= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Hilarious ayahuasca tourism article on RationalWiki. Convinced me not to go do it, in tandum with warnings around DMT health and safety
Yes there are dangers. Important to read up and have a safe setting. For me the biggest danger is fainting and hitting your head on the ground.
In response to
Meetup : First meetup of Rationality Zürich
Hey folks, the meeting was great thanks everyone!
If anyone was offended by something I said, rest assured it was not my intention.
Marko, I still can't access the fb group. :(
Books and topics I talked about with different people:
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science Also free online version available if you search on the web. The ETH library has also an online version for those who have access to it.
The Evolution of Human Sexuality
In response to
Meetup : First meetup of Rationality Zürich
There's also a facebook group and event:
Couldn't access this group. Is it private?
In response to
Open thread, Oct. 26 - Nov. 01, 2015
Using statistics to evaluate lawyer performance
Hello I remember reading an article somewhere about lawyer performance based on statistics of past successes. Does anyone know where it is? I googled but didn't get anywhere.
The reason I'm asking is that I'm looking for a lawyer right now, it involves international law.
Most sources I've read suggest that planting even very large numbers of trees would not do much to offset global warming, as mature forests have very little net CO2 sequestration effect. I've also read that the heating caused by the increased albedo of tree leaves offsets even the small gains from this one-time absorption.
Intuitively, it's fairly easy to see why any scheme for removing CO2 from the atmosphere is doomed to failure -- the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly low and you're working against entropy to remove it. This leads to very high energy consumption per unit mass of CO2 (far, far higher than the energy extracted from burning the fuel which created the CO2) which pretty much offsets any gains that you obtained by removing the CO2. The key is not to put CO2 there in the first place.
I'd love to be proven wrong about the argument to plant trees, as I'd personally love to see more trees around.
mature forests have very little net CO2 sequestration effect
Planting trees in forests won't make much difference. Planting trees in barren lands probably will make a difference, no?
In response to
Crazy Global Warming Solution Ideas
Plant trees. I wonder why this is not incentivized more, would be the ideal low-tech way to sequester CO2 and at the same time improve the landscape.
In response to
Meetup : First meetup of Rationality Zürich
count me in :-)
btw we already had one meetup http://lesswrong.com/lw/k97/meetup_zurichz%C3%BCrich_meetup_come_out_of_the/
It says:
The video is private.
Say someone offers to create 10^100 happy lives in exchange for something, and you assign them a 0.000000000000000000001 probability to them being capable and willing to carry through their promise. Naively, this has an overwhelmingly positive expected value.
If the stated probability is what you really assign then yes, positive expected value.
I see the key flaw in that the more exceptional the promise is, the lower the probability you must assign to it.
Would you give more credibility to someone offering you 10^2 US$ or 10^7 US$?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
-- The killer shortly before killing his victim in No Country for Old Men