I've read this comment several times, and it seems open to interpretation whether RyanCarey is mocking orthonormal for presenting weak evidence by presenting further obviously weak evidence, or whether RyanCarey is presenting weak evidence believing it to be strong.
Just to lean on the scales a little here, towards readers taking from these two comments (Ryan's and orthonormal's) what I think could (should?) be taken from them…
An available interpretation of orthonormal's comment is that orthonormal:
As in, 5+ years ago, around when I'd first visited the Bay, I remember meeting up 1:1 with Geoff in a cafe. One of the things I asked, in order to understand how he thought about EA strategy, was what he would do if he wasn't busy starting Leverage. He said he'd probably start a cult, and I don't remember any indication that he was joking whatsoever. I'd initially drafted my comment as "he told me, unjokingly", except that it's a long time ago, so I don't want to give the impression that I'm quite that certain.
accumulated 30 points of karma from what seems to me to be… unimpressive as presented?
I upvoted on the value of the comment as additional source data (IIRC when the comment had much lower karma). This value shouldn't be diminished by questionable interpretation/attitude bundled with it, since the interpretation can be discarded, but the data can't be magicked up.
This is a general consideration that applies to communications that provoke a much stronger urge to mute them, for example those that defend detestable positions. If such communications bring yo...
The culture of Homo Sabiens often clashes pretty hard with the culture of LessWrong, so I can't speak to how this will shake out overall.
But in the culture of Homo Sabiens, and in the-version-of-LessWrong-built-and-populated-by-Duncans, this is an outstanding comment, exhibiting several virtues, and also explicitly prosocial in its treatment of orthonormal and RyanCarey in the process of disagreement (being careful and explicit, providing handholds, preregistering places where you might be wrong, distinguishing between claims about the comments and about t...
Schedule a script to nuke your history every X minutes?
Dropbox broke old public links with no way I could see of preventing the link rot (https://www.dropbox.com/help/files-folders/public-folder). See https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BxlExVbPZSCRdUNaZUFId05YY1k for all of my audio tracks.
Anyone else having trouble with keyboard input on Lesswrong? (Arrow keys and page up & down work for me on OSX Chrome, Firefox & Safari.)
I'm polyphasic on Everyman 3 since about March 2011 (Jan and Feb spent unsuccessfully trying to make Uberman work). According to my aging Zeo I get approximately the same REM and SWS as I did on 7.4hrs of monophasic sleep before I adapted. Nearly all of the SWS is in my 3hr core. On Uberman I never achieved enough SWS in my naps to get me through. The adaptation was ridiculously hard - both for how very unpleasant it was and for having to get through that while sleep deprived.
If that ever worked, it looks like Dropbox is no longer indexing:
Actually, I would suggest not focusing your attention on evolutionary anthropology while you're supposed to be piloting a multi-ton vehicle at high speeds.
When you're driving a daily commute your mind is going to wander unless you have extraordinary focus control / mindfulness training. It's not obvious to me that it's more dangerous to have it directed to evolutionary anthropology than to what you're going to do when you get home (or wherever else it wandered).
people with late stage cancers often have enough trouble eating as is (a large fraction actually die of starvation), and getting them to eat anything is an accomplishment. So at that level, for a lot of post-metastasis patients, this will be happening naturally anyways.
Starvation does not equal ketosis. If cancer patients are suffering from nausea and lack of motivation to eat anything, they and their carers may not select high fat low carbohydrate foods that would promote and sustain ketosis and may instead choose simple and easy to digest carbohydrates and sugary treats.
(Your comment upvoted.)
At TrikeApps our job ads say "Choose an appropriate file format for your resume – we’ll draw conclusions about you from the tools you use". Anyone who expects us to prefer a proprietary file format over LaTeX or PDF is probably applying to the wrong place :)
They're bold enough to punch through unendorsed aversions, they're not afraid to make fools of themselves, they don't procrastinate, they actually try stuff out, and they push on without getting easily discouraged.
