= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I had a word and then lost it.
It meant willfully ignorant, or ignorant & proud of it. This was applied to a former U.S. president.
Can anyone supply this word?
TIA
Would UBI be a government program?
What other alternatives are there?
I was taking your overbroad and incorrect claim--that no one in Western countries starves
Nothing like adding a bit of straw to, erm, fill out the opponent's argument :-P I, of course, did not say "no one". I said "there is no starvation" which, given that we're discussing social programs in the context of society-wide policy proposals like the UBI, means that there is no starvation as a social issue in the West, in particular one which the UBI might fix.
In the same sense I feel justified in saying that there is no slavery in the West, even though I'm sure some individuals are effectively slaves. The social-policy context and the nit-picking context are different.
So, I'll stick with my claim and continue to consider it narrow enough to be correct. Constructing straw extensions to make it incorrect is, of course, always possible.
In response to
Stupid Questions September 2015
Has anyone in the world published their 23andme data openly?
In response to
Proper posture for mental arts
Something I've seen in various martial arts training: people who have a strong kinesthetic sense of how to achieve things and avoid mistakes can be surprisingly bad at articulating what it is they are doing. There's probably an analogic phenomenon in reasoning and discourse. People who find that they are persuasive, or have the ability to get good grasp on a topic in a short time, may not be able to convey the techniques they are using to achieve these effects. As this sort of problem doesn't stop people from giving advice, I think it's a useful pre-filter to put on when reading or hearing advice: Ask yourself if you can restate what they're saying or pay attention to what they're physically doing to gain a concrete, object level sense of what they mean.
Often becoming an expert at something just means that activity is now handled mostly by system-1, but we are only aware of the processes that are taking place in system-2, so becoming expert at something can lead to one having less access to the process they're utilizing than a beginner or intermediate practitioner has. This is unfortunate for those of us who would like to learn from such experts.
Beyond all doubt sounds fairly dogmatic, no? Godel proved in 1931 that Hilbert's program for a solid mathematical foundation (circa 1900) was impossible.
Beyond all doubt sounds fairly dogmatic, no? Godel proved in 1931 that Hilbert's program for a solid mathematical foundation (circa 1900) was impossible.
While I don't quite agree with your claim about what Gödel accomplished, 'beyond all doubt' is an overstatement. The history of mathematics provides many examples of apparent proofs accepted by the profession later being rejected for containing devastating errors. Even a single instance of this occurring would, strictly speaking, rule out a literal 'beyond all doubt' claim.
If you're rational and you're in South Africa, why are you still in South Africa? How much do you value your life over the trivial inconvenience of moving?
If you're rational and you're in South Africa, why are you still in South Africa? How much do you value your life over the trivial inconvenience of moving?
Moving from your home country is rarely a trivial inconvenience. Also, even assuming a high level of instrumental rationality, some preference sets would best be served by remaining in South Africa.
In response to
Bragging thread August 2015
I wrote a JSON API for PredictionBook which allows retrieving recent predictions as well as making new ones. Here is the documentation.
I intend to add additional API actions once I have written a Unix-style command-line interface and used it for a while (which should give me a better idea about what actions would actually be useful).
I'm pretty sure "Humans, please ignore this post" wasn't serious, and this article is mainly for humans.
So we can conclude that although David was smart enough to escape his sandbox, he isn't yet at the level of understanding human-style humor.
Lives or QALYs are the only things on the EA table at present.
How do you come to that conclusion? When the Open Philanthropy project researches whether why should spend more effort on dealing with the risk of solar storms, how's that Lives or QALYs?
Well, what measure are they using?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Richard Feynman, What is science?
This is a dupe.