= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I like this post. Can you think of any pre-20th century philosophers whose works you still hold to be valid/useful today? [or from that list, any pre-21st century...]
In response to
Meetup : 02/12 London Meetup
Is there any way we could get more notification for these? I could probably have made this, but didn't see this in time.
By the same rationalisation it could also be a test for paranoia.
If you trust lesswrong to avoid referering you to a dangerous website than you should also trust Yvain to do the same.
[comment deleted]
Yep, imperial system was quite a frustration and is not really appropriate for such a scientifically minded group.
The most appropriate metric is the one which causes the smallest number of people to have to calculate their answer into another unit of measurement. If LW is mostly American, that may well be imperial.
In response to
Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate
On the other hand, if you are only half-a-rationalist, you can easily do worse with more knowledge. I recall a lovely experiment which showed that politically opinionated students with more knowledge of the issues reacted less to incongruent evidence, because they had more ammunition with which to counter-argue only incongruent evidence.
What exactly is the problem with this? The more knowledge I have, the smaller a weighting I place on any new piece of data.
In response to
Traditional Capitalist Values
In countries that are lawful and just, it is the privilege and responsibility of a citizen to pay their low taxes. That said, a good billionaire wouldn't ask to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Since when is this a traditional part of capitalism? Apart from the definitional problems with "a good billionaire", who is it who says that a billionaire who pays 40m in tax and wants to pay less is somehow immoral?
I mean, seriously. I never want to know what it was and I significantly resent the OP for continuing to stir the shit and (no matter how marginally) increasing the likelihood of the information being reposted and me accidentally seeing it.
I award you +1 sanity point.
(I note that the Langford Basilisk in question is the only information that I know and wish I did not know. People acquainted with me and my attitude towards secrecy and not-knowing-things in general may make all appropriate inferences about how unpleasant I must find it to know the information, to state that I would prefer not to.)
[comment deleted]
Given how people have been describing the basilisk to me in IRC and private messages as being a' fascinating secret' and 'attracting people with mystique' and 'laugh at how they circumvented the censorship', I think more people know about it than one would expect (and that by now, it is more well known than it ever would've been otherwise).
But even if all that was wrong, that is easily addressed with the usual options like 'Other' or 'No opinion' or 'Don't care'.
[comment deleted]
In response to
2012 Less Wrong Census/Survey
Am I the only person who answered "100" on the cryonics question because "revived at some point in the future" was indefinite enough that a Boltzmann brain-like scenario inevitably occurring eventually seemed reasonable?
Also, I did all the extra credit questions. At twos in the morning.
[comment deleted]
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Incidentally, I'd give a probability of about 0.1 to the statement "If Lee Harvey Oswald hadn't shot John F. Kennedy, someone else would have" - there have been many people who have tried to assassinate Presidents.
And many people who have tried to assassinate Kennedys...