All of Falacer's Comments + Replies

Falacer50

Thank you, that seems to have worked. Lightcone is now listed as eligible for matching on Benevity - will donate next week.

9legobridge
Thank you, my US employer uses Benevity too and I found Lightcone without any problem, probably because of this thread. My employer is doing a 2x match due to Giving Tuesday so my contribution got tripled!
Falacer70

My employer's matching program currently doesn't accept Lightcone Infrastructure as a registered cause for donation matching, even though we're on your list of employer matching. We use Benevity, and the portal says that "a registration email has been sent to the cause", and that the cause should register through https://causes.benevity.org/ .

Is benevity registration on your list? I'd much rather donate with matching than without.

(From the UK, if that matters)

7habryka
Oh no! I just signed up for an account on Benevity, hopefully they will confirm us quickly. I haven't received any other communication from them, but I do think we should try to get on there, as it is quite helpful for matching, as you say.

Is this a specific case of the general argument that "you can't ethically financially interact with people who are sufficiently poorer than you(r reference class), except through charity"? I think the arguments here:

  • Sufficiently poorer people might not feel able to reject your offers
  • SPP might not be able to make the best decisions
  • You might be motivated to keep SPP that way, if you have the option of getting any utility from trading with them

are more general arguments than the specific case of factory building. I don't have a good answer to them, but kinda feel that it's disrespecting SPP's agency somehow?

2Viliam
I do not have a full solution to this, but my intuition says this: Suppose that it is ethical to employ your neighbor under certain conditions, and that you are already doing that. Then you find out that the average wage in Pooristan is 10 times lower than in your country. Ignoring the effect on your neighbor who may become unemployed when his job is outsourced, I would probably say that: * It is morally neutral to hire a person from Pooristan to work under exactly the same conditions, only for 10% of the salary you would offer in your country. * The right thing to do is to hire a person from Pooristan to work under exactly the same conditions for maybe 20% of your local salary. That way, you share the profit from the international trade. Note that you still profit a lot from this arrangement. * It is an exploitation to leverage this situation into offering worse working conditions, such as longer hours, health-damaging workplace, or abusing your employees in some other way.
Falacer20

I thought about it for about 5 minutes before deciding to script it, and got "fobs" and, annoyingly, dismissed "fres" as not a word.

I imagine if I had been more rigorous it wouldn't have taken long to get all the 4 letter ones, since they all have an internal vowel, which was the obvious place to start looking.

Falacer70

I wrote a check for this property for all the words in my system's inbuilt vim dictionary and got the following list:

Rubbish Words:

er, Livy, Lyly, na, ob, re, uh

Interesting Words:

an, fans, fobs, gnat, ravine, robe, serf, tang, thug

0pianoforte611
I wonder how long it would have taken someone to find one of those without using a script. The human mind is pretty good at word based puzzles, but that's a very short list and a pretty wacky criteria.
2Vaniver
Thanks!
Falacer00

I'm in the same boat as you with regards to whether EPA/DHA has a bigger effect than ALA, but I was convinced enough to try to find some when I became vegetarian last year.

If you google "algal dha together" you'll find what I'm taking - meeting your criteria of vegetarian (vegan), eco-friendly and health-friendly (with aforementioned uncertainty)

ALA can also be found in flaxseed, soy/tofu, walnut and pumpkin, so you needn't stick to seaweed if you only want ALA.

Falacer10

I gave this a shot as well as since your value for E(T) → ∞ as T → ∞, while I would think the system should cap out at εN.

I get a different value for S(E), reasoning:

If E/ε is 1, there are N microstates, since 1 of N positions is at energy ε. If E/ε is 2, there are N(N-1) microstates. etc. etc, giving for E/ε = x that there are N!/(N-x)!

so S = ln [N!/(N-x)!] = ln(N!) - ln((N-x)!) = NlnN - (N-x)ln(N-x)

S(E) = N ln N - (N - E/ε) ln (N - E/ε)

Can you explain how you got your equation for the entropy?

