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

Comment author: peter_hurford 18 April 2014 05:58:12AM 4 points [-]

See also Jeff Kaufman on "Breaking Down Cryonics Probabilities".

Comment author: jkaufman 20 April 2014 11:09:51PM *  3 points [-]

Related lesswrong discussion from when I updated my estimates a year later: More Cryonics Probability Estimates.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 06 April 2014 04:44:10AM 2 points [-]

Single use disposable toothbrushes (such as Wisp).

I'm a bit confused by the pricing. It's listed at $15.99, but lower down the FAQ gives the price as $4.99. I've seen six-packs of toothbrushes at a dollar store, so I don't see what Wisp's selling point is. Individualized packaging?

Comment author: jkaufman 07 April 2014 02:20:02PM 2 points [-]

The 24-pack version of the Wisp is $0.21/brush. It looks like a better choice would be this 144-pack at $0.07/brush. This Wisp doesn't require toothpaste, which is nice if you're going to carry it with you, but if you're giving a toothbrush to a guest they can just use your toothpaste.

Comment author: army1987 06 April 2014 06:37:55AM 1 point [-]

Hospitality

Are there cultural differences between Europe and the US? Where I live, it's usually the guests who bring their own contact solution/toothbrushs/pads/tampons if needed; the idea of asking a host for a spare toothbrush (I don't need the other things because I neither wear contact lenses nor am female) wouldn't even occur to me.

Comment author: jkaufman 06 April 2014 06:09:32PM 1 point [-]

In the US the guest is still expected to bring them, but as a host it's really nice to be able to provide for your guest if they need it.

Comment author: jkaufman 05 April 2014 03:02:50PM 2 points [-]

Flashlights (that you can find in the dark)

Being able to find your flashlight in the dark used to be good advice, but if you carry a cell phone you can use that to find your flashlight.

Comment author: asr 01 April 2014 05:23:11AM *  4 points [-]

Point of order - Your comment is not a point of order. A point of order is an interjection about process in parliamentary process. Your comment was a clarification about terminology, which does not have the precedence of a point of order.

[This is meant to be silly, not harsh; but if you want to make fussy terminological points on LW, I will do likewise...]

Comment author: jkaufman 04 April 2014 01:54:41AM 4 points [-]

Isn't your comment then also not a point of order?

Comment author: lincolnquirk 29 March 2014 03:21:29AM 4 points [-]

"Movement building" can mean a ton of things. I would actually like to taboo it since it's so broad. We should evaluate individual ideas on what they actually achieve.

Things that EA folks have done which seem like they might be "movement building" --

  • giving TED talks
  • running the EA camp at Burning Man
  • putting on the EA Summit
  • founding GiveWell
  • posting on the EA Facebook page
  • pledging to give 10% of income

you see, these things are all quite different...

Comment author: jkaufman 30 March 2014 03:46:03AM *  2 points [-]

A few more examples of movement building:

  • Hosting/attending meetups
  • Writing blogposts
  • Getting media coverage
  • Coining terms
  • Introducing people to each other
  • Drawing Jack Chick-style pamphlets and handing them out on street corners
Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 27 March 2014 11:48:00AM 0 points [-]

Also, as Ben notes,

Given these considerations, it’s quite surprising that effective altruists are donating to global health causes now. Even for those looking to use their donations to set an example, a donor-advised fund would have many of the benefits and none of the downsides.

Comment author: jkaufman 28 March 2014 01:29:01PM 0 points [-]

Even for those looking to use their donations to set an example, a donor-advised fund would have many of the benefits and none of the downsides.

Still not so sure. Legibility and inferential distance are major constraints here. When trying to explain earning to give it's much easier if the "give" part is something obviously good. Donor-advised funds combined with an intention to choose effective charities aren't "obviously good" in the same way as a donation to a charity.

Comment author: jkaufman 25 March 2014 06:43:45PM 7 points [-]

A relatively tame one: make a huge number of tiny donations to effective charities. Donations small enough that they cost more to process than they're worth:

The most extreme case I've seen, from my days working at a nonprofit, was an elderly man who sent $3 checks to 75 charities. Since it costs more than that to process a donation, this poor guy was spending $225 to take money from his favorite organizations. -- GivingGladly

Comment author: blacktrance 20 March 2014 05:23:17PM 1 point [-]

I associate genders with digits, not numbers - so 15 is 1 and 5, 26 is 2 and 6, and so on. 3 is female.

Comment author: jkaufman 21 March 2014 12:13:39PM 1 point [-]

Neat; thanks!

Comment author: blacktrance 19 March 2014 05:37:58PM 2 points [-]

I associate genders with digits, based on their shapes. 1, 4, 5, and 7 are distinctly male. 0, 2, 6, 8, and 9 are distinctly female.

Comment author: jkaufman 19 March 2014 09:34:04PM 0 points [-]

3? 15? 26? 52? -1?

View more: Next