Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: username2 22 September 2017 08:36:08PM 0 points [-]

Is there a pdf version available for The Codex as it appears on lesserwrong ? I see it's different from the Library of Alexandria.

Comment author: username2 18 September 2017 05:10:47PM 0 points [-]

People sure like to talk about meta topics.

Comment author: cousin_it 18 September 2017 11:41:43AM *  1 point [-]

No, it gives plenty of non-symmetric solutions as well. Here's one:

8 1 8 9 9 1 4 3

6 5 4 0 4 9 0 3

6 0 2 7 2 9 5 1

8 2 7 8 7 4 1 3

3 9 2 9 3 8 6 1

2 4 7 8 9 7 6 7

2 2 0 6 6 3 3 7

9 9 7 3 7 9 3 3

Comment author: username2 18 September 2017 12:00:38PM 0 points [-]

This one is also attractive in that primes are not repeated.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 September 2017 09:25:39PM 1 point [-]

What do you think is the next invention that is compatible to nuclear bomb?

Anyone wants to come up with something else besides AI?

Comment author: username2 16 September 2017 06:38:12AM 0 points [-]

Drexlarian molecular nanotechnology?

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 11 September 2017 10:40:40PM *  4 points [-]

From my point of view, most of the "content" is in comments, not in posts, and being able to participate in the give-and-take makes the conversation even more worthwhile.

If content is content is content, why are your nasty comments typically about top-level contributions rather than comments? However little signal there may have been in chaosmage's post, your reply contained even less. It was at DH3 at best, plausibly DH0.

If content is content is content, and most of the content is in the comments, shouldn't we also call everyone in this thread who responded to chaosmage's post in earnest stupid?

When you assess your own contributions, do you think they are stupid? Do you think they are good enough to be top-level posts? If not, why exactly should should we hold your comments to a lower standard than we hold top-level posts to? Especially if the discussion is where the value is supposed to be found.

Frankly, I find your contributions consistently uninteresting and banal. Just in this comment, you managed to

  • Misread my comment. "If we take it more reasonably as a trade-off" - that's what I did. I discussed the both the costs and benefits of harsh replies (cf "The cost of an occasional bad post is not very high: you read it until you realize it is bad and then you move on.")

  • Strawman my comment. "I am also not interested in providing incentives for any content. There are places on the 'net with LOTS AND LOTS of content -- Facebook, Reddit, Buzzfeed, etc. etc." That's not what I advocated. I advocated taking in to account the counterfactual impact of nasty comments. Which is a point you still haven't responded to. Maybe it would be sensible to make comments harsher if we start to have the "too much content" problem. But that's not the current problem.

  • Introduce a non sequiter: "As I said several times I dislike the high-priesthood view of science and I dislike the high-priesthood view of forums as well. I am not particularly interested in having a few high-status people bestow their wisdom upon me in exchange for adoration." How is this relevant to our discussion? The issue here is you being nasty without adding any signal. Despite their username, chaosmage is no "high priest".

  • Respond at DH3 again: "First, that's false." Why is it false? As usual, you express disagreement without adding anything to the discussion.

Consistent with my position, I might tolerate you if your only issue was low-signal contributions. I might tolerate your constant need to disagree with everything if you weren't a jerk about it: "Hey chaosmage, I'm skeptical that the future is this easy to predict." I might even tolerate your toxic behavior if you were actually providing contributions of value. But your combination of low-signal contributions and toxic behavior is too much. You seem to think that flatly contradicting everything in sight makes you some kind of bold maverick. I see you as more of a poster child for this essay.

Show me the data.

During the period where LW declined, you have consistently been at or near the top of "TOP CONTRIBUTORS, 30 DAYS" on the sidebar. You spend more time participating than anyone else, so you set the tone for the forum. This was during a period where almost everyone agrees that things moved in the wrong direction.

