In response to Mental Metadata
Comment author: lessdazed 30 March 2011 10:37:32AM *  1 point [-]

The Self-Explanatory Magical Amulet

Aren't they all?

The super-powerful weapon...which cannot be used directly against the main antagonist...or is so evil it can't be used at all.

The artifact that gives only a subtle, unmeasurable boost to the hero's abilities...because the magic was inside him or her all along!

The magic whistle that summons help, only to be used in case of an emergency requiring its use...one and only one of which will arise.

The item presented by the old one to the hero who has a humble upbringing but newly discovered noble origins...which always casts insert backstory.

The useful magic item necessary to get the hero through a later challenge...which, when carried by a non-central character, always casts have item bearing non-central character carrying it get fatally wounded, but not so badly he or she dies immediately, and say, I'm dying, please take my item,' to which the hero says 'No non-central character, you can't die!'

The item that actually would kill the hero if used...which always casts insert villain arrogance, usually gloating and/or explaining the evil plan, providing time to avert the hero's death.

The powerful intrinsically evil artifact used by the villain...which casts karmic justice, turning against the villain, even though the hero was not strong enough (or too unwilling to kill) to do so (or kill the villain directly).

In response to comment by lessdazed on Mental Metadata
Comment author: Tenek 30 March 2011 05:14:36PM 2 points [-]

You might want to check out TVTropes.

Comment author: Dorikka 02 February 2011 10:24:41PM *  2 points [-]

Ah, bugger. I've lost my link to Transparent Newcomb (TN).

From what I recall, Omega doesn't let you play the game if you would one-box on normal Newcomb but two-box on TN. As a result, having the strategy 'I will one-box on normal Newcomb but two-box on TN' will probably result in you getting no money because when Omega psychoanalyzes you, he'll almost always see this. So you lose, because you're not yet past the filter.

In this problem, you were filtered out prior to birth by a Prometheus who only chose embryos that he believed would one-box. The line 'I should one-box or I won't get to exist' doesn't work because embryos can't think. At the time at which you can first consciously consider this problem, you will be past the filter, and so are free to choose the most effective solution regardless of Prometheus's preferences. So you two-box and win, 'cause you already exist.

The problem changes, of course, if there is any way in which Prometheus could punish you for two-boxing, causing you to lose >100$ in utility.

Edit: Changed a couple of details to properly refer to TN when Omega has a slight possibility of being wrong.

Comment author: Tenek 06 February 2011 03:21:06PM *  0 points [-]

Maybe Prometheus could predict your decision by running a simulation of you and putting "you" in that situation.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 30 December 2010 01:42:32PM 3 points [-]

Excellent list. Please could you expand on/clarify these 2, I'm not sure what you mean and why:

  • Science before the mid-20th century was too small to look like a target.

  • There's a difference between learning a skill and learning a skill while remaining human. You need to decide which you want.

Comment author: Tenek 30 December 2010 03:13:34PM *  2 points [-]

There's a difference between learning a skill and learning a skill while remaining human. You need to decide which you want.

Learning how to transplant a kidney is much easier when you have a few dozen people to experiment on. (I think that was the idea, anyways...)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 December 2010 10:48:56PM 5 points [-]

Valley-girl English and Ebonics and West Virginia dialect are all equally valid and internally consistent, according to this approach.

There is also value in maintaining a common standard. Try speaking Ebonics outside black ghettos and besides the status hit, people will have a hard time understanding you.

Comment author: Tenek 20 December 2010 03:53:57PM 0 points [-]

Is there any dialect that is readily understandable to everyone who speaks English?

Comment author: SilasBarta 26 October 2010 06:04:27PM *  4 points [-]

At risk of exhibiting confirmation bias, your anecdote makes my point for me. With the ban on discrimination, your friend got misleading signals of which employers she would like, and her employer relied on weaker signals of things they can't ask about, leading to an incorrect inference -- and later, a disastrous mismatch.

So, far from eliminating the pernicious effects of bigotry, the law made people waste effort trying to route their efforts around it. Had there been no law, people could openly communicate their preferences in both directions, without having to go through the complication of sending weaker signals because they can't send the banned ones. And with less "noise", the cost of bigotted preferences becomes clearer. Explanation

I don't see why you're using this as an example of why anti-discrimination laws are good.

