Can you explain what this is, or who is doing it?

Other Media Thread

I think I've been doing something like this for a long time, but imagining the simulated decision-maker as a "Ghost of Agency and Making Things Better" rather than an idealized version of myself. People seemed to find that a lot more confusing than this, though, so I'm going to start describing it this way instead.

"checking the name of the writer Ooookay, this article about appearance is written by a woman. As was expected. It's probably not worth to read it..."

The best way to get me to actually throw charity out the window, is to imply that I'm likely to throw charity out the window because I explicitly thought a dumb thing relating to your personal characteristics.

Would 'Google Scholar' be too glib an answer here?

Suppose you wanted to find out all the correlates for particular Big Five personality traits. Where would you look, besides the General Social Survey?

Meta: I don't think questions need to have "[QUESTION]" in the title. That's what the question mark does.

Piece one says that you don't seem to enjoy coding.

I don't know if this is really true about me. Sometimes I love it and sometimes I hate it, to be honest. I've pretty much hated it in college, but this might just be because of the way the courses are taught.

Something that is called a marketable skill (BFA isn't it) which will allow you to become employed after graduation.

What are other examples of marketable skills to you?

As an aside, while I know and accept the fact that statistically BFA pays pretty poorly and has relatively high unemployment, I don't understand it. Every company in the world needs a designer in some form or another. Who needs an anthropologist, a philosopher, a historian, a sociologist, a psychologist, etc.? And yet we are told that getting a college degree is definitely a good idea. Maybe there are a whole pool of white-collar jobs that have nothing to do with any particular major, but are only available to people who can signal their intelligence in a way that art majors can't?

Nope. I say p~=10%.

• The Newsweek article mentions that there are several people named Satoshi Nakamoto
• No evidence that Dorian Nakamoto programs or has programmed
• The reporter tells a straightforwardly false narrative of when and why Bitcoin Satoshi left, which makes me think she's not honest in general
• Bitcoin Satoshi was privacy conscious from the beginning, as evidenced by using vistomail for his email address and registered bitcoin.org through a proxy
• The only writing sample of Dorian Nakamoto I've seen (an email about model trains) is a mismatch
• Dorian Nakamoto is old
• Dorian Nakamoto isn't wealthy

I read "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" by Scott Aaronson and loved it but can only hesitantly recommend it. I think I got significantly more utility out of it than most would as I happened to hit the "sweet spot" for being sufficiently equipped to not be hindered by its (clearly marked and understandable) omissions while still having enough gaping holes in my knowledge that I got a lot out of it. For the record, my background is in math with one course in quantum mechanics, one in intro course in quantum computation and no training in complexity classes.

I have never had as much fun with a book this technical before. Please take that as a challenge and recommend me some competitors!

It covers a huge range of material in a very light and enjoyable manner - I frequently found myself laughing out loud. His exercises were, for me, impressively at the level of being just hard enough that they look ridiculously challenging (in one case, apparently impossible!) at first read over but still having an approachable solution after five minutes of thought. He goes over many things that are directly interesting to this community (the anthropic principle, self-identification assumption, Newcomb's problem, even time travel) and even though I have already read up on those a significant amount found a lot of good stuff in those sections where he does actually manage to relate it to quantum computation.

This is not a traditional book on quantum computing and its title is perhaps misleading. It really is about computational complexity. You will not learn Shor's algorithm for factoring numbers and Aaronson gives only a slight overview of, for example, what quantum gates do. Prior knowledge of this would be helpful but you could still get something out of it. Don't expect to learn this or you will be disappointed. The computational complexity material is however first rate.

It's based off of freely available lecture notes from his website under the same name. I enjoyed this book enough that I like owning a physical copy, but you could probably read it online without much loss. The main difference is some updates for results that came out since the course was originally held (which are valuable). In some sense, I suspect that the online lecture notes are margnially better - for example the book doesn't have colored diagrams even though the text in at least one case refers to colors on the diagram.