I know it will take me 10 minutes to get gas, 30 minutes to go to the grocery store and some as-of-yet unknown amount of time to deploy a new build of a website to the production server (things might go smoothly, or I might be spending several hours trying to track down some configuration error).

If I can survive until tomorrow without filling my car with gas and getting food at the store, it doesn't make any sense to do those "fixed tasks" first and then risk not having enough time to complete the "flexible" (yet more immediately important) task.

Your examples conflate the idea of a task that takes a variable amount of time and task that isn't particularly important. You need to shower and dress for your appointment whether or not it takes 20 minutes every time. What you're really saying is, "do the most important tasks first then, if you have time, do some less important tasks" - which isn't particularly insightful.

Good lord. I haven't been on LW in quite a while, but I wholeheartedly agree.

The collection of articles currently on the front page are painfully useless to someone looking to discuss "the art of human rationality" rather than be inundated with content blatantly serving the interests of a particular company/organization.

This content will (for the most part) appeal to people already in the fold. But what, in any way would a newcomer to the site gain from articles titled:

• [ACRONYMYOUHAVENEVERHEARDOF] Is Hiring!
• Why Is Our Company Great? Click Here To Find Out!
• Donate Money To Us, Please!
• Read About What Our Company Does - It's Super Important!
• Please, Take Our Survey And Maybe WIN BIG!

Are these massively unfair oversimplifications of the actual content of the articles? Yes. Are these roughly along the lines of what a newcomer to the site will hear in their brain when they look at the front page? Almost certainly.

Could you specify whether you want answers as percentage probability, probabilities, odds, or expected number of launches? My answer was intended as a percentage

Google is enough and will be enough? They already doing this and that and everything?

Had Brin and Page thought like that, we would be on AltaVista. But there would be no AltaVista as well. Not even an iron ax.

Some people have no imagination, whatsoever. Most of them. Including very many on this site.

This is a crazy idea thread, remember? Someone may pick one of those ideas and put it into life. That's all that it is. I will not go into technical details, for sure.

The thing is, that every search you make, is going to be appended to the GLT. I said so, that each Google query can be just added to the table. But not only your Google query, if you choose so - but every GLT query as well.

But even without this option, your "register s" example would work better on GLT then on Google.

With this option on, so much easier.

I think you are underestimating what a tremendous pain in the ass it will be to manually filter through the massive number of associations with a particular string.

Millions of filters would be inside GLT, already. Yours may be added. It is a main advantage over Google. Quite obvious to me.

To build a giant lookup table. Google is a small giant lookup table, but we need a much, much bigger one.

Google is too much about interfacing with their table, but that should be put aside for the moment. What I want is to input any blob of data and output should be all possible relations this blob of data has with any other blob of data.

For example, if I input an integral (calculus), its solution (function) would be one of the natural outputs. If I input a picture, all pictures of the same object(s) is the natural answer this GLT should return. Then you can filter them further. It goes on and on. The table itself is constantly updated, of course.

The craziness of this idea is only in that I think it would soon replace Google. Otherwise it's quite basic.

I am not a deontologist, but it's clear you're painting the entire school of thought with a fairly broad brush.

However, deontologists would say that you don’t have the right to make that decision.

It is hard to argue against this conclusion, assuming that there is a strong moral obligation for Aaron not to flick the switch, along the lines of “Do not kill”.

I can’t see any pathway to find a logical contradiction, but I can’t imagine that many people would defend this state of affairs.

It is hoped that this post won’t be oversimplified into a, “this is why you are wrong” post, but to help deontologists understand and refine their commitments better.

The entire tone of the post reeks of strawmanning. There is no discussion regarding how different sets of deontological rules might come to seperate conclusions. Each premise is assumed to be correct and there is zero effort made to exploring why it might be wrong (see: steel manning). And finally, almost every paragraph ends with a statement along the lines of:

• "...it seems..."
• "...seems consistent with..."
• "...I can’t imagine that..."
• "...this doesn’t seem..."
• "...seems strange to suggest..."
• "...this seems like a very hard position to defend."

If you ignore the ethical prescriptivism, there's not a whole lot of substance left.

Is a major advantage of capitalism that it gives people who are naturally born sociopaths (but highly functioning such that they'll gain considerable influence over people) something do in a game that has at least some rules.

The FAQ links to that page. So presumably it's not terribly unsupported.

See http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FAQ