Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 May 2017 09:47:40AM *  0 points [-]

Insider training isn't just about an obligation to the company in question. Investopedia:

Insider information is a non-public fact regarding the plans or condition of a publicly traded company that could provide a financial advantage when used to buy or sell shares of the company's stock. Insider information is typically gained by someone who is working within or close to a listed company. If a person uses insider information to place trades, he or she can be found guilty of insider trading. Insider trading is illegal when the material information has not been made public and has been traded on. This is because the information gives those having this knowledge an unfair advantage.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 26 May 2017 10:42:03AM *  1 point [-]

There doesn't seems to be a consensus on this. Also Investopedia

A standard used by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to determine whether someone who receives and acts on insider information (a tippee) is guilty of insider trading. The Dirks Test looks for two criteria

  1. Whether the individual breached the company's trust

  2. Whether the individual did so knowingly

Tippees can be found guilty of insider trading if they know or should know that the tipper has committed a breach of fiduciary duty.

See also Chiarella v. United States:

The Court held that "a duty to disclose under section 10(b) does not arise from the mere possession of nonpublic market information." Chiarella had no "fiduciary relationship" with either company, nor was he an agent of either company, Chiarella had no duty to disclose the privileged information, and he did not receive confidential information from the targeted companies.

I think that maybe the situation is that the SEC wants insider trading to be illegal but the Supreme Court doesn't.

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 May 2017 02:34:25PM 0 points [-]

Even if you don't believe in the efficient market, picking publically traded stocks yourself means that you believe you can win in zero-sum games against professional investors who are supported by huge computer models and research analysts.

If you have inside information about a company that's not known to the professional investors you might make good trades but you are also violating the law and it would be stupid to publically talk about your trades and their justification on a forum like this.

Another way to make money is to bet on effects that are illiquid enough that professional investors aren't interested. If you have found a trade from which $10,000 can be extracted you are also not benefiting from being public about your predictions. A friend for example used to do arbitrage between different bitcoin markets. While that happened to be profitable, it was stupid to talk about it in a public venue like this.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 25 May 2017 08:33:28PM 0 points [-]

If you have inside information about a company that's not known to the professional investors you might make good trades but you are also violating the law

As an aside, it's worth noting that insider trading isn't illegal per se (in the U.S.). When inside traders are prosecuted it's often on the logic that they've unlawfully stolen information from the company that they work at, rather than that the trading itself is unfair. If you're walking down the street and find a document that someone has dropped then I believe you can just trade on that information - you have no duty to the company who owns the information. (This is not legal advice.)

Comment author: James_Miller 24 May 2017 01:08:45AM *  1 point [-]

In what kind of two "person" game would a human have the greatest advantage over a computer? Let's make the game entirely self-contained with objective scoring, no manipulation of real-world objects, and no advantage for knowing real world facts. How far away is "go" from such a game?

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 24 May 2017 06:59:35AM 4 points [-]

Arimaa was designed for this purpose and computers are now better at it.

Comment author: cousin_it 23 May 2017 12:50:41PM *  2 points [-]

I think the rate of cooling depends on temperature much more than the rate of warming up, because T_sun - T_planet >> T_planet - T_space. So a faster rotating planet should be warmer.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 23 May 2017 05:00:08PM 0 points [-]

Cool (heh). Good thinking!

Comment author: Thomas 22 May 2017 05:46:49AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 22 May 2017 07:55:54AM 0 points [-]

I don't know the answer but let me write down some thoughts.

If I'm a point on the surface of a planet then I spend the day slowly getting warmer as I absorb sunlight and the night slowly getting cooler as I radiate my heat into space. If the days are longer then the temperature I reach during the day is higher, which means that when the night begins I radiate heat more rapidly into space. But conversely by the end of the night I've cooled down to a lower temperature so I absorb more heat from the sun at the star of the day.

In fact none of this should matter. Can't we say that the space at that distance from the sun has a particular temperature, and both planets are in thermal equilibrium with that space, so they have the same temperature? That's not such a convincing argument, since the space near a star is not a typical thermodynamic system.

What about atmospheres? They should help warm up the (solid) surface of the planet via the greenhouse effect. I guess the faster spinning planet has a thinner atmosphere, because of centrifugal force, so maybe it's colder.

Comment author: strangepoop 15 May 2017 11:36:23PM *  4 points [-]

Why does patternism [the position that you are only a pattern in physics and any continuations of it are you/you'd sign up for cryonics/you'd step into Parfit's teleporter/you've read the QM sequence]

not imply

subjective immortality? [you will see people dying, other people will see you die, but you will never experience it yourself]

(contingent on the universe being big enough for lots of continuations of you to exist physically)

I asked this on the official IRC, but only feep was kind enough to oblige (and had a unique argument that I don't think everyone is using)

If you have a completely thought out explanation for why it does imply that, you ought never to be worried about what you're doing leading to your death (maybe painful existence, but never death), because there would be a version of you that would miraculously escape it.