At this point, due to all the time you spend here, Less Wrong has undergone evaporative cooling. Many of the users who remain are those who have an affinity for your brand of uninspired, disagreeable obstinacy. I know of at least 4 other people who agree with me that you, specifically, have been toxic for Less Wrong's culture. Some of these people I have a lot of respect for, in the sense that I learn things from talking to them. (I never learn things from talking to you.) These people spend a lot less time contributing to LW as a result.

What if you are the harbringer of Eternal September? Have you ever considered that?

I probably won't respond further in this thread, because I've found that arguing with you results in an exponentially growing tree of tiresome objections. You never seem to change your mind on anything and you seem to disagree just for the sake of disagreement. I don't ever get the sense that you have an underlying model of the world that informs your comments. It seems like you are more about disagreeing with everything in sight. And you seem to think that because you are disagreeing with people, it's OK for your comments to be held to a lower standard.

I will say that I really, really wish you would find somewhere else on the internet to hang out.

Comment author: username2 12 September 2017 11:19:24AM 1 point [-]

I think Lumifer can be annoying as hell at times. But has been entirely consistent from the very start and has continued to engage in entirely the same way with whatever members are posting here.

Perhaps the different post rating system in LW 2.0 (if successfully launched and managed) will allow members who don't like this sort of thing to more easily avoid or hide from this kind of dialogue but I expect (hope?) Lumifer will remain immune to shifts in the incentive structure.

Comment author: username2 14 August 2017 06:25:00PM *  1 point [-]

I'm currently going through a painful divorce so of course I'm starting to look into dating apps as a superficial coping mechanism.

It seems to me that even the modern dating apps like Tinder and Bumble could be made a lot better with a tiny bit of machine learning. After a couple thousand swipes (which doesn't take long), I would think that a machine learning system could get a pretty good sense of my tastes and perhaps some metric of my minimum standards of attractiveness. This is particularly true for a system that has access to all the swiping data across the whole platform.

Since I swipe completely based on superficial appearance without ever reading the bio (like most people), the system wouldn't need to take the biographical information into account, though I suppose it could use that information as well.

The ideal system would quickly learn my preferences in both appearance and personal information and then automatically match me up with the top likely candidates. I know these apps keep track of the response rates of individuals, so matches who tend not to respond often (probably due to being very generally desirable) would be penalized in your personal matchup ranking - again, something machine learning could handle easily.

I find myself wondering why this doesn't already exist.

Comment author: username2 12 August 2017 02:30:45AM 0 points [-]

Why is anonymous posting not welcome?

Comment author: username2 14 August 2017 10:47:32AM 0 points [-]

Fellow username2s, I think that's the least of our worries. Recent comments there: 7 days ago; 19 days ago; 23 days ago; a month ago. Although to be fair, it's not really about the content at this stage.

Comment author: username2 10 August 2017 12:56:10PM 5 points [-]

How is development of the new LW platform/closed beta coming along? Does it look like it will actually get off the ground?

I realize username2 will not be welcome there but am very interested in signing up with a normal username when it launches, if there's anything to sign up for. I'm hoping all the action there has just moved out of public view rather than just subsiding as it appears from outside.

Comment author: username2 12 August 2017 02:30:45AM 0 points [-]

Why is anonymous posting not welcome?

Comment author: username2 10 August 2017 12:56:10PM 5 points [-]

How is development of the new LW platform/closed beta coming along? Does it look like it will actually get off the ground?

I realize username2 will not be welcome there but am very interested in signing up with a normal username when it launches, if there's anything to sign up for. I'm hoping all the action there has just moved out of public view rather than just subsiding as it appears from outside.

Comment author: gjm 08 August 2017 01:37:58PM 1 point [-]

This is not the only case. For instance, the tops of the towers at heights 11, 17, 23 are collinear (both height differences are 6, both pairs are 2 primes apart).

Even if it turns out not to be relevant to the solution, the question should specify what happens in such cases.

Comment author: username2 08 August 2017 01:42:00PM 0 points [-]

As you say, there indeed many examples, even of three literally consecutive primes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_prime

View more: Next