Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

In response to comment by gjm on Ergonomics Revisited
Comment author: paper-machine 23 April 2014 03:51:58PM 0 points [-]

30Hz refresh is a deal-breaker.

Comment author: gjm 23 April 2014 10:56:11PM 0 points [-]

I wasn't saying you (or anyone) should get one, only answering Alsadius's question and indicating that monitors of roughly the kind he described do in fact exist.

(30Hz refresh would be very bad for gaming. If you're using your monitor for software development or data analysis or designing buildings or writing novels, though, it probably doesn't make much difference.)

In response to comment by gjm on Ergonomics Revisited
Comment author: ephion 23 April 2014 06:42:40PM 0 points [-]

Why would I want that when I can get two of these, have 43" of real estate, and $240 left over?

Comment author: gjm 23 April 2014 10:34:19PM 0 points [-]

Because it has twice as many pixels as two of those.

(Is that enough reason? Maybe not. But that's the main reason you'd want it, if you did.)

Comment author: Alsadius 23 April 2014 02:24:49AM 7 points [-]

On Win7, Windows key+left/right snaps windows to half a screen, and windows key+up snaps it to a whole screen. Combine this with two screens and you can fit a lot more windows on the screen with minimal effort. Likewise, a lot of full-screen games and movies and such only take up half your real estate if you have two screens - right now, I'm playing Railroad Tycoon on one screen and chatting on Facebook with the other.

Also, who makes a 40+" screen that's 3000+ pixels wide for anything like the cost of two normal monitors? (I mean, they may exist, it's a long time since I've gone shopping, but it seems unlikely)

Comment author: gjm 23 April 2014 01:16:42PM 0 points [-]

Well, e.g., you can get a Seiki 39" 3840x2160 TV/monitor for $500 from Amazon right now. It's not the world's best monitor (TN panel, 30Hz refresh, and be warned that many things don't work well with very high-resolution monitors right now) ... but it's ~40" and it's >3000px wide and it's cheaper than some "normal" monitors.

Comment author: Shane_Patt 21 April 2014 09:21:27PM 4 points [-]

A koan:

A monk came to Master Banzen and asked, "What can be said of universal moral law?"

Master Banzen replied, "Among the Tyvari of Arlos, all know that borlitude is highly frumful. For a Human of Earth, is quambling borl forbidden, permissible, laudable or obligatory?"

The monk replied, "Mu."

Master Banzen continued, "Among the Humans of Earth, all know that friendship is highly good. For a Tyvar of Arlos, is making friends forbidden, permissible, laudable or obligatory?"

The monk replied, "Mu," and asked no more.

Qi's Commentary: The monk's failure was one of imagination. His question was not foolish, but it was parochial.

Comment author: gjm 22 April 2014 07:03:11PM 1 point [-]

Shouldn't Banzen's second question be something like "For a Tyvar of Arlos, is making friends frumful, flobulent, grattic, or slupshy?"?

Comment author: Vulture 22 April 2014 05:10:16PM 0 points [-]

You mean alternately picking 3 and 4? I was momentarily puzzled because seven is an odd number but I assume that's what you mean. If so, hmm, that is odd.

Comment author: gjm 22 April 2014 06:46:25PM 4 points [-]

Neutral would mean 4 for each one. (123 4 567.)

It's not necessarily odd for neutral answers to count as "maximizing tendencies" -- perhaps most people lean distinctly towards satisficing in the situations described by the questions.

Comment author: free_rip 22 April 2014 08:02:20AM 5 points [-]

I've been reading about maximizers and satisficers, and I'm interested to see where LessWrong people fall on the scale. I predict it'll be signficantly on the maximizer side of things.

A maximizer is someone who always tries to make the best choice possible, and as a result often takes a long time to make choices and feels regret for the choice they do make ('could I have made a better one?'). However, their choices tend to be judged as better, eg. maximizers tend to get jobs with higher incomes and better working conditions, but to be less happy with them anyway. A satisficer is someone who tries to make a 'good enough' choice - they tend to make choices faster and be happier with them, despite the choices being judged (generally) as worse than those of maximizers.

If you want, take this quiz

And put your score into the poll below:

Submitting...

Comment author: gjm 22 April 2014 06:45:11PM 4 points [-]

I wonder what the person who submitted the number 1488 was thinking. (Maximizing their answer, perhaps.)

Comment author: gjm 22 April 2014 12:45:31PM 0 points [-]

If the quotation from their placeholder website on somertva's tumblr is to be believed, it's a "sister site" of fqxi.org. This worries me a little -- FQXI is funded by the John Templeton Foundation, which has its own agenda and one I don't much care for. Is FLI also Templeton-funded? I'm not aware that Templeton has had any particular malign influence on FQXI, though, and the people at this new organization don't seem like they've been cherry-picked for (e.g.) religion-friendliness, so maybe it's OK.

Comment author: Strilanc 19 April 2014 10:10:33PM 2 points [-]

Even if you can individually help the most people by becoming a doctor, you can probably do better by paying someone with a comparative advantage at doctoring to become a doctor or do more doctoring (while you focus on what you're best at).

Comment author: gjm 20 April 2014 04:45:49PM 1 point [-]

This may be good advice when the socially-beneficial job in question is something less expensive than medicine. But doctors are expensive. Most of us can't afford to pay for someone else to be a doctor.

But, still, let's consider someone whose skills and interests do make it feasible for them to do so. Let's say they could work as a doctor (earning, let's say, $150k/year, and perhaps costing $200k/year "fully loaded" -- for the avoidance of doubt, all numbers here are completely made up) or as some kind of financial analyst (earning, let's say, $350k/year). After tax, perhaps our hypothetical financier is getting $240k/year, which means they could pay for a doctor and have $50k/year left over. Alternatively, they could be a doctor and take home ~$110k/year.

I repeat that all these numbers are made up (except that I checked the rough relationship between pretax and posttax income). But the overall point is pretty clear: the person we considered could pay for someone else to be a doctor, but only by taking a much better-paid job and ending up paid much less. They'd have to enjoy finance a lot more than medicine for this to be a good trade.

On the other hand, they probably can do more good by picking some job that suits them and pays well, and giving (say) 20% of their income to an effective charity. But it probably won't be (either directly or indirectly) by paying other people to be doctors.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 April 2014 06:48:31AM 6 points [-]

Reminds me of John C. Wright's comments on the subject here

So I tried to puzzle out that safest way to store your body while you slept.

Option one: you can trust to the government to look after it, or some other long lived private institution. Menelaus Montrose does this in an early stage of history called the Cryonarchy, where the control of the suspended animation tombs is the core of the political power of the ruling caste (all of whom are Montrose’s remote inlaws).

You can try the longest-lived institution of all, which is the Catholic Church. Their famous reverence for relict and boneyards and preserving the lore of the past could be turned to preserving their sleeping ancestors as an act of charity.

(No one will believe this, but I had that idea long before I converted. It just seemed a natural extrapolation of human behavior based on non-PC, that is, non-revisionist hence non-lying-ass, history.)

Comment author: gjm 19 April 2014 08:26:13PM -1 points [-]

non-revisionist hence non-lying-ass

Gosh.

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 04 April 2014 11:24:09PM *  -1 points [-]

Eadem Mutata Resurgo

[the] Same, [but] Changed, I [shall] Rise

On the tombstone of Jacob Bernoulli.

Comment author: gjm 16 April 2014 10:26:00PM 3 points [-]

Some context may be useful. (Sadly, the people who made the tombstone screwed up[1] and put the wrong sort of spiral on it.)

[1] I suppose this is a rather clever pun, but only by coincidence.

View more: Next