In the high-status parts of the software industry, getting Java/Microsoft/etc. certification is a slight negative on your job value -- i.e., one is expected to countersignal.
Why is that? That wouldn't have surprised me too much if it had been about about academia, or about the free/libre/open source software community, but software industry... why?
Because it signals that you're the sort of person who feels a need to get certifications, or more precisely that you thought you actually needed the certification to get a job. (And because the actual certifications aren't taken to be particularly hard, such that completing one is strong evidence of actual skill)
Yes, this is what I was trying to say. I see how the phrase "conditionality of the reward on your assessed probability" could describe Pascal's Wager, but not how it could describe Pascal's Mugging.
More concisely than the original/gwern: The algorithm used by the mugger is roughly:
Find your assessed probability of the mugger being able to deliver whatever reward, being careful to specify the size of the reward in the conditions for the probability
offer an exchange such that U(payment to mugger) < U(reward) * P(reward)
This is an issue for AI design because if you use a prior based on Kolmogorov complexity than it's relatively straightforward to find such a reward, because even very large numbers have relatively low complexity, and therefore relatively high prior probabilities.
It is somewhat puzzling to me that my PredictionBook evangelizing is well received here, but the fraction of LessWrongers that actually use PredictionBook is vanishingly small. Frankly, it is a scandal to Less Wrong that its high-karma members don't bother to publicly record their own predictions and yet continue to expect others to believe in the efficacy of the techniques taught in its core texts, like The Sequences.
If you want us to believe your beliefs pay rent, why not show us the receipts?
So I don't know about anyone else, but as far as I can tell my own personal true rejection is: It's just too hard to remember to click over to predictionbook.com and actually type something in when I make a prediction. I've tried the things that seem obvious to help with this, but the small inconvenience has so far been too much
I would argue that 2 days a week of full body work IS the minimum viable to gain longevity benefits. Anything less than that does not reliably produce an adaptation.
If this was supposed to be minimum for longevity rather for general well-being my disagreement is even stronger. The high intensity work would be far superior for that particular purpose.
Do you have a specific recommendation for what the minimum for longevity actually is?
Three days doing three different high intensity weight bearing activities isn't the best overall workout program but it is certainly viable and far more minimal. It would give acceptable (but less) muscle growth and far better cardio improvements.
Comes pretty close, but still leaves a little room for guesswork.
Just as an exercise, and mostly motivated by the IRC channel: Can anyone find a way to turn this post into a testable prediction about the real world?
In particular, it would be nice to have a specific way to tell the difference between "understanding the opposite sex is impossible" and "understanding the opposite sex is harder than the same sex" and "understanding types of people you haven't been in enough contact with is hard/impossible"
Huh. It didn't occur to me that I could just buy more. Thanks.
Annoyingly, I'm in the UK - it looks like Amazon won't ship there, and the UK sellers I've found only sell capsules in 1mg increments. But there's this, which gives me hope that I'll be able to find some way of shipping 300mcg doses to the UK.
My current thinking is that I'll experiment by pulling capsules apart, and if a small dose turns out to be effective I'll try to get it in a more convenient form.
You could also try dissolving the whole capsule in water, which might make measuring out specific fractions easier.
I like your idea here, of a "motivated" karma-sink to help discourage unwarranted karma. Very clever.
I think it's pretty likely this is just a joke, not really some clever tactic
I am trying to figure out whether caffeine helps productivity in the long run. Looking back 10 years from now, how much more/less productive will I have been if I were to drink coffee every day, or every second day?
While you're looking for studies, have you considered just starting a double-blind experiment? If you've read my page on nootropics, it should be pretty clear how you could do it with a water-soluble substance like caffeine and where you could get cheap bulk caffeine.
Just for the record, and in case it's important in experiment planning, caffeine isn't actually tasteless at all. has a fairly bitter and certainly easy to recognize taste dissolved in just water.
It is, however, really easy to mask in, for example, orange juice, so the taste shouldn't make the experiments hard as such. Just another design constraint to be aware of.
I'd also recommend adding some sort of n days on, m days off cycling to your tests, mostly because that's what I do and I want to take advantage of other people's research.
you're not going to get that with widely dispersed efficient-life-killing thermonuclear strikes (leaving aside the obvious question 'what do you do about the vents and spores etc').
Where on earth did widely dispersed efficient-life-killing thermonuclear strikes come into it? Multi was considering a bomb (or cluster thereof) at a single location. The closest to 'dispersion' was when you brought Orion into it, with it's chain of bombs spread out over the launch distance.
A Project Orion kinetic strike would probably be more efficient than a pile of gigaton nukes since each explosion can be smaller and more energy extracted than it.
Or, alternately, it would be overwhelmingly inefficient because the projectile is aimed away from the planet - or at best along the surface of it.
I incidentally dispute your efficiency claim anyway. I'd be willing to bet that if you collect every one of the bombs you were using for your Orion weapon and place them in single location then it would be more capable of slippiting the planet than the projectile would have been. Even if you managed to make it target the earth directly. If necessary you would of course use several years worth of the entire earth's production of steel (and maybe lead, gold and anything else hard or heavy) and use it to cover the bomb and keep the energy around a tad longer.
Why does it need to be aim along the planet? Use orbital mechanics: Send your spacecraft on an orbit such that it hits the planet it launched from at the fast point of a very long elliptical orbit. Or even just at the far side of the current planet's orbit, whatever. It can't be that hard to get an impact at whatever angle you'd prefer with most of the Orion vehicle's energy, launching direction barely seems to matter.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
This post inspired me to make a small donation.
Me as well.