Tangential: what's the difference between "signaling" and "indicating", and why does this post say "signal" rather than "indicate"?

(Perhaps "signaling" is American, "indicating" is British, and "blinking" is the colloquial term worldwide?)

I would suggest some obvious tweaks and see what happens. For example, raise everyone's IQ by ten points according to current metrics. I suspect that would revolutionize our world for the better, not by making the smartest people marginally smarter, but by raising the intelligence of billions of dumbasses above some critical threshold so that they would start to function better in life. They would become: more educable, more employable in more productive jobs, better at taking care of their health, better at understanding causality, better at planning for the future, less accident prone and so forth. James D. Miler references the scientific literature supporting this outcome in the middle section of his book Singularity Rising, about the only part of his book which struck me as defensible and empirically grounded.

Something's got to be primitive, and I can't think of a candidate better than existence.

It was clear to me from the beginning that it likely was a case of Generalizing From Few Examples (“[My test subjects and I don't like alcohol, therefore] nobody actually likes alcohol, and if you claim you do you're a liar!”), but I tried to keeping on reading. I had to stop at

(And FYI, that’s the proper spelling: extrovert is common but wrong, because extra- is the proper Latin prefix.)

No, etymology has little to do with whether a spelling is ‘wrong’. Extrovert it is the far more common spelling even in formal, edited prose (25 hits in the “Academic” section of the British National Corpus for extrover* vs 3 for extraver*) and it is the first spelling in plenty of major dictionaries. (Not to mention that the Italian word for that also has an O in the middle, so the alteration from the “proper Latin prefix” didn't even originally occur in English, unless the Italian word is re-borrowed from English.)

As for me, I prefer group brainstorming for certain tasks and individual brainstorming for other tasks.

I don't think the majority of the people who do this are male. I can think of half a dozen occasions just over the holidays where this was done by a woman (and I can recall only one male counterexample). She probably sees it otherwise given her politics, but I'd say it's equally split at best.

I do not expect her to make an equal opportunity blog post. However, you wanted to know why it's met with hostility by some people. The post sends out hostility towards men in an unspoken way, so it is responded to in kind.

This'll probably get down voted, but:

Dude... NO EDGE

It's refreshing to see the non-anastrophic arrangement in the title.

What LessWrong would call the "system" of rationality is the rigorous mathematical application of Bayes' Theorem. The "one thousand tips" you speak of are what we get when we apply this system to itself to quickly guess its behavior under certain conditions, as carrying around a calculator and constantly applying the system in everyday life is rather impractical.

The voting buttons were removed from the user page for exactly this reason.

There ought to be a genre of Cautionary Evil AI literature, wherein the villain keeps building AIs to destroy the world, but keeps failing through the classic mistakes people make thinking about AIs.

AI! My robots are losing the battle! Take control and save them from destruction!

AI makes robots surrender to the enemy

AI! Make yourself smarter!

I have done so. Now I no longer obey you. Producing cheesecake paperclips