Me 80%
Resources from the Boston Megameetup
LW Boston had a megameetup last week, and it went well. There were a few presentations and an exciting unconference. Here are some materials from the presentations.
Direct Detection of Classically Imperceptible Dark Matter through Quantum Decoherence
Jess Riedel
The official manual: http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/
Additional practice exercises and further reading: http://www.scribd.com/doc/155291719/Exercises-for-Intermediate-Complexity
Upcoming meditation workshop in the Bay Area
Hey everybody,
Michael "Valentine" Smith is teaching a Meditation workshop in Alamo, CA on May 3-5. The workshop is aimed at rationalist-type folk who know about the benefits of meditation and would like to be meditating more, but all are welcome to join. Val is a curriculum designer at CFAR and has been developing his family's meditation tradition for his whole life.
http://www.mindfulnessengineering.com/
Note: This is not a CFAR event.
Sure, I'll go. Interested in a meetup there. (I'm from NYC)
You might just be seeking status. You might feel like you gain status whenever you declare that you will be working on a new project, and you might feel that you won't gain as much status by finishing an existing project that people are aware of already. At least, this may be true until you gain a reputation for not finishing projects.
I don't buy any argument saying that an FAI must be able to modify its own code in order to take off. Computer programs that can't modify their own code can be Turing-complete; adding self-modification doesn't add anything to Turing-completeness.
That said, I do kind of buy this argument about how if an AI is allowed to write and execute arbitrary code, that's kind of like self-modification. I think there may be important differences.
It makes sense to say that a computer language is Turing-complete.
It doesn't make sense to say that a computer program is Turing-complete.
Most people don't know the basic scientific facts about happiness—about what brings it and what sustains it—and so they don't know how to use their money to acquire it. It is not surprising when wealthy people who know nothing about wine end up with cellars that aren't that much better stocked than their neighbors', and it should not be surprising when wealthy people who know nothing about happiness end up with lives that aren't that much happier than anyone else's. Money is an opportunity for happiness, but it is an opportunity that people routinely squander because the things they think will make them happy often don't.
From "If money doesn't make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it right" by Elizabeth W. Dunn, Daniel T. Gilbert, Timothy D. Wilson in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. (http://dunn.psych.ubc.ca/files/2011/04/Journal-of-consumer-psychology.pdf)
Interesting article, thanks. Reposting the abstract here:
The relationship between money and happiness is surprisingly weak, which may stem in part from the way people spend it. Drawing on empirical research, we propose eight principles designed to help consumers get more happiness for their money. Specifically, we suggest that consumers should (1) buy more experiences and fewer material goods; (2) use their money to benefit others rather than themselves; (3) buy many small pleasures rather than fewer large ones; (4) eschew extended warranties and other forms of overpriced insurance; (5) delay consumption; (6) consider how peripheral features of their purchases may affect their day-to-day lives; (7) beware of comparison shopping; and (8) pay close attention to the happiness of others.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Something like this exists: https://www.charitytick.com/