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

Comment author: aausch 24 December 2015 08:37:22PM *  5 points [-]

"Update: many people have read this post and suggested that, in the first file example, you should use the much simpler protocol of copying the file to modified to a temp file, modifying the temp file, and then renaming the temp file to overwrite the original file. In fact, that’s probably the most common comment I’ve gotten on this post. If you think this solves the problem, I’m going to ask you to pause for five seconds and consider the problems this might have. (...) The fact that so many people thought that this was a simple solution to the problem demonstrates that this problem is one that people are prone to underestimating, even they’re explicitly warned that people tend to underestimate this problem!" -- @danluu, "Files are hard"

Comment author: aausch 28 September 2015 04:29:11PM 0 points [-]

The acceleratingfuture domain's registration has expired (referenced in the starting quote) (http://acceleratingfuture.com/?reqp=1&reqr=)

Comment author: Lalartu 13 March 2014 10:19:05AM 32 points [-]

Irrationality game:

Most posthuman societies will have violent death rate much higher than humans ever had. Most poshumans who will ever live will die at wars. 95%

Comment author: aausch 26 July 2015 06:30:44PM 0 points [-]

i think the concept of death is extremely poorly defined under most variations of posthuman societies; death as we interpret it today depends on a number of concepts that are very likely to break down or be irrelevant in a post-human-verse

take, for example, the interpretation of death as the permanent end to a continuous distinct identity:

if i create several thousand partially conscious partial clones of myself to complete a task (say, build a rocketship), and then reabsorb and compress their experiences, have those partial clones died? if i lose 99.5% of my physical incarnations and 50% of my processing power to an accident, did any of the individual incarnations die? have i died? what if some other consciousness absorbs them (with or without my, or the clones', permission or awareness)? what if i become infected with a meme which permanently alters my behavior? my identity?

In response to How to Be Happy
Comment author: aausch 26 July 2015 04:12:47PM 0 points [-]

RIASEC link is broken ( in "a RIASEC personality test might help") - google returns this: http://personality-testing.info/tests/RIASEC.php as the top alternative

In response to Crazy Ideas Thread
Comment author: James_Miller 08 July 2015 06:10:34AM 36 points [-]

To any future super-intelligence reading this after my death: I very much want to be brought back to life.

Comment author: aausch 10 July 2015 01:25:34PM 1 point [-]

Thanks! Presumably, an omniscient being will be able to derive a "bring everyone back" goal from having read this sentence.

Comment author: aausch 09 May 2015 11:26:55PM 4 points [-]

“It’s not a kid’s television show,” Andy told me, “Where the antagonist makes the Machiavellian plan and then abandons that plan completely the first time it fails. People fail, they revise, they adjust parameters, they you achieve victory through persistence and hard work.”

J. C. McCrae, Pact WebSerial

Comment author: aausch 06 May 2015 01:33:41PM 1 point [-]

a small group of lesswrong people will be meeting Wednesday, May 13 in Waterloo, On, Canada at Abe Erb

Comment author: aausch 31 March 2015 12:14:18AM 10 points [-]

“Things are not as they seem. They are what they are.” ― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Comment author: aausch 01 March 2015 07:40:30PM 1 point [-]

any chance you can create a second version, "historical lesswrong digest" - which lists all posts with 20+ upvotes for this week and every 54th previous week from the site's history?

Comment author: gwern 03 January 2015 03:19:17AM *  2 points [-]

try, for example, comparing success rates/timelines/etc... for psychotherapists helping broken brains rewrite themselves, vs. success rates for startups trying to correctly scale their computer systems without going bankrupt.

But startups seem to do that pretty routinely. One does not hear about the 'Dodo bird verdict' for startups trying to scale. Startups fail for many reasons, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any, ever, for which the explanation was insurmountable performance problems caused by scaling.

(Wait, I can think of one: Friendster's demise is usually blamed on the social network being so slow due to perpetual performance problems. On the other hand, I can probably go through the last few months of Hacker News and find a number of post-mortems blaming business factors, a platform screwing them over, bad leadership, lack of investment at key points, people just plain not liking their product...)

Comment author: aausch 04 January 2015 08:47:18PM 0 points [-]

in retrospect, that's a highly in-field specific bit of information and difficult to obtain without significant exposure - it's probably a bad example.

for context:

friendster failed at 100m+ users - that's several orders of magnitude more attention than the vast majority of startups ever obtain before failing, and a very unusual point to fail due to scalability problems (with that much attention, and experience scaling, scaling should really be a function of adequate funding more than anything else).

there's a selection effect for startups, at least the ones i've seen so far: ones that fail to adequately scale, almost never make it into the public eye. since failing to scale is a very embarrassing bit of information to admit publicly after the fact - the info is unlikely to be publicly known unless the problem gets independently, externally, publicized, for any startup.

i'd expect any startup that makes it past the O(1m active users) point and then proceeds to noticeably be impeded by performance problems to be unusual - maybe they make it there by cleverly pivoting around their scalability problems (or otherwise dancing around them/putting them off), with the hope of buying (or getting bought) out of the problems later on.

View more: Next