Survey complete.

Are there good reasons why when I do a google search on (Leary site:lesswrong.com) it comes up nearly empty? His ethos consisted of S.M.I**2.L.E, i.e. Space Migration + Intelligence Increase + Life Extension which seems like it should be right up your alley to me. His books are not well-organized; his live presentations and tapes had some wide appeal.

Would destruction of tobacco crops or processing facilities be more effective? Eliminating a few executives won't slow distribution significantly, unless their positions are already held by the ablest people and their replacements would be less able to distribute the product.

Targeting executives may win them sympathy. I think sales would go up, as the news reports would serve much the same role as advertising.

I wouldn't, because a simulation of me is effectively a copy, and having a copy lying around would not keep me from dying. It's not like I know a huge number of people would be thrilled at having a simulation of me to interact with (and probably annoy, hehehe). Having a simulation of me while I'm still alive, though, would probably come in handy, so it's not an idea to which I am opposed. I just don't see it making anything with a chance of preserving this instance of me redundant.

What is the chance that some other means are found of simulating your personality without physical access to your brain (preserved or otherwise)?

Would you like to consider the possibility of cryonic preservation / plastination becoming redundant in your estimates?

Akrasia!

??? (Did you procrastinate something else more important to take it?)

Took the survey. Somehow I've managed to lose a decent chunk of IQ over the past 15 years...

I really enjoyed taking the survey. Akrasia! Hope we weren't testing the RNG site. Since it was down I used a more local randomizer.

Critique of presentation:

I am developing a decision making app. The user is prompted with the phrase "I want."

This will be a frequent assumption: Decision-making app? On a phone? This can't happen.

The user's request is matched against a database of peer-generated responses. But the search does not end there. The search results are a front end to the content which is also peer-generated. The content payload could potentially be any function of the smartphone, though it is usually screen output such a set of instructions or a link to a website. Request parsing and wild-carding is integral to reduce the number of database entries.

I think what you're saying is "Once the user types what they want, the phone does it like a command. It can do almost any command this way." Really, what needs to be in place of this paragraph is an example. The example should either support the decision-making claim, or the decision making claim needs to be reworded.

Should the user not be satisfied with the results presented, then the request will be broadcast through the network to peers with a favorable history. In the first pass, peer's database will be searched. If this is not sufficient the request will appear as an unanswered question to be answered by other users if they choose to respond. I shouldn't need to tell the LW audience that Bayes' Rule is used to evaluate the responses by peer. An optional milieu field helps to narrow down areas of expertise for individual contributors.

Now I'm confused about what kind of question the user will input. Are they asking the phone to perform a command, answer a question, or make a decision? I have no idea at this point.

The program is integrated with phone's calendar function, allowing delayed and repeating execution of requests.

Okay, that sounds useful all by itself.

The application incorporates a screensaver which builds upon the individualized database arrangement to deliver peer-created scenes to a fixed storyline, which showcases emerging technologies. These stories display links for users to access speculative technologies, then the users are directed to open source projects (if they follow my links).

Ooh shiny! But... why is it included? I am questioning "what is the concept for this project"? Is there an over-arching concept that explains why all of this is under the same umbrella? Maybe these should be separate apps.

My intention is to leave the code open source and offer free and paid versions of the app. The consumer version I am calling 'Hope' and the developer's edition I am calling 'Plan A.' Working on my own I hope to get this project to a working demo in December of this year. Currently the code is hosted at BitBucket. I plan on moving over to GoogleCode when I iron out some connectivity issues.

How will the commercial version support itself? What is being paid for that's not available in the free version? If you don't answer questions about money immediately, people lose interest very fast.

I do not see a reason for the name "hope" or "plan a". I will forget both of these names, due to not making any connections for them. If people can't remember the name of something, it can really slow you down in marketing. I suggest that instead of explaining the name for the product, that you figure out a way to convey your umbrella concept so that people can remember what's included in this app, and then name it something related, so that they remember the name.

As a closing note, let me mention that this project was originally inspired by the question: "Why aren't more people putting 3D printers to practical use?"

I don't know why this is relevant. Is there something about this method of conception that makes your plan special? Point it out, or else leave that note out to respect the reader's limited time and lack of need to know this info.

We may have to go through this a few times to get out all the knots, then try presenting to a few people in your target audience as a test. If test fails, rinse and repeat.

My communication abilities are not good because I am able to magically present things well on the first try, but because I'm capable of figuring out how to present things after being persistent.

Don't know if I'll stick with this one - I'll have to see how it helps the world in order to invest significant time into it. You didn't include that in your post. That would be a good thing to include when you make your second version of this.

Several problems:

Correlation is not causation. I'd have to see evidence that high testosterone was needed for trauma surgeons to be effective before I'd accept that it was a necessity.

What percentage of traumas are caused by violence? If excess testosterone were treated would the number of traumas decrease as well, making it unnecessary to have as many trauma surgeons?

As for whether I've considered what side effects would occur, no actually, I haven't. That was a good reminder. This isn't an idea I've thought about a lot yet so I haven't gotten very far. Up until this point, I'd been thinking about it like a disease - you don't justify failing to treat a disease by worrying about what society will be missing when those people are healthier.

Though, you could still wonder what might happen, sometimes consequences are unexpected. I don't know that much about testosterone. Do you have suggestions?