Is there any product like an adult pacifier that is socially acceptable to use?

I am struggling with self-control to not interrupt people and am afraid for my job.

EDIT: In the meantime (or long-term if it works) I'll use less caffeine (currentlly 400mg daily) to see if that helps.

Related: http://rationalreads.com/

Efficient charity: you don't need to be an altruist to benefit from contributing to charity

Effective altruism rests on two philosophical ideas: altruism and utilitarianism.

In my opinion, even if you're not an altruist, you might still want to use statistics to learn about charity.

Some people believe that they have an ethical obligation to cause a net 0 suffering. Others might believe they have an ethical obligation to cause only an average amount of suffering. In these causes, in order to reduce suffering to an acceptable level, efficient charity might be for you.

It's possible that in your life you will not come across enough ponds with drowning people that only you can save and you will have to pursue other means of reducing suffering. An alternate method is charity, and statistics can identify which charities and how much to donate.

In order to save money to satisfy your own preferences, you might want to donate as little as possible. You might also calculate that a different time might be best to donate (like after you die). But if you come to either of these conclusions, you're still using the idea of efficient charity.

Disclaimer: I may not be the first person to come up with this idea

What if for dangerous medications (such as 2-4 dinitrophenol (dnp) possibly?) the medication was stored in a device that would only dispense a dose when it received a time-dependent cryptographic key generated by a trusted source at a supervised location (the pharmaceutical company/some government agency/an independent security company)?

Could this be useful to prevent overdoses?

These seem pretty easy to answer even for a non-expert.

It is variously said that we share 99% of our genes with a chimpanzee, 95% of our genes with a random human, and 50% of our genes with a sibling. Explain how these can all be true statements.

Downvoted for the fake utility function.

"I wont let the world be destroyed because then rationality can't influence the future" is an attempt to avoid weighing your love of rationality against anything else.

Think about it. Is it really that rationality isn't in control any more that bugs you, not everyone dying, or the astronomical number of worthwhile lives that will never be lived?

If humanity dies to a paperclip maximizer, which goes on to spread copies of itself through the universe to oversee paperclip production, each of those copies being rational beyond what any human can achieve, is that okay with you?

"How dire [do] the real world consequences have to be before it's worthwhile debating dishonestly"?

M̶y̶ ̶b̶r̶i̶e̶f̶ ̶a̶n̶s̶w̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶s̶:̶

One lower bound is:

If the amount that rationality affects humanity and the universe is decreasing over the long term. (Note that if humanity is destroyed, the amount that rationality affects the universe probably decreases).

T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶s̶w̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶"̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶"̶?̶

R̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶f̶,̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶,̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶i̶n̶g̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶s̶ ̶h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶v̶e̶r̶s̶e̶.̶

If the author could include a hyperlink to Richard Wiseman when he is first mentioned, it might prevent any reader from being confused and not realizing that you are describing actual research. (I was confused in this way for about half of the article).