Going on I get E(T) = ε(N - e^(ε/T - 1) )

This also looks wron... (read more)

1spxtr
S(E) is the log of the number of states in phase space that are consistent with energy E. Having energy E means that E/ε particles are excited, so we get (N choose E/ε) states. Now take the log :)
Falacer230

We could really use a new Aral sea, but intuitively I'd expected that this would be a tiny dent in the depth of the oceans. So, to the maths:

Wikipedia claims that from 1960 to 1998 the volume of the Aral sea dropped from its 1960 amount of 1,100 km^3 by 80%.

I'm going to give that another 5% for more loss since then, as the South Aral Sea has now lost its eastern half enitrely.

This gives ~1100 * .85 = 935km^3 of water that we're looking to replace.

The Earth is ~500m km^2 in surface area, approx. 70% of which is water = 350m km^2 in water.

935 km^3 over an a... (read more)

0DanArmak
Isn't it more of an indication of how much water can be contained in the Aral Sea basin? The plants don't need to contain all of the missing Aral Sea water at once, they just need to be watered faster than the Sea is being refilled by rainfall. How much water does rainfall supply every year, as a percentage of the Sea's total volume?
3mwengler
Dead Sea and Salton Sea leap to mind as good projects. Also could we store more water in the atmosphere? If we just poured water into a desert like the Sahara, most of it would evaporate before it flowed back to the sea. This would seem to raise the average moisture content of the atmosphere. Sure eventually it gets rained back down, but this would seem to be a feature more than a bug for a world that keeps looking for more fresh water. Indeed my mind is currently inventing interesting methods for moving the water around using purely the heat from the sun as an energy source.
Falacer80

Who are we expecting to have buried things there? I can come up with 6 possibilites, is there another you were thinking of?

Modern humans. In this most likely case it's probably not interesting, maybe some Propaganda Preservation Program from the Cold War.

Recent aliens. I would expect if any aliens were about to jaunt over, notice our space-faring potential and bury a cache for us to discover to mark our readiness to join the Galatic Federation, we would have probably noticed them in other ways by now.

Ancient aliens. Why would visitors before intelligent te... (read more)

Falacer00

Goldbach's conjecture is "Every even integer above four is the sum of two primes," surely?

Also, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that there are theorems which are true but non-provable, so you get something like:

P(X) = (P(will be proven(X)) + P(is true but unprovable(X))) / (P(will be proven(X)) + P(will be disproven(X)) + P(is true but unprovable(X)))

Is there a reason to suspect that a counterexample wouldn't be a very large number that hasn't been considered yet? Consider sublime numbers: the first (12) is a number which will be checked by any search process, but there is another which has 76 digits and, I would suspect, could be missed by some searches.

0DanielLC
Fixed. Thanks. It still only works on assumptions that might generally make good approximations, but aren't necessarily true. More to the point, Phil was suggesting that something is false on the basis that it would be difficult to prove if true, but easy to prove if false. In other words, he was using it specifically because that example was one where the implicit assumption in his approximation, that the relative values of P(will be proven(X)) to P(will be disproven(X)) are about the same as P(is true but will not be proven(X)) to P(is false but will not be disproven(X)), was particularly far from the truth. Suppose they'll check every number up to n. Suppose also that we're using a logarithmic prior as to where the first counterexample is. Suppose also we'll eventually find it. It has the same probability of being from one to sqrt(n) as from sqrt(n) to n. This means that if m, the number of numbers we've already checked, is more than sqrt(n), we've probably already found it. Since m is pretty big, we're probably not going to manage to check as many numbers as we've already checked m times over. Looking into it more, they've been using more clever ways to prove that it's true up to certain numbers, and we know it's true for up to about 4*10^18. It would be impossible to even check a number that size without some kind of clever method, let alone check enough to find the counter-example.