If you bite that bullet as well, then I would like you to formulate your argument cleanly, then answer this (rot13):

jul jrer lbh noyr gb haqretb narfgurfvn? (hayrff lbh pbagraq lbh jrer fgvyy pbafpvbhf rira gura)

ETA: This is slightly different from a Quantum Immortality question (although resolutions might be similar) - there is no need to involve QM or its interpretations here, even in a classical universe (as long as it's large enough), if you're a patternist, you can expect to "teleport" to another exact clone somewhere that manages to live.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 16 May 2017 07:49:58AM 0 points [-]

If some one offered me a bet giving $0 or $100 based on a quantum coin flip I'd be willing to pay $50 for it. So it's clear that I'm acting for the sake of my average future self, not just the best or worst outcome. Therefore I also act to avoid outcomes where I die, even if there are still some possibilities where I live. The fact that I won't experience the "dead" outcomes is irrelevant - I can still act for the sake of things which I won't experience.

What about the question of whether I anticipate immortality? Well if I was planning what to do after an event where I might die, I would think to myself "I only need to think about the possibility where I live, since I won't be able to carry out any actions in the other case" which is perhaps not the same as "anticipating immortality" but it has the same effect.

Comment author: simon 08 May 2017 04:38:53PM *  0 points [-]

Sketch of proof: you proved that a stick collapses (compression scaling as Log(L)).

Well every connected object is either a stick, a curvy stick, or one of those things plus some extra atoms. So - prove that making things curvy or adding atoms doesn't help (enough). So, e.g. thickening the stick in the middle won't save it since you'd need infinite thickness.

for a black hole to form the shell must be pushed beyond the limit of its compressive strength.

hmmm... we've been talking as if in a space without dark energy. But with dark energy, a sufficiently large shell could be balanced by the antigravity of the dark energy within it, the acceleration caused should scale linearly with the radius. So that would be able to be under no stress at all. But I'm not sure it wouldn't form a black hole at large radius. As the interior gets bigger and bigger, eventually you get a cosmological event horizon forming so the interior forms a white hole - so light can't leave the shell to the interior. Since it's balanced, for symmetry reason's I'd expect the same to apply on the exterior. So you have this shell black hole between an interior and exterior both 'outside' the black hole.

Of course, this shell would actually be crushed by the stress in the radial direction, it's only not under stress circumferentially. But, now that we've got this example, we can extend to an ultralight aerogel (space-o-gel?) that balances the dark energy everywhere. I'd expect this to look externally the same as the shell example, so it should also eventually form a black hole. These are just guesses though - not actually calculated.

Edit: I'm now very suspicious of this analogy between the sphere and space-o-gel and will have to think about it more.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 08 May 2017 10:21:11PM 0 points [-]

I agree with what you've said. I'll have to think about it for a while.

I did look at the case of a spinning ring and it seems stable. But I'm only using the Newtonian approximation, and you have to spin it at a speed that increases like sqrt(log(r)) so eventually that's invalid.

Comment author: simon 08 May 2017 08:15:29AM 1 point [-]

This would in fact turn into a black hole since a black hole's radius is proportional to its mass. Also, it would collapse due to compressive forces since the force between any pair of hemispheres is proportional to r^2 but the surface to bear the force is only proportional to r.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 08 May 2017 09:45:41AM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, I had already begun to worry about that second point, that the compressive pressure might be greater than I had imagined, but I couldn't see an easy way to calculate it. Your first point, that a black hole will form, is an easier way to see that this arrangement will fail. In fact I think the two points are different ways of looking at the same thing; for a black hole to form the shell must be pushed beyond the limit of its compressive strength.

What about a circular ring rather than a spherical shell? The mass is proportional to the radius, so it looks like it has a hope of working. But no, using the results of the paper here (behind a paywall, sorry) the pressure inside the ring rises with log(r), so it will eventually break.


Can we prove that all sufficiently large structures collapse?

Comment author: Thomas 08 May 2017 08:13:32AM 1 point [-]
Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 08 May 2017 09:31:44AM 1 point [-]

This is assuming that by "perspective" we mean something like "projection onto a sphere". Then the lines become great semicircles and it's true that they are parallel at the horizon, at least in the sense that the great circle representing the horizon meets them each at a right angle.

Comment author: Thomas 03 May 2017 08:45:20AM 0 points [-]

Could be. Seems possible, likely even.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 03 May 2017 11:19:11AM *  0 points [-]

Perhaps 9 is smaller if you count cryonics (or some other non-mystical method) as reincarnation.

View more: Next