Assuming it doesn't clash with prior plans, I'd go.

Two and a half years later but, past-self, the term you're looking for is "Kaldor-Hicks inefficiency". It's part of cost-benefit analysis, and means the gains to the winning party from an intervention are not sufficient to compensate the losses of others.

It's your lucky day.

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you all. It's research for something I'd like to do with my local meetup group, and I'd appreciate your help.

1) Can you name one or more activities or experiences you find to be depletary, in the sense of ego depletion, (i.e. something that fatigues you along some psychological axis the more you do it). If they exist, I would prefer examples that are personally salient to you.

2) Can you name one or more unreasonable demands you feel you are under, psychologically speaking? I'm thinking of cases which you might phrase "I'd like to (not) do X, but my brain just won't let me". As an example, if I get into a protracted internet argument, I feel like my brain compels me to rehash the argument over and over again. This feels like an unreasonable demand from my brain, and I would like to not be subject to it. Again, personally salient examples are especially welcome.

Thank you.

Related: I have a messy selection of anecdotal and apocryphal evidence that exacerbating relative height differences between men and women has an immediate effect on how attractive they find each other, (i.e. if a [hetero] man is standing on a chair and looking down at a [hetero] woman, he will find her instantly more attractive than if he were standing at ground level, and vice versa).

That particular analogy (cf. "thinspiration") had occurred to me, though I suspect the general process (look at superstimulatory examples of what you aspire towards) is something most people have an intuitive grasp of, and I (and perhaps other people broadly like me, who are probably over-represented on Less Wrong) simply haven't cottoned on to it until now.

OK, a serious one now.

If you're looking to motivate yourself towards certain activities, use fictional characters as imaginary rivals.

For example, Stephen Amell is a ridiculously buff dude who plays the titular character in the TV show Arrow. He spends a non-negligible amount of screen-time prancing around with his shirt off. While this does not contribute to my hedonic appreciation of the show, I find myself a lot more motivated to get up and do some exercise after watching it.

I suspect this is my brain alerting me to the presence of a ridiculously buff rival who spends time prancing around with his shirt off, which results in some mechanism motivating me to compete along that axis. I also suspect this would work along different axes of rivalry. Watching lots of fictional smart people achieve lots of awesome fictionally smart things may be a good motivator for academic activities.

Use sand in your coffee instead of sugar. Not only is it free and devoid of calories, but since it doesn't dissolve, it can also be used over and over again.

Regardless of OP's objection, there's a strong counter to the assertion of solar power following a Moore's Law trajectory. Solar irradiance at ground level has a fairly hard limit of < 1200 watts/m^2. Even in the upper atmosphere it's not much more.

So solar cells may get more efficient, but their output isn't going to get exponentially greater over time. They may also become considerably cheaper, but the price of land isn't going down, and will remain a non-reducing term when calculating implementation costs.

It could be that you're referring to some other feature of Moore's Law I'm not considering, but in the intuitive sense of "my phone has more computing power than the whole of the 1960s", gains of that magnitude are simply not possible.