more recent study found that a slight majority of people would prefer to remain in the simulation.

I believe lukeprog was talking about what people think before they get wireheaded. It's very probable that once one gets hooked to that machine, one changes ones mind -- based on new experience.

It's certainly true for rats which could not stop hitting the 'pleasure' button, and died of starvation.

This is also why people have that status quo bias -- no one wants to die of starving, even with 'pleasure' button.

Really? So you're ready to give up that easily?

For me, best moments in life are not those when I experience 'intense pleasure'. Life for me is like, you know, in some way, like playing chess match. Or like creating some piece of art. The physical pleasure does not count as something memorable, because it's only a small dot in the picture. The process of drawing the picture, and the process of seeing how your decisions and plans are getting "implemented" in a physical world around me -- that's what counts, that's what makes me love the life and want to live it.

And from this POV, wireheading is simply not an option.

General programming: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Focuses on the essence of the subject with such clarity that a novice can understand the first chapter, yet an expert will have learned something by the last chapter.

Specific programming languages: The C Programming Language, The C++ Programming Language, CLR via C#. Informative to a degree that rarely coexists with such clarity and readability.

AI: Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach. Perhaps the rarest virtue of this work is that not only does it give about as comprehensive a survey of the field as will fit in a single book, but casts a cool eye on the limitations as well as strengths of each technique discussed.

Compiler design: Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools. The standard textbook for good reason.

A related idea that I've had for a decade or so: when someone (a country, a company, a person) wants to follow in the path of someone else, they shouldn't aim for their own conception of that other's location or path; rather, they should aim for what the other was aiming for, at the time they themselves traced their path.

I don't know about other people, but I do know something about myself: I don't fully know what I think until I either write it down or speak up. Moreover, the benefits of speaking up without fully thought through ideas is high in group conversations - rather than trying to complete a thought with one's own limited repertoire of to-hand facts and concepts, one can use the group's.

Given that it's such an important problem in people's lives, I am somewhat perplexed as to why it isn't covered in school. Given the effect choosing a mate can have, it should be a substantial part of the curriculum.

I can't think of a good explanation for anyone picking the $500

I agree with Vladimir Golovin. I definitely think this way - I can think immediately of how useful $500 would be to me, but cannot think of many ways to use a 15% chance of $1M.

Well, I can think of one way - I would take the 15% chance of $1M and then sell it to one of you suckers for $100,000.

Quantitative geneticists use [heritability] to calculate the changes to be expected from artificial or natural selection in a statistically steady environment. It says nothing about how much the over-all level of the trait is under genetic control, and it says nothing about how much the trait can change under environmental interventions.

I don't think that's right. The term "heritability" is used in twin studies, which do not involve a steady environment, and which are all about how much the trait is under genetic control.