= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
1% of a bad bet is still a bad bet.o
In response to
comment
by
on
Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today!
In response to
comment
by
on
Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today!
No, it's not 1% of the bet. My income goes up in the future meaning that the utility of money goes down. My mortality rate goes up since I am young, so the value of cryonics goes up.
In response to
A Review of Signal Data Science
I suppose this might be better place to ask than trying to resurrect a previous thread:
What kind of statistics can Signal offer on prior cohorts? E.g. percentage with jobs, percentage with jobs in data science field, percentage with incomes over $100k, median income of graduates, mean income of graduates, mean income of employed graduates, etc.? And how do the different cohorts compare? (Those are just examples; I don't necessarily expect to get those exact answers, but it would be good to have some data and have it be presented in a manner that is at least partially resistant to cherry picking/massaging, etc.) Basically, what sort of evidence E does Signal have to offer, such that I should update towards it being effective, given both E, and "E has been selected by Signal, and Signal has an interest in choosing E to be as flattering rather than as informative as possible" are true?
Also, the last I heard, there was a deposit requirement. What's the refund policy on that?
what sort of evidence E does Signal have to offer, such that I should update towards it being effective, given both E, and "E has been selected by Signal, and Signal has an interest in choosing E to be as flattering rather than as informative as possible"
Well I got a job out of it.
As for statistics, they're new enough that you'd want to wait a bit.
IMO Signal is worth the ~very little that you have to pay for it unless you already are getting job offers or already are very good with R (but then why do you want a bootcamp?)
In response to
A Review of Signal Data Science
I suppose this might be better place to ask than trying to resurrect a previous thread:
What kind of statistics can Signal offer on prior cohorts? E.g. percentage with jobs, percentage with jobs in data science field, percentage with incomes over $100k, median income of graduates, mean income of graduates, mean income of employed graduates, etc.? And how do the different cohorts compare? (Those are just examples; I don't necessarily expect to get those exact answers, but it would be good to have some data and have it be presented in a manner that is at least partially resistant to cherry picking/massaging, etc.) Basically, what sort of evidence E does Signal have to offer, such that I should update towards it being effective, given both E, and "E has been selected by Signal, and Signal has an interest in choosing E to be as flattering rather than as informative as possible" are true?
Also, the last I heard, there was a deposit requirement. What's the refund policy on that?
I can answer the deposit one: Signal told me personally that they'd refund it in the first week if I wanted to quit due to it being a bad program. In reality it was good. I cannot guarantee that they'd extend this to anyone but you can ask.
In response to
comment
by
on
Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today!
Are your finances so dire that if someone offered you $1/day in exchange for playing Russian Roulette, you would accept? If not, aren't you being just as irrational as you are accusing those who fail to accept your argument of being?
In response to
comment
by
on
Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today!
No, that doesn't work if I expect to sign up soon.
Is it a good idea to leave alive mosquitos that don't bite humans?
Killing all mosquitoes would be way too likely to have seriously bad unintended consequences IMO.
It would be something that I'd like to ask an expert about, but I think it's worth considering.
More generally: the ecosystem we have today is almost certainly not the best one we could possibly have. Therefore there may be feasible positive changes we can make to it.
I tried. I guess it wasn't accepted.
That's disappointing.
It seems that this article completely ignore risks of future technologies, like AI, bio and nanotech
In response to
comment
by
on
Avoiding collapse: Grand challenges for science and society to solve by 2050
And some of the listed problems seem to be vastly less serious, in particular extinction of other species.
Hum, first I find you numbers very unlikely - cryonics costs more than $1/day, and definitely have less than 10% of chance of working (between the brain damage done by the freezing, the chances that the freezing can't be done in time, disaster striking the storage place before resurrection, risk of society collapse, unwillingness of future people to resurrect you, ...).
Then, the "bullet" scenario isn't comparable to cryonics, because it completely forgets all the context and social network. A significant part of why I don't want to die (not the only reason, by far, but definitely not a minor on either) is that there are people I care about and who either enjoy me being around them, and/or depend on me financially at least partially, and I enjoy spending time with them. If I were to die tomorrow of a bullet in the head, it'll deprive me of time with them and them of time with me. If I were to die of whatever other cause, and then be resurrected centuries in the future, it wouldn't change anything for them (unless they sign up to cryonics too, but that's a wholly different issue).
That doesn't mean cryonics isn't worth it at all - but the two scenarios are far from being mathematically equivalent. And I would definitely pay more than $1 a day to not have the "I'm cut from all the people I care about" scenario to happen.
In response to
comment
by
on
Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today!
it completely forgets all the context and social network.
TBH I think this works out fairly heavily in favour of the future, I expect that the utility per unit time of future life is significantly higher than what we have today, even taking into account loss of social network. Of course this asymmetry goes away if you persuade your friends and family to sign up too.
I suppose your mileage may reasonably vary depending on how much of a nerd you are and how good your present day relationships are.
Personally, if cryonics was 100% and a positive future to wake up in was also 100% (both of which are false by a large margin), I would go to the future right now and start enjoying the delights it has to offer. I have spent some time thinking about how good the best possible human life is. It's somewhat hard to tell as it is an underresearched area, but I think it's probably 2-10 times better in utility than the best we have today.
Hum, first I find you numbers very unlikely - cryonics costs more than $1/day, and definitely have less than 10% of chance of working (between the brain damage done by the freezing, the chances that the freezing can't be done in time, disaster striking the storage place before resurrection, risk of society collapse, unwillingness of future people to resurrect you, ...).
Then, the "bullet" scenario isn't comparable to cryonics, because it completely forgets all the context and social network. A significant part of why I don't want to die (not the only reason, by far, but definitely not a minor on either) is that there are people I care about and who either enjoy me being around them, and/or depend on me financially at least partially, and I enjoy spending time with them. If I were to die tomorrow of a bullet in the head, it'll deprive me of time with them and them of time with me. If I were to die of whatever other cause, and then be resurrected centuries in the future, it wouldn't change anything for them (unless they sign up to cryonics too, but that's a wholly different issue).
That doesn't mean cryonics isn't worth it at all - but the two scenarios are far from being mathematically equivalent. And I would definitely pay more than $1 a day to not have the "I'm cut from all the people I care about" scenario to happen.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
What about after the program, if you don't get a job, or don't get a job in the data science field?
The deal I was given is that if you earn less than $40k for the next year, you get the whole program for free.
If you earn $lots as a painter, porn star, film producer - whatever - you still pay your 10% of what you earn above $40k capped at $250k. But if you plan on having a very lucrative non-data science career in the next year, then why are you on the program?