasn't serious. I'm rather surprised anyone thought it could be, to be honest!

Comment author: Dorikka 02 March 2016 10:14:02PM 2 points [-]

Surely, as rationalists, we should

So awkward it hurts that this is even a thing.

Comment author: Dorikka 02 March 2016 07:14:22AM 3 points [-]

Thanks for noting this.

Comment author: Dorikka 27 December 2015 04:26:33PM 1 point [-]

Aren't new open threads usually posted on Mondays? Today is the 27th, not 28th.

Comment author: Clarity 23 November 2015 10:48:44PM 0 points [-]

Any arbitrary threat?

Comment author: Dorikka 24 November 2015 02:18:33AM 2 points [-]

404: Generalized model not found

Comment author: raydora 20 October 2015 12:21:01AM *  0 points [-]

I don't have any surefire methods that don't require a very basic working knowledge of medicine, but a general rule of thumb is the physician's opinion of the algorithmic approach to medical decision making. If it is clearly negative, I'd be willing to bet that the physician is bad. Not quite the same as finding a good one, but decent for narrowing your search.

Along with this, look for someone who thinks in terms of possibilities rather than certainties in diagnoses.

All assuming you're looking for a general practitioner, of course. I wouldn't select surgeons based on this rule of thumb, for instance.

If you're looking for someone who simply has good tableside manner, then reviews and word of mouth do work.

Comment author: Dorikka 20 October 2015 02:49:15AM 2 points [-]

Any particular evidence in favor of this approach, anecdotal or otherwise?

Comment author: James_Miller 07 October 2015 03:49:29PM *  8 points [-]

We are probably in a historical simulation. Most historical simulations are not of everyone but just of historically important people. Update on this hypothesis to increase your estimate that your life is historically significant. Look for clues as to why you might be important. For all of us it might be that Eliezer succeeds and we are one of the 10^(big number) simulations of his life and everything surrounding him.

Comment author: Dorikka 08 October 2015 01:01:39PM 1 point [-]

Seem to be implying that you are more likely to be in a simulation if historixcally impt. Interesting

Comment author: G0W51 25 September 2015 08:20:21PM 0 points [-]

My gut says that the performance in a vehicle collision will probably bring the head to a halt against a relatively immobile object, so the hat won't do much of anything as the crushable bits are crushed too fast to be effective.

I don't see how the latter clause follows from the former. You said that in the drop test, the impact reduction was roughly 25%. This isn't huge, but I can't say it "won't do much of anything." Were you thinking of something else to support your claim?

Comment author: Dorikka 26 September 2015 04:13:32PM 0 points [-]

No other source, but keep in mind that helmets are tuned for a certain force level. Too durable and helmet does not reduce peak force as it does not crush. Too weak and it crushes quickly, again with little reduction in peak force. This should just empasize to use the 25% number here though since the forces are more representative.

Redacting "won't do much of anything" except as implied by 25%, but keep in mind that if peak accelerations are much higher than the given case, the helmet will be less effective due to the above. This may or may not be the case in car crashes depending on speed.

Comment author: G0W51 23 September 2015 09:25:04PM *  0 points [-]

Severity Index (I assume this is based on the head injury criterion?)

Actually, in an email they said the head of NOCSAE did the test, so presumably the NOCSAE Severity Index was used. An NOCSAE article says, "There is no measurable difference in safety of helmets with scores below the 1200 SI threshold." So in other words, in the test the hats did not protect against any significant damage, because no significant damage was done even without the hat. Despite this, the webpage said said that, "The Crasche hat reduces the severity of blunt force impact by 94%." I count this deceptive marketing as a strike against the product.

That said, given the low cost of purchasing and wearing the hat, it seems worthwhile for a transhumanist to purchase, simply due the vast gains to be had from a slight reduction in risk of death.

Comment author: Dorikka 26 September 2015 03:58:48PM 1 point [-]

Interesting - thanks for checking this. If the Severity Index is claiming no significant damage below 1200, I think it may be incorrect or may have a different criterion for severe damage. Some helmet standards seem to be fairly insensitive, only accounting for moderate or severe brain injury whereas MTBI can have long lasting effects. Yes, I discount Severity claims as the metric does not appear to give reasonable results. 188g is a crapload of linear acceleration, but metric puts it under threshold...I dont buy it, so am left to judge on peak linear accel instead (shame that rotational accel was not measured...)

View more: Next