Have you ever had a moment where they could not directly recall something, but you could recall it indirectly, if you were given a list of words with the correct one in it?

I'm going to try this for myself with Anki, but I'm curious if anyone else ever had this. Something like the information is stored, but cannot be retrieved.

For example: "What is the ___ word?"

1) Right 2) Code 3) Missing 4) Test

Any of those don't seem inappropriate, but option (3) should be the correct answer.

1. Are you going to print it yourself or pay a printing company? Printing it yourself can be some work (binding all the pages and the cover) but maybe a printing company wouldn't want to print it due to licensing issues.
2. Will you be using the HPMOR PDF? It was (probably) made to be identical to the style of the original HP books, but it's your choice if you want to keep it that way.

Exercise

In previous attempts at exercising, I've never lost weight; never gained in strength or dexterity; never even gotten a second wind. I've never met any significant exercise goals. But in the long-term, exercise is still worthwhile. So I'm trying something new: Changing my self-conception to Someone Who Exercises Daily. No expectations of any gains, rewards, or second winds. Just someone who slogs through the painful routine each day, every day.

I've picked a routine that can be done anywhere, with no equipment: Burpees, in descending sets (ie, for 15, do 5, 4, 3, 2, 1; for non-triangular numbers, add at the start, ie for 17, do 7, 6, 3, 2, 1), adding 1 per day. (Supposedly, burpees work all the major parts of the body, etc, etc.) If-and-when I make it to 30-descending, I'll consider changing it up.

Today: Did 5 burpees.

Also today: Set up https://twitter.com/DPR_exercise to semi-publicly keep track. (Or, as an RSS feed, http://twitrss.me/twitter_user_to_rss/?user=dpr_exercise .)

More generally, I assume your reasoning here to be that actual food digestion is not a 1:1 to, say, food labels. Correct?

Yes, but more importantly, I ask whether the difference between "food labels" and "actual food digestion" may depend on the specific person. To use your example, some person may be able to better extract calcium from food than other person, either because their genes create different enzymes, or because their gut flora preprocesses the food differently.

Now apply this argument to the calories themselves. Is it possible that two people eat the same food, yet one of them extracts 1000 calories from the food, and the other extracts 1500 calories?

Define your 'work'.

Well, you have just returned my question. I was curious whether there are ways to spend calories that most people would forget to think about when thinking about "work".

For example, whether it is possible that we could observe two people the whole day and conclude that they do the same things (same kind of work, same kind of sport) and therefore their "calories out" should be approximately the same, while in reality their "calories out" would differ because one of them e.g. wears a warmer sweater.

Adding these two questions together, I am asking whether it is possible to have two people eat the same food, do the same amount of work and sport, and yet at the end of the day one of them gains extra calories and the other does not.

I have heard repeatedly the argument about "calories in, calories out" (e.g. here). Seems to me that there are a few unspoken assumptions, and I would like to ask how true they are in reality. Here are the assumptions:

a) all calories in the food you put in your mouth are digested;

b) the digested calories are either stored as fat or spent as work; there is nothing else that could happen with them;

and in some more strawmanish forms of the argument:

c) the calories are the whole story about nutrition and metabolism, and all calories are fungible.

If we assume these things to be true, it seems like a law of physics that if you count the calories in the food you put in your mouth, and subtract the amount of exercise you do, the result exactly determines whether you gain or lose fat. Taken literally, if a healthy and thin person starts eating an extra apple a day, or starts taking a somewhat shorter walk to their work, without changing anything else, they will inevitably get fat. On the other hand, any fat person can become thin if they just start eating less and/or exercising more. If you doubt this, you doubt the very laws of physics.

It's easy to see how (c) is wrong: there are other important facts about food besides calories, for example vitamins and minerals. When a person has food containing less than optimal amount of vitamins or minerals per calorie, they don't have a choice between being fat or thin, but between being fat or sick. (Or alternatively, changing the composition of their diet, not just the amount.)

Okay, some proponents of "calories in, calories out" may now say that this is obvious, and that they obviously meant the advice to apply to a healthy diet. However, what if the problem is not with the diet per se, but with a way the individual body processes the food? For example, what if the food contains enough vitamins and minerals per calorie, but the body somehow extracts those vitamins and minerals inefficiently, so it reacts even to the optimal diet as if it was junk food? Could it be that some people are forced to eat large amounts of food just to extract the right amount of vitamins and minerals, and any attempt to eat less will lead to symptoms of malnutrition?

Ignoring the (c), we get a weaker variant of "calories in, calories out", which is, approximately -- maybe you cannot always get thin by eating less calories than you spend working; but if you eat more calories than you spend working, you will inevitably get fat.

But it is possible that some of the "calories in (the mouth)" may pass through the digestive system undigested and later excreted? Could people differ in this aspect, perhaps because of their gut flora?

Also, what if some people burn the stored fat in ways we would not intuitively recognize as work? For example, what if some people simply dress less warmly, and spend more calories heating up their bodies? Are there other such non-work ways of spending calories?

In other words, I don't doubt that the "calories in, calories out" model works perfectly for a spherical cow in a vacuum, but I am curious about how much such approximation applies to the real cases.

But even for the spherical cow in a vacuum, this model predicts that any constant lifestyle, unless perfectly balanced, should either lead to unlimited weight gain (if "calories in" exceed "calories out") or unlimited weight loss (in the opposite case). While reality seems to suggest that most people, both thin and fat, keep their weight stable around some specific value. The weight itself has an impact on how much calories people spend simply moving their own bodies, but I doubt that this is sufficient to balance the whole equation.

Can you give a picture of your workspace?[0] Mine is just a one screen with dwm[1]. dwm is simple and useful and I can easily switch between 'workspaces' with two buttons.

[0] Screencap works as well. [1] http://dwm.suckless.org/

There is also limited evidence from one study done in Indonesia in the late 1970s that horses, cows, carabaos (water buffaloes), goats, ducks, and bats could become infected with Zika, but there is no evidence that they develop disease or pose a risk for Zika virus transmission to humans.

CDC

a type of malaria that naturally infects macaques in Southeast Asia, also infects humans, causing malaria that is transmitted from animal to human

CDC

Is there a possibility that those diseases will move to a different animal?

Meta question: are there 'gray area' quotes that can fit both rationality and irrationality?

Let's take 'You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" for example. On the positive side, it means that you should definitely do X, because otherwise you could never get it. The gray area is that it's abstract and situation specific, there's nothing that guaratees success or failure. The negative side could end up you making a fool of yourself.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. It seems like rationality quotes provide wisdom, and things to consider. Irrationality quotes provide the opposite: they have faulty reasoning and should be things to avoid. This binary situation reminds me of the part of GEB where it discusses if machines are ultra-flexible or ultra-limited. Can a (ir)rationality quote have the paradox of being both useful and harmful at the same time?

open-source prisoner's dilemma

I believe the GNU GPL was made to address this.

It seems like we are moving in this direction, with things like Etherium that enable smart contracts.

Does anyone have proof that Etherium is secure? There's also the issue of giving whomever runs Etherium complete authority over those 'smart contracts', and that could easily turn into 'pay me to make the contract even smarter'.

Technology should enable us to enforce more real-world precommitments, since we'll be able to more easily monitor and make public our private data.

People are going to adapt. And I see no reason why would anybody share particularly private stuff with everyone.

And then there's the part where things look so awesome they can easily become bad: I can imagine someone being blackmailed into one of those contracts. And plenty of other, 'welcome to the void' kind of stuff.* Where's Voldie when you need him?