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

Comment author: LessWrong 19 February 2018 12:52:50PM 0 points [-]

First thing first: it's nice.

My (probably irrelevant) issue with it is that.. it kind of nulls all the effort that went into LW2. It's fine to make something as a prototype and eventually replace it, but "alternative" suggests that it exists side-by-side. This kind of double-effort just seems pointless. Why not just make the LW2 site better, rather than make another site and have two sites that do the same thing?

Also, I don't think commenting with your existing account is okay. Did they just hand you over the database? That does violate consent/trust. Why do more people need to know this particular email-password combination? If I can't trust you to NOT hand over my email-password combo to literally everyone then I'll be sending EY an email with a good argument for quantum suicide,'cause seriously, if a damn email address can't be contained we might as well pack it up right now, no chance to win against an AI.

Comment author: Error 19 February 2018 05:19:05PM 3 points [-]

Why not just make the LW2 site better, rather than make another site and have two sites that do the same thing?

A choice of clients is good for users. If an interface sucks, but multiple clients are available, you can switch to one with an interface that does not suck. If no clients have interfaces that do not suck, in principle you have the option of writing your own, which seems to be what happened here.

The best people at administering a service are not necessarily the best at programming a UI, and vice-versa. Allowing alternate clients lets you make use of comparative advantage.

Competition between clients is good for users for the same reasons it is good for customers in the market. New features are created for advantage; good ones are copied and spread. Niche preferences (especially those of power users) stand a chance of getting accounted for.

In short, multiple robust clients makes all clients better. If I may mount my hobby horse for a moment, the lack of client (and service) choice is part of why "modern" web clients still have not caught up to 90s-era newsreaders. This can only be a good thing for LW.

Why do more people need to know this particular email-password combination?

This one is a complaint I think I agree with, although the issue only affects web clients. From the LW2 thread it sounds like the author is working on it.

Comment author: Unnamed 28 August 2017 06:42:43PM 6 points [-]

Intel, 1985.

Grove says he and Moore were in his cubicle, "sitting around ... looking out the window, very sad." Then Grove asked Moore a question.

"What would happen if somebody took us over, got rid of us — what would the new guy do?" he said.

"Get out of the memory business," Moore answered.

Grove agreed. And he suggested that they be the ones to get Intel out of the memory business.

Comment author: Error 28 August 2017 08:12:17PM 1 point [-]

Thanks, that's the one.

Comment author: Error 28 August 2017 05:38:09PM 4 points [-]

I'm looking for an anecdote about sunk costs. Two executives were discussing some bad business situation, one of them asks "look, suppose the board were to fire us and bring new execs in. What would those guys do?" "Get us out of the X business" "Then what's to stop us from leaving the room, coming back in, and doing exactly that?"

...but all my google-fu can't turn up the original source. Does it sound familiar to anyone here?

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 15 July 2017 05:19:13AM 2 points [-]

I'm curious - what have you outsourced to Fancy Hands? I know in theory that I should be outsourcing stuff to services like that, but I really don't know what stuff I can effectively outsource in practice.

Comment author: Error 17 July 2017 03:46:44PM 1 point [-]

Honestly, mostly phone calls. It sounds silly, but I have a paralytic fear of calling strangers, and that leads me to procrastinate far more than is normal even for me. Making someone else do things like (for today's example) call around to find someone who will take a couch I'm trying to donate ensures that it doesn't stay in the middle of the spare room for 6-12 months while I dither.

Comment author: Error 07 July 2017 04:20:04PM 2 points [-]

A qualifier: If you're going to do this, make sure it's a class where the other people in the class actually want to be there. Otherwise the social reinforcement will be misdirected. This is an obvious failure mode of grade school and a less-obvious failure mode for the sort of extracurriculars where the students are there mostly by parental insistence.

(also, make sure you actually want to be there too. Otherwise you'll be the one screwing it up.)

Comment author: Error 11 June 2017 06:05:42PM 6 points [-]

Not all tail risk is created equal. Assume your remaining natural lifespan is L years, and revival tech will be invented R years after that. Refusing to kill yourself is effectively betting that no inescapable worse-than-death future will occur in the next L years; refusing cryonics is effectively betting the same, but for the next L + R years.

Assuming revival tech is invented only after you die, the probability of ending up in some variation of hell is strictly greater with cryonics than without it -- even if both chances are very small -- simply because hell has more time to get started.

It's debatable how large the difference is between the probabilities, of course. But some risk thresholds legitimately fall between the two.

(upvoting even though I disagree with your conclusion -- I think it's an interesting line of thought)

Comment author: Error 04 June 2017 06:50:49PM 0 points [-]

Typo in the evolutionary psychology chapter: "We compress this gargantuan historicalstatistical macrofact by saying “evolution did it.”

"Historicalstatistical" should have a hyphen in it. Original

Comment author: Lumifer 19 May 2017 03:06:22AM 5 points [-]


Except in a very few matches, usually with world-class performers, there is a point in every match (and in some cases it's right at the beginning) when the loser decides he's going to lose. And after that, everything he does will be aimed at providing an explanation of why he will have lost. He may throw himself at the ball (so he will be able to say he's done his best against a superior opponent). He may dispute calls (so he will be able to say he's been robbed). He may swear at himself and throw his racket (so he can say it was apparent all along he wasn't in top form). His energies go not into winning but into producing an explanation, an excuse, a justification for losing.

C. TERRY WARNER, Bonds That Make Us Free

Comment author: Error 19 May 2017 05:58:45AM 1 point [-]

That's the one, thanks!

Comment author: Error 19 May 2017 12:45:27AM 0 points [-]

I'm searching for a quote. It goes something like this:

"In nearly every contest there comes a point where one competitor has decided that they are going to lose. Sometimes it's near the end; sometimes it's right at the start. After that point, everything they do will be aimed at bringing that result to pass."

And then continues in that vein for a bit. I don't have the wording close enough to correct for Google to get me what I'm looking for, though. And I could swear I've seen it quoted here before. Does someone else remember the source?

Comment author: Dagon 08 May 2017 07:42:45PM *  1 point [-]

heh. Consultants are the people who couldn't meet our hiring bar, so we pay them twice as much to avoid any long-term responsibility for outcomes. They are useful at making sure our devs have asked the right questions and considered the right options. But the actual analysis and decision starts and ends on the team (and management) that's going to actually run the system and deal with the consequences.

Not everywhere, and not as completely sane as I'm stating it - there's a lot of truth in Dilbert. But if it's too bad where you are, go elsewhere. There are good software teams and they're hiring.

Comment author: Error 08 May 2017 08:37:23PM 0 points [-]

Do you have a reliable way to distinguish good teams from bad ones, before you sign the paperwork and put in your notice?

I've stayed in jobs I wanted to leave a couple of times now, because my team was a reasonably good team and I was afraid that elsewhere I would end up with Dilbert's boss.

View more: Next