For what it's worth, I'm a pretty successful entrepreneur and I'd say this more like:
...They manage on the whole to punch through many of their unendorsed aversions (at least the big ones that look like they're getting in the way), they're just as afraid to make fools of themselves as you are but they have ways of making themselves act anyway m
singularity.org, recently acquired after a rather confused and tacky domain-squatter abandoned it
I would not have described the previous owner of singularity.org as a domain squatter. He provided a small amount of relevant info and linked to other relevant organizations. SI/MIRI made more of the domain than he had, but that hardly earns him membership in that pestilential club.
He sold the domain rather than abandoning it, and behaved honestly and reasonably throughout the transaction.
Agree.
Thanks, and apologies if I wronged the previous owner. I have edited the post.
I expect to attend.
Judging by https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/melbourne-less-wrong/2dFTXTJRHZY and posts here (thanks Maelin) it's going to be a quiet one. I'll bring a couple of games in case we don't get critical mass for a raging storm of rational self improvement.
If you're doing anything else, you may also want to speed up the playback and shift down the pitch. To achieve that you may use a tool like Audacity (open source, many platforms, Effect > Change Tempo…) or SoundStretch. I use this to automate podcast shifting on my mac.
(duplicate comment removed)
Hmm… you're not being moderated. I'll followup on possible causes by PM.
There is, of course: http://hpmor.com/
Eliezer recommends The World of Null-A (which I've not yet read) and Eliezer and I recommend David's Sling.
Eliezer recommends Lawrence Watt-Evens's fiction. I merely point it out (it's not particularly well written or engaging, but it is nice to watch a protagonist be completely derailed from a quest to set up a business because he sees an opportunity).
We're planning on discussing ways CfAR (and anyone else) might measure practical rationality to provide feedback for their training.
All of the materials from the July minicamp are available at https://github.com/CfAR/core-materials … for those with access to that private repository. The modules are all in Markdown format and the project includes build scripts that make HTML and PDF "books" that select some or all of the material. The formatting needs some work, and the project needs an owner.
I think the CfAR brass are happy that I give access to Alumni of past minicamps, but I'll need to confirm that before I add anyone. If you're interested in having access to the materials,...
It seems not hard to implement naively.
Discussion threads would truncate for new users from new user comments (experienced user comments on new user comments would be invisible to new users).
Our caching gets more complicated.
Many candidate tests for "experienced" seem obvious, but some might be very easy to game (funny comments on HPMOR posts qualify you).
Sorry people - I should have posted when we did this. Leaving y'all in the dark was unkind.
Downvoted for putting more than one suggestion in a single comment.
Punish me for this anti-social act if you must, but as one of the dudes who tries to act after reading these suggestions (and tries hard to discount his own opinion and be guided by the community) this practice makes it much harder for me to judge community support for ideas. Does your comment having a score of 10 suggest 2.5 points per suggestion? ~10 points per suggestion? 15 points each for 3 of your suggestions and --35 for one of them (and which one is the -35?)?
Can we please adopt a community norm of atomicity in suggestions?
And, your body repartitions your sleep on a polyphasic schedule. My sleep really isn't like yours any more. See the bar charts waaaay down the page here: http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/post/8455/#p8455
We get about as much REM and SWS (deep sleep) as monophasic sleepers - about 90mins each per 24hrs. This is one hypothesis to explain why so many people (me included) have so much trouble adapting to the original Uberman schedule (which, properly adapted, gives you 50+ mins each).
I think 10hrs awake, especially while adapting, is going to be very tough. I think you want to aim for 4 to 6:30 hr periods awake. I know that that requires a nap during normal working hours - as I said in my minicamp unconference presentation (unconference: polyphasic sleep isn't endorsed by CfAR) I think you're going to have to try talking to your employer about it, or sneaking off during a break.
Duplicate http://bit.ly/poly-schedule-tool and play with the times in blue for my advice - the blue cells will turn red if I think what you're attempting is going to be hard to make work.
