Comment author: lukeprog 07 May 2011 02:33:39AM 1 point [-]

What does 'Kaizen' mean?

Luke

Comment author: bcoburn 27 December 2011 01:47:08AM 1 point [-]

"Improvement" is probably the literal translation, but it's used to mean the "Japanese business philosophy of continuous improvement", the idea of getting better by continuously making many small steps.

Comment author: bcoburn 04 December 2011 04:47:16PM 0 points [-]

Two things: What sort of time commitment/week would you expect for this?

the link in edit2 points to http://lesswrong.com/evidenceworksremote.com/courses instead of http://evidenceworksremote.com/courses which is presumably what it should be

Comment author: gwern 27 November 2011 09:34:34PM 4 points [-]

Emulation... I know I had a good link on that in Simulation inferences... Ah, here we go! This was a pretty neat Ars Technica article: "Accuracy takes power: one man's 3GHz quest to build a perfect SNES emulator"

Whether you regard the examples and trade-offs as optimistic or pessimistic lessons for WBE reveals your own take on the matter.

Comment author: bcoburn 28 November 2011 12:46:54AM 2 points [-]

Following up on this, I wondered what it'd take to emulate a relatively simple processor with as many normal transistors as your brain has neurons, and when we should get to that assuming Moore's Law hold. Also assuming that the number of transistors needed to emulate something is a simple linear function of the number of transistors in the thing you're emulating. This seems like it should give a relatively conservative lower bound, but is obviously still just a napkin calculation. The result is about 48 years, and the math is:

Where all numbers are taken from Wikipedia, and the random 2 in the second equation is the Moore's law years per doubling constant.

I'm not sure what to make of this number, but it is an interesting anchor for other estimates. That said, this whole style of problem is probably much easier in an FPGA or similar, which gives completely different estimates.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2011 12:00:19PM 1 point [-]

How do I know that the heating doesn't evaporate or otherwise affect stuff other than ethanol?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Absolute denial for atheists
Comment author: bcoburn 17 November 2011 03:36:04AM 0 points [-]

I don't know for sure either way, and can't think of an experimental way to check off hand. I don't think that heating is likely to do anything to the other components of most drinks, and you might be able to make a better guess with domain knowledge I don't have.

I think ethanol will generally evaporate more quickly than water, so you might also be able to get a similar test by simply closing one portion into a container with only a little air, and leaving another open for a long enough time, overnight maybe. will still lose some water, which is I guess a more real problem with heating as well.

shrug, the details weren't really the point, just wanted to emphasize the idea of thinking of ways to test whatever you're interested in physically instead of just reasoning about it.

Comment author: Raemon 16 November 2011 06:26:03PM 2 points [-]

I open lots of tabs, then close them. I am pretty sure I have an internet addiction.

Comment author: bcoburn 17 November 2011 03:10:35AM 1 point [-]

it's not quite trivial to actually measure, but total tabs opened in the last, say, hour is probably a better measurement than how many you have open right now.

After writing that I started thinking "maybe a large number of tabs open with a slow turnover/new tabs opening rate doesn't even correlate at all with procrastination", but I suspect that's just me coming up with excuses for things and isn't actually true. Could try measuring both if the survey actually works, shrug.

Comment author: Nominull 08 October 2011 03:22:35PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: bcoburn 13 October 2011 12:02:02AM 2 points [-]

Also really badly needs to be applied to itself. So many words!

In response to comment by Alicorn on Fix My Head
Comment author: gwern 17 September 2011 10:57:09PM 0 points [-]

I think there is caffeine powder in the house somewhere, so if the answer is "mix X milligrams caffeine powder in with Y compatible liquid" I can possibly do that

I believe anhydrous caffeine powder, as the name indicates, dissolves nicely into water. (I seem to recall this being the case for me, although I cannot test it now since I long ago turned all the caffeine powder into pills.)

In response to comment by gwern on Fix My Head
Comment author: bcoburn 18 September 2011 01:38:29AM 1 point [-]

It does dissolve reasonably into water, but tastes pretty terrible. Can dilute it with fruit juice if that's a problem, or just ignore it.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 16 September 2011 08:59:50PM 2 points [-]

There are such things as Mafia techniques? I've never seen anyone do better than chance. Care to explain?

Comment author: bcoburn 17 September 2011 09:44:05PM 1 point [-]

I don't know how well it works in games with only 1 scum player, but with at least two just the fact that there are two players who know they each have a partner changes their behavior enough that the game isn't random. There's also some change in what people say just because each side has a different win condition, although again this is less true with just one scum player.

As just a simple example, when you're playing as the scum it can be really hard (at least for me) to make a good argument that someone I know is a normal villager isn't, which can be enough for another player to deduce my role.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 August 2011 04:02:00PM 8 points [-]

Therefore, we should be very careful to not get into situations where we might need to explain things in short conversations in person.

Should I start staying indoors more?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Take heed, for it is a trap
Comment author: bcoburn 14 August 2011 04:17:20PM 2 points [-]

You could. Or you could just refuse to get into arguments about politics/philosophy. Or you could find a social group such that these things aren't problems.

I certainly don't have amazing solutions to this particular problem, but I'm fairly sure they exist.

Comment author: bcoburn 14 August 2011 12:06:41PM 33 points [-]

To everyone who just read this and is about to argue with the specific details of the bullet points or the mock argument:

Don't bother, they're (hopefully) not really the point of this.

Focus on the conclusion and the point that LW beliefs have a large inferential distance. The summary of this post which is interesting to talk about is "some (maybe most) LW beliefs will appear to be crackpot beliefs to the general public" and "you can't actually explain them in a short conversation in person because the inferential distance is too large". Therefore, we should be very careful to not get into situations where we might need to explain things in short conversations in person.

View more: Prev | Next