So what would happen if you traded the kafkaesque life for the officially-banned screening methods? Would you rather have twice the number of job opportunities and lose 3/4 of them right away because you're <insert irrelevant attribute here>? Or would you rather that other people get rejected for them, if you don't personally have many of the 'undesirable' attributes?

Certainly, you can pick the numbers to reach the conclusion that you want. But averaging over all possibilities, and weighting by likelihood, yes, I would prefer the environment that makes all job applicants not a potential albatross for employers, for the same reason I would prefer not to be exempt from lawsuits -- yes, there's a narrow benefit to laws saying "you can't discriminate against people named Silas", and to a personal exemption from lawsuits. But realistically, the way people respond to this will more than eliminate the benefit. (In case it's not clear -- do you see a hazard in associating with a stranger when you're guaranteed to have no legal recourse against what they do?)

So yes, I would rather have the option to most clearly communicate preferences, than have to dance around them, which results in situations where someone can be turned down for a job because of false beliefs that they can't even refute. This remains true, even and especially if I'm in a less fortunate end of the applicant pool (which I have been, like everyone else who has been under 14/16/18 at some point in their life).

(Btw, I'm not the one modding you down.)

Comment author: Tenek 26 October 2010 08:08:28PM 2 points [-]

I'm not using it as an example of why they're good. I'm offering it as an example because it's relevant to the topic.

Adding a cost to circumvent the law makes you less likely to do so, though. If you keep hiring people who are decidedly suboptimal because you have to use a lousy approximation of whatever characteristic you want, you might give up on it.

I get that you would rather, given that you're going to be rejected for your age/skin color/gender/etc, be told why. But if you want to reduce the use of those criteria, then banning it will stop the people who care a small amount (i.e not enough to bother getting around it.)

Comment author: Apprentice 06 October 2010 10:13:16AM 23 points [-]

We live in a world where it has become "politically correct" to avoid absolutes. Many want all religions to be given the same honor, and all gods regarded as equally true and equally fictitious. But take these same people, who want fuzzy, all-inclusive thinking in spiritual matters, and put them on an airplane. You will find they insist on a very dogmatic, intolerant pilot who will stay on the "straight and narrow" glidepath so their life will not come to a violent end short of the runway. They want no fuzzy thinking here!

-- Jack T. Chick

Comment author: Tenek 06 October 2010 04:05:10PM 2 points [-]

Well, Jack doesn't want any thinking at all, so I'm not sure if that's better or worse than fuzziness.

Comment author: JenniferRM 04 October 2010 08:55:42PM 3 points [-]

Did you coin the term "pyronics"?

Comment author: Tenek 05 October 2010 04:26:35AM 0 points [-]

I would imagine not (99%) , although it doesn't appear to be in common usage.

Comment author: RobinZ 04 October 2010 12:54:08PM -1 points [-]

1 THz semiconductor-based computing will prove to be impossible. ~50%

(Note for the optimistic: I expect multiplying cores will continue to increase consumer computer performance for some years after length-scale limitations on clock rate are reached.)

Comment author: Tenek 04 October 2010 07:48:13PM 1 point [-]

At that speed, you have less than 0.3 mm per clock cycle for your signals to propagate. Seems like you'd either need to make ridiculously tiny gadgets, or devote a lot of resources to managing the delays. Seems reasonable enough.

Comment author: Tiiba 04 October 2010 07:11:06PM *  0 points [-]

So you intend to acquire an extra grandparent somewhere along the line?

Comment author: Tenek 04 October 2010 07:36:01PM 7 points [-]

No. I intend to revive one. Possibly all four, if necessary. Consider it thawing technology so advanced it can revive even the pyronics crowd.

Comment author: Tenek 04 October 2010 03:29:46PM 36 points [-]

The pinnacle of cryonics technology will be a time machine that can at the very least, take a snapshot of someone before they died and reconstitute them in the future. I have three living grandparents and I intend to have four living grandparents when the last star in the Milky Way burns out. (50%)

View more: Prev | Next