"Too big to fail" banks: they profit when their gambles pay off, we bail them out when they don't. Also arguably telecommunications carriers that have quasi-natural quasi-monopolies.

The whole "happiness limited by shyness/social awkwardness which results in no dates" stereotype does not apply to many people here.

It does to at least one.

I'm all for this. I've gotten sort of lucky by wandering into a path where I can be professionally and financially successful without needing social skills beyond not saying blatantly inappropriate things. But developing those skills would provide many more options, and give me a much better shot at making an actual impact on the world.

And yes, being involuntarily single for years is neither enjoyable nor conducive to productivity.

I came here to post almost exactly that. Additionally, it inspired me to make another donation to the SENS Foundation.

I reject that entirely," said Dirk, sharply. "The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something which works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, `Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.'"

Douglas Adams

After shutting up and multiplying, I agree those arguments are valid. This presentation by Anna Salamon is also instructive.

I'm uncertain as to whether funding for SIAI or anti-aging research provides the best marginal utility. Both would have a gigantic positive impact if successful; SIAI's would be larger but in my estimation anti-aging has a better chance of success. The matching donations tip the balance to SIAI today, so $900 more is on the way.

I do believe the political argument with number of donors may apply to SENS and MF, so I'm making smaller donations there. I'm disappointed that curing aging hasn't been mentioned during the frequent discussions of rising health care costs; with more publicity and more donors willing to make the obvious point that aging and death suck, it might. In my estimation it will be easier for them to go mainstream than SIAI, so I believe it's most effective to separately target my monetary and political support.

That was rather interesting. I got a 137 but beyond the first few questions I wasn't sure of any of them. Usually the best I could do was identify a possible sub-pattern, narrow down the options based on that, and make an educated guess. I think I did better on the ones with varying numbers of dots and lines compared to the ones with just the shapes moving and morphing.

Presumably if somebody took that test repeatedly (or possibly once if they're smarter than me), they'd figure out the class of algorithms being used and it would lose most of its value for determining immediate mental performance.

I tried it on two women at work and they both went for the million, one with no hesitation and the other after maybe 10 seconds. Although they both have some background in finance and are probably 1 to 2 standard deviations above average IQ.

That sort of attitude (among my opponents) is very helpful to my poker bankroll. You're giving up $60 for $50 of expected value. Even given your risk-seeking preference, surely you can find a better gamble. Putting it on a single number in roulette would be a better deal.