Do you have any pointers on where to look for information on becoming a safer cyclist?
Drive a car instead. Seriously, cycling is incredibly dangerous. At least 10 times more dangerous per mile than driving a car - it's barely better than walking, and the only thing more dangerous is driving a motorbike. If this isn't an option, then standard bike safety procedures do at least seem to help.
see, e.g.
http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue55/features/risk/index
The Dutch figures [are closer to yours than I expected|https://www.swov.nl/ibmcognos/cgi-bin/cognos.cgi?b_action=powerPlayService&m_encoding=UTF-8&BZ=1AAAB7pUZHH542oVOXW~CIBT9M1C3F3Oh1o_HPtBSo8ummzXZM7PXhrUFQxuX7NePWhNjlmU3cM7J4cAhyLfjfL~dZWsZt511uJYPlHM9S6eMQyKFWLIJiGweZnKazMVSzESSJNJnHoP_biZ26epV7Fcx5cuDNR2azqujrQt0NEroBIxqkIZytEFv1coU7YhG8o~QTrf6YK_BkzpUqsT7xDu6Cmv9WSHloJTpVO1FYQs0ngdwpu106dW5D6NrS~yyZkicfCWHpi48OtTfuvTnla5tg51XfXUg83ScbjebLN2vPYmXLL6rtc1ZmfL~x4LkLT4CEAYAjAEhBMg0isLoikB67xm7FuvLpyksnpRyngjlc8pDoBwZ5R_ULwaD3Qzya9hl9WIovezb~ACpc4us] (link in Dutch); I'd expect us to do quite a bit better than that, since people here are very used to bicyclists. Unfortunately, cyclists still die at 12 per 10^9 km traveled, pedestrians at 14 per 10^9 km, but drivers at 2 per 10^9 km (i.e. 1 to 6 instead of 1 to 10+, but still not very good.)
I do wonder how much of this effect can be explained by the fact that travelling (by car or otherwise) in a city or on a country road is much harder than highway driving. Or by the fact that people standing still die at a rate of infinity per km traveled. (And standing still near traffic is indeed measurably dangerous!)
Surveyed.
Also, spoiler: the reward is too small and unlikely for me to bother thinking through the ethics of defecting; in particular, I'm fairly insensitive to the multiplier for defecting at this price point. (Morality through indecisiveness?)
The existence of nuclear weapons should be taken as evidence that humans are not very moral.
Huh? Can you unpack this for me, I don't see how it can make sense.
Is the Fun Theory Sequence literally meant to answer "How much fun is there in the universe?", or is it more intended to set a lower bound on that figure? Personally I'm hoping that once I become a superintelligence, I'll have access to currently unimaginable forms of fun, ones that are vastly more efficient (i.e., much more fun per unit of resource consumed) than what the Fun Theory Sequence suggests. Do other people think this is implausible?
Assuming that you become some kind of superintelligence, I'd expect you to find better ways of amusing yourself, yes; especially if you're willing and able to self-modify.
Malfoy: "Good enough, I suppose. Though to have the proper meaning, you should use the legal term indemnify rather than exonerate -"
Potter: "Nice try, but no. I know exactly what that word means, Lord Malfoy."
The word is "exonerate" in Potter's prepared text, Malfoy suggests "indemnify" as if it's a legal term that means the same thing, Potter rejects this and stays with "exonerate".
There's probably something tricky Malfoy could do with "indemnify", but looking up their definitions it's not obvious to me:
exonerate:
(esp. of an official body) Absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, esp. after due consideration of the case.
Release someone from (a duty or obligation).
indemnify:
Compensate (someone) for harm or loss: "insurance carried to indemnify the owner for loss".
Secure (someone) against legal responsibility for their actions.
Unless I am badly mistaken, indemnify would mean that Harry has to pay etc. if e.g. Dumbledore decides to demand recompense of his own. (Note that Dumbledore may well have similar power over her as he has over Harry himself.)
This is obviously much worse than just giving up his own claim ("exonerate").
Relatedly, most TCP scheduler are variants of the Reno algorithm, which basically means that they increase transmission rate until (the network is so congested that) packets begin dropping. In contrast, Vegas-type schedulers increase transmission rate until packets begin to take longer to arrive, which starts happening in congested networks shortly before packets are actually lost. A network of Vegas machines has considerably lower latency, and only minimally worse throughput, than a network of Reno machines.
Unfortunately, since Reno backs off later than Vegas, a mixed Vegas/Reno network ends with the Reno machines consuming the vast majority of bandwidth.
Interestingly, while almost all TCP schedulers are Reno variants (i.e. efficient in the presence of likely neighbours), there is basically no-one who entirely foregoes a scheduler and just sends as fast as possible, which was the original pre-Reno behaviour (and which is pretty optimal for the individual, at least until the entire internet collapses due to ridiculous levels of congestion. This has happened.)
\6. Hermione is a really extraordinary wizard.
Is she particularly powerful, though? She's extraordinarily talented, very knowledgeable for her age, and has more raw power than anyone in her year including Draco; but Rita is more experienced, and most importantly older - it has been repeatedly pointed out that HP lacks the raw power for something-or-other, and the twins are far stronger than he despite not being particularly talented. It seems that Rita should have an edge in the "raw power" department, and I'd expect this effect to key off raw power.
Note that it's also sufficient to assume that Quirrel and/or Mary's room can suppress this effect.
This is a bit un-LW-ian, but: I'm earnestly happy for you. You sound, if not happier, more fulfilled than in your first post on this site. (Also, ambition is good.)
This one is the sort of thing where there are a bunch of assumption that shrouds reasonable on their own, but implasible in conjunction:
A1: you don't have to perfectly transfer your entire conectome to still be "the same person"; only things that are actually part of your current identity are needed
A2: if your identity changes gradually over time, even into something that if the change was faster it'd be considered disruptive, you're still "the same person".
A3: the human identity can be very extensively modified using behavioural techniques, hypnosis, and drugs that occur in the wild.
Then: you should be able to achieve immortality in a stone-age environment, by first modifying your own identity down to extremely small so it can be entirely transferred verbally, then modifying a victim more abruptly to a sufficiently similar state, and finally building that mind up again to be functional. Repeat for as long as you can maintain the dynasty.
EDIT: Hey! The OP specifically asked for outlandish ideas that seem like they wouldn't work! Am I just being judged relative the many ridiculously good posts here?
Sounds like the Buddha and his followers to me.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
C was a major improvement on the languages of the day: COBOL, Fortran, and plain assembly. Unlike any of those, it was at the same time fully portable, supported structured programming, and allowed freeform text.
But I don't think programmers would have embraced LISP even if its performance was as good as the other languages. For the same reasons programmers don't embrace LISP-derived languages today. It is an empirical fact that the great majority of programmers, particularly the less-than-brilliant ones, dislike pure functional programming.
Note, though, that (a) "Lisp doesn't look like C" isn't as much of a problem in a world where C and C-like languages are not dominant, and (b) something like Common Lisp doesn't have to be particularly functional - that's a favored paradigm of the community, but it's a pretty acceptable imperative/OO language too.
"Doesn't run well on my computer" was probably a bigger problem. (Modern computers are much faster; modern Lisp implementations are much better.)
Edit: still, C is clearly superior to any other language. ;-)