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

Comment author: Vaniver 20 January 2017 10:40:26PM 0 points [-]

Since you can embed Markdown in HTML, you might find that you don't need to convert the posts.

It's very possible that I'm confused here, or missing a cool technical trick. (And also maybe we should have separate Markdown and html editors, instead of forcing everyone to use one, which would also make it trivial to import all the old posts while still moving future posts mostly to Markdown.)

Is this something you need more people to help with?

More people would be appreciated! Email me for details.

Comment author: korin43 21 January 2017 01:21:25AM 0 points [-]

Inline HTML is valid in Markdown:

https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html

It sounds like the original Markdown has some extra restrictions how you close the outermost HTML tag, but I suspect most parsers ignore that part of the "spec".

Comment author: evand 19 January 2017 06:52:15PM 2 points [-]

I notice that I (personally) feel an ugh response to link posts and don't like being taken away from LW when I'm browsing LW. I'm not sure why.

I do too. I don't know all the reasons, but one is simply web page design. The external page is often slow to load and unpleasant to read in comparison. This often comes with no benefit relative to just having the text in the post on LW.

Additionally, I assume that authors on other sites are a lot less likely to engage in discussion on LW, whether in comments or further posts. That seems like a big minus to me.

Comment author: korin43 20 January 2017 02:30:37PM 1 point [-]

A related problem with link posts is that since I get sent to an external site, it's sometimes annoying to return to LW to upvote the post after reading it.

Comment author: Dagon 19 January 2017 07:04:52PM 9 points [-]

agreed on link posts. I wish posters had to write a sentence or two explaining why I should follow the link, and to jumpstart the comment thread.

Comment author: korin43 20 January 2017 02:18:51PM 0 points [-]

I think part of the problem is that you can't give a description with link posts, so the best you can do is add a comment with a description.

Comment author: Vaniver 19 January 2017 08:31:35PM 4 points [-]

So there will be the React-based UI, the Meteor middle layer, and some database (Mongo?) in the back? Who will host the server?

Apollo/GraphQL. I expect us to pay a typical hosting company to host the server; it's unclear yet who.

If you are already talking about migrating the database, do you have the front end pretty much ready, then?

Yes and no; Telescope's core is already fully functional and has a roughly similar data structure to Reddit, and so we can move posts to posts and linkposts to linkposts and comments to comments. So that part of the migration seems clear, and is the sort of thing that Trike has already done before (in moving from Overcoming Bias to Less Wrong).

But our customized version of Telescope will probably handle them differently than the core does. Suppose, for example, that we want to move from Less Wrong's html post creation to Markdown post creation, then we need to convert all the old posts (stored as html files) into Markdown source code for those files. And until we have the Markdown post creation the way we want it, it doesn't make sense to actually code it.

You have to be careful about switching over with an incomplete feature set as LW isn't terribly healthy and the transition shock might turn out to be very hazardous...

Yeah, I'm worrying about this. Switching before it's better than current LW is bad; switching once it's better than current LW is okay but might waste the "reopening!" PR event; switching once it's at the full feature set is great but possibly late.

Comment author: korin43 20 January 2017 01:36:35PM 0 points [-]

Since you can embed Markdown in HTML, you might find that you don't need to convert the posts.

Is this something you need more people to help with?

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 05:13:37PM 0 points [-]

Yes it is isn't it. It is also widely criticized. What Nash explains is that Keynesianism is simply an advance opaque form of bolshevik communism. It's an excuse to sell the public bad money under the label "good" money". Nash explains that we can view it as it has a missing axiom:

I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.

So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.

So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation.)

The axiom is effectively that our currency system should be arranged for a different result:

The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

People (these days) are trying to postulate and theorize about how we can idealize our money, or in other words, how can we design the perfect money. Nash (and Hayek) points out that perfect money is FREE from such design, and so its actually an logical absurd pursuit.

This is what Keynesians are doing with the argument "There is no better way but clear and admitted sanity".

Nash proposes a money: " …intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold"

But it is not by design per se.

He says everyone is Keynesians even post-Keynesians, can we understand that?

Also James Miller. I got in trouble from the community for saying that its silly that a game theory professor could never have heard of 20 years of Nash's works, especially his lifes passion, that is wholly and perfectly related to game theory. Do you think thats wrong of me to suggest?

Comment author: korin43 17 January 2017 07:19:08PM 0 points [-]

Maybe I've missed something, but why should we all agree that stability of value is a the most important feature of money? I could imagine a number of different views (for example, deflationary money is useful if you want to incentivize savings, and inflationary money is useful to incentivize spending).

