If your ends don’t justify the means, you’re working on the wrong project.

-Jobe Wilkins (Whateley Academy)

Listening through the sequences available now, a couple issues:

1: The podcasts available, when loaded in iTunes, aren't in proper order; the individual posts come through in a haphazard, random sort of order, which means that to listen to them in proper order means consulting with the proper order in another window, which is awkward. I am inclined to believe that this has something to do with the order in which they are recorded on your end, though I don't actually know enough about the mechanics of podcasting to be certain of this.

2: It is insufficiently obvious that The Simple Truth is bundled with Map and Territory. After finishing Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions, and looking for something else to listen to, I decided to grab The Simple Truth quickly... and, about 45 minutes later, having finished it, I moved on to Map and Territory... and then promptly smacked my forehead, seeing a little disclaimer that mentioned that The Simple Truth was included (I bought Map and Territory anyways). It wasn't until after I investigated further that I noticed a similar disclaimer on the purchase page for The Simple Truth; I'd missed that the first time around. This should probably be mentioned on the channels page directly.

Hello again Endovior, just wanted to let you know the changes have been made. Now it's no longer a subscription but a single purchase. Thanks again for the feedback and your patience!

Sorry about the confusion over the "subscription" of what is a one-time payment for a Core Sequence. The "subscription" status of this first Core Sequence was a result of the way we originally set up things with PayPal. We are working to change the one-time purchases to a "buy" option not a "subscription".

Our goal is to do exactly what you said at the end of your post. We will have a single subscription option where you can subscribe to all new promoted posts from Less Wrong. This will be a monthly recurring payment model. Then there will be a list of Core Sequences available for purchase (like buying an audiobook). You'd buy them individually.

We will have some additional core sequences coming out shortly and hope to get the promoted posts subscription option up and running very soon. Thank you for your feedback!

Speaking personally, I'm really put off by the payment model. You're presenting this as "$5 for a one-year subscription". Now, if this was "$5 for a one-year subscription to all our Less Wrong content, released regularly on the following schedule", then that would seem fair value for money. On the other hand, if it was "$5 to buy this sequence, and you can buy other sequences once we have them ready", then that would be okay, too. As is, though it's coming across as "$5 to subscribe to this sequence for one-year, plus more money to subscribe to any other sequences we put out when we have them, and if something happens to your files at some point in the future, then too bad; we'll charge you another $5 to get it again, despite the fact that we have your account information on file and know you paid us". And that is... not good. It strikes me as overly greedy, and to no real purpose, since you're not locking the files or anything so I don't get to play them after the subscription expires (incidentally, also a business model I would not support). To summarize: I'd willingly 'subscribe' to content that is coming out on a regular basis, or 'buy' content that is complete as is. I will not 'subscribe' to content complete as is, since the implication is that my right to the content is temporary and revocable.

No, putting $1 million in box B works to. Origin64 opens box B, takes the money, and doesn't take box A. It's like "This sentence is true." - whatever Omega does makes the prediction valid.

So what you're saying is that the only reason this problem is a problem is because the problem hasn't been defined narrowly enough. You don't know what Omega is capable of, so you don't know which choice to make. So there is no way to logically solve the problem (with the goal of maximizing utility) without additional information.

Here's what I'd do: I'd pick up B, open it, and take A iff I found it empty. That way, Omega's decision of what to put in the box would have to incorporate the variable of what Omega put in the box, causing an infinite regress which will use all cpu cycles until the process is terminated. Although that'll probably result in the AI picking an easier victim to torment and not even giving me a measly thousand dollars.

This doesn't sound that hypothetical to me: it sounds like the problem of which organizations to join. Rational-leaning organizations will give you true information you don't currently know, while anti-rational organizations will warp your mind to rationalize false things. The former, while not certain to be on net bad, will lead you to unpleasant truths, while people in anti-rational groups are often duped into a kind of happiness.

Not really relevant, but

Omega appears before you, and after presenting an arbitrary proof that it is, in fact, a completely trustworthy superintelligence of the caliber needed to play these kinds of games

I idly wonder what such a proof would look like. E.g. is it actually possible to prove this to someone without presenting them an algorithm for superintelligence, sufficiently commented that the presentee can recognise it as such? (Perhaps I test it repeatedly until I am satisfied?) Can Omega ever prove its own trustworthiness to me if I don't already trust it? (This feels like a solid Gödelian "no".)

You are required to choose one of the boxes; if you refuse to do so, Omega will kill you outright and try again on another Everett branch.

Everett branches don't (necessarily) work like that. If 'you' are a person who systematically refuses to play such games then you just don't, no matter the branch. Sure, the Omega in a different branch may find a human-looking creature also called "Endovior" that plays such games but if it is a creature that has a fundamentally different decision algorithm then for the purpose of analyzing your decision algorithm it isn't "you". (There are also branches in which an actual "you" plays the game but only as a freak anomaly of an event like the way an actual 'me' in a freakishly small Everett branch walked through a brick wall that one time. Still not exactly something to identify with as 'you' doing it.)