I logged in just to downvote this.

Couple of notes...

We created a metric for strategic usefulness

What is that metric?

But it seems to many of us that there is a kind of “deep epistemic rationality” that doesn’t change one’s goals, but does help one make actual contact with the deep caring that already exists within a person.

I think this is a dangerous path to take. If you stay on it, I suspect that soon enough you'll come to the conclusion that absence of appropriate "caring" is irrational and should be fixed. And from there it's only a short jump and a hop to declaring that just those people who share your value system are rational. That would be an... unfortunate position for you to find yourselves in.

Where on this scale would CFAR place other training programs, such as MIT grad school, Landmark Forum, or popular self-help/productivity books like Getting Things Done or How to Win Friends and Influence People?

I would suspect that the data about the effectiveness of Landmark that you would need to make such an assessment isn't public. Do you disagree? If so, what would you take as a basis?

Unrelated to this particular post, I've seen a couple people mention that all your ideas as of late are somewhat scattered and unorganized, and in need of some unification. You've put out a lot of content here, but I think people would definitely appreciate some synthesis work, as well as directly addressing established ideas about these subproblems as a way of grounding your ideas a bit more. "Sixteen main ideas" is probably in need of synthesis or merger.

We know, and can formalize, what the upper limits of computing are. We have no idea what the upper limits of physics are. Even if we assume we know all the things there are to know about physics, that doesn't mean clever engineering can't come up with a way of doing it.

Even if you only move at a fraction of the speed of light, you could reach all the stars in a galaxy in a few million years. In the 1960s engineers came up with a way of travelling 1-10% of the speed of light using nuclear bombs. There was another proposal IIRC that used a giant collector in the front to grab hydrogen molecules, and could somehow reach 70% of the speed of light.

If you have nanotech, you can shoot millions of very tiny, pin sized or smaller, spacecraft at significant speeds. Even if only a tiny fraction reach their destination, the nanotech on board could self replicate, and create trillions more.

I would not call this rudimentary! This is excellent. I'll be using this.

Didn't someone also do this for each post in the sequences a while back?

IRC has this function also, but the affordances for using it are not as good. I think Slack is an upgrade to the IRC interface on almost every axis.

There are many shared Anki decks. In my experience, the hardest thing to get correct in Anki is picking the correct thing to learn, and seeing someone else's deck doesn't work all that well for it because there's no guarantee that they're any good at picking what to learn, either.

Most of my experience with Anki has been with lists, like the NATO phonetic alphabet, where there's no real way to learn them besides familiarity, and the list is more useful the more of it you know.

What I'd recommend is either picking selections from the source that you think are valuable, or summarizing the source into pieces that you think are valuable, and then sticking them as cards (perhaps with the title of the source as the reverse). The point isn't necessarily to build the mapping between the selection and the title, but to reread the selected piece in intervals determined by the forgetting function.

Is anyone willing to share an Anki deck with me? I'm trying to start using it. I'm running into a problem likely derived from having never, uh, learned how to learn. I look through a book or a paper or an article, and I find it informative, and I have no idea what parts of it I want to turn into cards. It just strikes me as generically informative. I think that learning this by example is going to be by far the easiest method.