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 04:44:24PM 0 points [-]

You figure that is the extent of John Nash's argument he spent 20 years defining for us? And you just defeat it in a sentence:

But don't we already have a global currency market?

Do you know who John Nash is? He is the guy that it took 40 years for us to recognize the significance of his works. Do you think maybe the significance has simply gone over your head?

Comment author: korin43 17 January 2017 07:12:34PM 2 points [-]

Yes, I think the significance has gone over my head. That's why I asked the question rather than making an assertion.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 04:02:38AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: korin43 17 January 2017 04:00:34PM 1 point [-]

The argument here seems to be that if currencies were freely tradable on a market, they would all converge to an optimal currency. But don't we already have a global currency market?

Comment author: gwern 05 January 2017 09:23:24PM 8 points [-]

Isn't this just the St Petersburg paradox?

Comment author: korin43 05 January 2017 09:32:48PM *  3 points [-]

The Wikipedia page has a discussion of solutions. The simplest one seems to be "this paradox relies on having infinite time and playing against a casino with infinite money". If you assume the casino "only" has more money than anyone in the world, the expected value is not that impressive.

See also the Martingale betting system), which relies on the gambler having infinite money.

Comment author: niceguyanon 04 January 2017 06:21:25PM 3 points [-]

They have confirmed it is AlphaGo.

Comment author: korin43 04 January 2017 06:55:37PM 2 points [-]

Source?

Comment author: paulfchristiano 31 December 2016 05:25:59PM *  6 points [-]

I agree that GiveWell does high-quality research and identifies effective giving opportunities, and that donors can do reasonably well by deferring to their recommendations. I think it is not at all crazy to suspect that you can do better, and I do not personally give to GiveWell recommended charities. Note for example that Holden also does not donate exclusively to GiveWell charities, and indeed is generally supportive of using either lotteries or delegation to trusted individuals.

  1. GiveWell does not purport to solve the general problem of "where should EA's give money." They purport to evaluate one kind of intervention: "programs that have been studied rigorously and ideally repeatedly, and whose benefits we can reasonably expect to generalize to large populations, though there are limits to the generalizability of any study results. The set of programs fitting this description is relatively limited, and mostly found in the category of health interventions" (here)

  2. The situation isn't "you think for X hours, and the more hours you think the better the opportunities you can find, which you can then spend arbitrarily large amounts of money on." You need to do thinking in order to identify opportunities to do good, which can accept a certain amount of money. In order to have identify a better donation opportunity than GiveWell, one does not have to do more work than GiveWell / delegate to someone who has done more work.

  3. By thinking longer, you could identify a different delegation strategy, rather than finding an object level recommendation. You aren't improving on GiveWell's research, just on your current view that GiveWell is the right person to defer to. There are many people who have spent much longer than you thinking about where to give, and at a minimum you are picking one of them. Having large piles of money and being thoughtful about where to give it is the kind of situation that (for example) makes it possible for GiveWell to get started, and it seems somewhat perverse to celebrate GiveWell while placing no value on the conditions that allow it to come to exist.

  4. In a normal world, the easiest recommendations to notice/verify/follow would receive the most attention, and so all else equal you might get higher returns by looking for recommendations that are harder.

  5. If you think GiveWell recommended charities are the best intervention, then you should be pretty much risk neutral over the scale of $100k or even $1M. So the cost is relatively low (perhaps mostly my 0.5% haircut) and you would have to be pretty confident in your view (despite the fact that many thoughtful people disagree) in order to make it worthless.

  6. The point of lotteries is not to have fun or prove that we are clever, it is to use money well.

Comment author: korin43 02 January 2017 01:00:14AM *  2 points [-]

I think my answer to all of this is: that sounds great but wouldn't it be better if it wasn't random?

If you have the skills and interest to do charity evaluation, why wait to win the lottery when you could join or start a charity evaluator? If you need money, running a fundraiser seems better than hoping to win the lottery.

If you think you're likely to find a better meta charity than GiveWell, it seems better to just do that research now and write a blog post to make other people aware your results, rather than the more convoluted method of writing blog posts to convince people to join a lottery and then hoping to win.

And if you aren't very interested in charity research, why join a donor lottery that picks the decider at random when you could join one where it's always the most competent member (100% of the time, GiveWell gets to decide how to allocate the donation)?

View more: Next