= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
You mean alieve, not believe. This is a technique to alieve what you already believe.
In response to
Rationalist Judo, or Using the Availability Heuristic to Win
It's difficult for my brain to parse a sentence with 'alieve'. I guess I've watched too many commercials, and my brain associates 'Aleve' with 'relieve', which has an approximately opposite meaning. I have to mentally substitute 'alieve' with something like 'actually believe' in order to comfortably read the sentence.
In response to
So, I guess the site redesign is live?
The borders on comments are fairly ugly, and far too thick. When I go to view all my comments, the way they are listed there is much more aesthetically pleasing.
I like the new header. The footer is a great improvement.
Mixed feelings about the thumbs up/down icons. I like icons, and they are smaller than the text "Vote up" and "Vote down", but they actually end up taking more space than the text, because their vertical height is greater. Perhaps they can be shrunk a bit and placed in the title line of the comment, along with the permalink and reply icon? You could potentially hide all the icons unless you're mousing over the comment, to avoid clutter.
I'm familiar with the term, and it's not the same thing as obscure edge cases that require special handling; rather, it's unforseeable events that have disproportionately large impact, nothing to do with being an edge case or requiring special handling per se. An unknown unknown that never has an impact is not a black swan. And something that requires special handling isn't a black swan if that "special handling" is known in advance (even if the fact that it will happen is not).
I think an unforeseeable edge case or bug that requires deep refactoring and severely cuts into allotted development time fits the bill for a black swan dead on.
Do you think a LW subreddit devoted to FAI could work?
Probably not. There are too many things that can't be said about FAI in a SIAI affiliated blog for political reasons. It would be lame.
What if the subreddit was an actual reddit subreddit?
I would like to start some kind of academic movement, whereby we reject closed journals, embrace the open source mentality, and collaborate on up-to-date and awesome wikis on every modern research area.
Ok, your next task is to figure out a way to make academics gain status by participation in that plan. :)
That is the heart of the social engineering problem at hand.
Programmers gain status by creating and contributing to open source projects, and by answering questions on StackOverflow, etc. I think that is a stable equilibrium, both for programmers and for academics. The question is how to get to that equilibrium in the first place.
First, I think it needs to become generally accepted that the current equilibrium is broken and that there are alternatives. To that end I encourage all academics to discuss it as openly as possible. Once that happens I think (hope) it will just be a matter of high status individuals throwing their weight around properly.
I had a full-time regular day job up to March 4th of this year. To have time to do scholarship, it helps to:
- have a very non-needy and independent significant other
- have no children
- no TV, no video games, no movies, no internet wandering
- eat well and sleep well so that you have energy without needing much sleep
- be synthesizing your research discoveries in your mind while in the shower, while going to work, while eating
- be absolutely obsessed with figuring out the world
Can you comment on what the end goal is for all your scholarship, aside from satisfaction?
But a paper with well-developed links -- especially a recent review article -- can be the best place to start learning a new topic or to build a citation list from.
This is actually a pretty frustrating place to start from. Often, the so-built "frame" is setting out to flatter the authors mentioned therein, instead of pointing out what's useful or informative. Moreover, since these sections are more about giving credit and inflating egos than about informing the reader, you're much more likely to see the paper in which an idea was introduced, rather than a more-informative survey paper, written 10 years later, after the important aspects of the concept are really understood.
I lament this state of affairs with the subdued passion of a 1000 brown dwarf suns.
It's ridiculous that wikipedia is more structured and useful that most of the academic literature. I would like to start some kind of academic movement, whereby we reject closed journals, embrace the open source mentality, and collaborate on up-to-date and awesome wikis on every modern research area.
One [paleo diet] guideline some people use is that you shouldn't eat anything you wouldn't eat raw
That surprises me. The paleo diet I know includes meat, which you should cook in order to kill parasites.
You're right, the guideline is not too well worded. You should probably replace "what you wouldn't eat raw" with "what would be toxic to eat raw".
Meat is edible raw. There's nothing inherently toxic about uncooked meat. Many other foods require cooking to diminish their toxicity (potatoes, grains, legumes). There's definitely concern about parasites in raw meat, but parasites are not an inherent quality of the meat itself.
There's actually a whole raw paleo sub-subculture. I wouldn't recommend it personally, and I'm not keen to try it myself, but it's there.
I think it's likely humans are evolved to eat cooked food. The guideline don't eat anything you wouldn't eat raw isn't intended to dissuade people to not eat cooked food, but rather to serve as a heuristic for foods that were probably less commonly eaten by our ancestors. It's unclear to me how accurate the heuristic is. A big counterexample is tubers. Tubers are widely eaten by modern hunter-gatherers and are toxic when uncooked.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
If I were to build a death machine it would be based on high explosives. I would encase my head in a mound of C4 clay (or perhaps a less stable material). The machine could fail, most likely at the detonator, but it's difficult to imagine how it could maim me.