In response to Writing Style Guide
Comment author: Squark 11 February 2015 09:11:07PM *  3 points [-]

The subject of the sentence is a woman. It comes first. Be chivalrous.

This makes your post sound as if it's addressed only to men, which IMO is unseemly. Otherwise, nice post.

In response to comment by Squark on Writing Style Guide
Comment author: b1shop 11 February 2015 11:31:45PM *  -3 points [-]

In my experience, women enjoy the idea of coming first.

In response to Writing Style Guide
Comment author: Nanashi 11 February 2015 11:21:58PM 2 points [-]

Just gonna throw a suggestion out there:

Be genuine with your tone. If it doesn't sound like something you'd actually say out loud, don't say it. Or at least come up with a different way to say it that's not all BS-y.

People aren't stupid, they know when you're being phony even they don't realize they know it. For example the OP kinda comes across a little affected, which is why I think people are down voting it. (I didn't, by the way). Someone said that the confident tone doesn't match the subject matter, and I agree with that 100%

Comment author: b1shop 11 February 2015 11:30:18PM 0 points [-]

It's a style guide. It's supposed to be ruthlessly dictatorial. I wrote it for myself and co-workers. Some local Less Wrongers enjoyed it and encouraged me to post, so I did. I thought it would be appreciated. Oh well.

Comment author: b1shop 05 August 2014 02:41:01PM *  2 points [-]

Statistical point: the variance of forecast error for correctly specified simple regression problems is equal to:

Sigma^2(1 + 1/N + (x_o - x_mean)^2 / (Sigma ( x_i - x_mean) ^2))

So forecast error increases as x_o moves away from x_mean, especially when the variance of x is low by comparison.

Edit: Sub notation was apparently indenting things. I'm going to take a picture from my stats book tonight. Should be more readable.

Edit: Here's a more readable link. http://i.imgur.com/pu8lg0Wh.jpg

Comment author: b1shop 17 June 2014 01:14:34PM 0 points [-]

"Instead, every time you arrive at a decision point, evaluate what action to take by checking the utility of your constituents from each action. I propose that we call this "delta utilitarianism", because it isn't looking at the total or the average, just at the delta in utility from each action."

Perhaps we could call it "marginal utility."

In response to Meetup : Houston, TX
Comment author: b1shop 20 May 2014 06:21:07PM *  1 point [-]

All, Isaac_Davis, dvasya and myself had a pleasant chat at Ikea. Looking forward to the next meetup. Hopefully we'll have enough people next time to play paranoid debating.

In response to Meetup : Houston, TX
Comment author: dvasya 07 May 2014 04:05:03AM *  0 points [-]

So how did it go?

Comment author: b1shop 07 May 2014 01:17:59PM 1 point [-]

Unless I'm missing something, it hasn't occurred yet.

In response to Meetup : Houston, TX
Comment author: b1shop 06 May 2014 04:55:22AM 0 points [-]

I'll likely be there. Looking forward to it.

In response to comment by b1shop on Tell Culture
Comment author: Creutzer 21 January 2014 09:38:33PM 1 point [-]

If there are multiple equilibria, you should expect to see all of them in different cultures. The apparent tendency for general Guessiness is then left unexplained.

In response to comment by Creutzer on Tell Culture
Comment author: b1shop 21 January 2014 10:50:37PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure that's true. From the original LW post on ask vs. guess:

Apparently East Asia is more "guess-based" than the US.

I've also heard that Russia is more ask-based, and the U.S. is somewhere in the middle with stereotypical differences between urban and rural environments.

In response to Tell Culture
Comment author: b1shop 21 January 2014 02:56:54PM *  3 points [-]

A lot of the comments are ignoring the fact that this game has multiple equilibria. Saying "humans evolved into X, so therefore there must be a logic to X" makes as much sense as saying "Americans drive on the right side of the road, so therefore there must be a logic to using the right side of the road."

Also, when traveling outside the monastery, our first priority should be to figure out how the other people drive.

In response to Tell Culture
Comment author: b1shop 21 January 2014 02:52:36PM 1 point [-]

If you’re occasionally dishonest and tell people you want things you don't actually care about--like their comfort or convenience--they’ll learn not to trust you, and the inherent freedom of the system will be lost.

Maybe I'm only thinking of trivial examples, but I haven't noticed this. If I have guests over at my house, of course I care about their convenience, as I want the social capital that comes with throwing a good party. I want my co-workers slaving at the same project as me to be comfortable as it will make them more productive. There are tons of truly selfish reasons to be superficially selfless, and I don't think most have an aversion to superficial selflessness.

Perhaps a major exception should be made for early-stage romantic interactions.

View more: Next