Yah - Wozniak is fairly well known in the polyphasic community for having very strongly held views that are directly contradicted by the experience of polyphasic sleepers. See for example http://www.puredoxyk.com/index.php/2006/11/01/an-attack-on-polyphasic-sleep/.
I did not gather objective evidence of the differences in my cognition before and after polyphasic sleep, but any differences are small enough that they're invisible to me and those who live with me.
(Note that there are a few LWers attempting or contemplating polyphasic sleep right now. If you are considering it seriously we'd love your participation in a data collection effort on before and after cognitive performance.)
Polyphasic Sleep
How to have 19-22hrs of fun every day
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107056/Minicamp2012/PolyphasicSleep/index.html
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/107056/Minicamp2012/PolyphasicSleep.zip
which includes at slides 114 and 115
...Theory:
http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/post/8455/#p8455
http://trypolyphasic.com/forum/topic/876/uber-and-everyma
I'd point out that being a polyphasic sleeper is a major confound here
Agreed.
… we all know that sleep is necessary for learning & long-term memory formation...
With some sleep phases more important than others. High quality evidence is thin on the ground here, but what is available says I'm getting a normal amount of REM and slow wave sleep, and nearly none of the other phases. Wiki (and other sources I've found) suggest that those are the sleep phases important in memory formation. (Note some studies listed on that wiki page have found napping t...
I tried Bacopa, found in some studies to improve learning and memory. It made me very sleepy in the day following taking it:
10 Aug Bacopa Good
11 Aug Bacopa Lethargic all day
12 Aug Bacopa Lethargic all day
13 Aug - Lethargic all day
14 Aug - Good
15 Aug Bacopa Good
16 Aug Bacopa Morning lethargy, clearing after 3hrs
17 Aug Bacopa Lethargic all day
18 Aug Bacopa Lethargic all morning
19 Aug Bacopa Lethargic, less than other days
20 Aug - Good
I've stopped.
Important: I'm a polyphasic sleeper: 3hr core, 3x 20mi...
Erm… that's security by obscurity in the same way that Wikipedia relies on security by obscurity, right?
I'll be there.
Ouch - downvoted, presumably because it's a dup. For the record, I raised http://code.google.com/p/lesswrong/issues/detail?id=327 and worked with John to fix the cause of the dup.
Deep down, under the annoying double post character defect, I try to be a good person.
Bayesian reformulations welcome.
I think "Popular" adds weight to recent comments. This seems to be a much worse way of achieving what "Best" shoots for.
The page expressly says "Supplement your rating by leaving a comment. Comments provide more information, but do not affect the reputation."
If you click "Rate this website" you can rate each scale as you wish. Surely some users choosing different values on the scales is a much simpler explanation than that the site programmers built in a more complicated rating system then lied about it?!
Can this be true? I don't know how to check it; googling "link:singularity.org" reveals nothing (but the functionality of "link:" seems broken or something; I'd be glad if someone could explain me how it works).
Google Webmaster Tools isn't helping here either: screenshot of webmaster tools
(Webmaster Tools Links to Your Site shows "No data available")
Your comments don't count, your ratings do: screenshot of WOT page showing relevant controls and explanatory text
(look for the green "Rate this website" link above right of the rating graphic)
See https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=55281
To find a sampling of links to any site, you can perform a Google search using the link: operator. For instance, [link:www.google.com] will list a selection of the web pages that have links pointing to the Google home page. …
…
See a much larger sampling of links to a verified site:
- On the Webmaster Tools Home page, click the site you want.
- On the left-hand menu, click Traffic, and then click Links to Your Site.
But the important part is this: Someone from SIAI should follow the link "Click here if you own this site", verify the site ownership, and request a review.
Done (with at stretch at the "someone from SIAI" part). Comment above
I've registered at WoT and requested a reevaluation. We're also making a couple of changes the WoT reevaluation request process seems to suggest are important (like more prominently linking the site's privacy policy).
http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/24394-singularity-org
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/singularity.org
Thanks! So it seems the previous owner of the "singularity.org" domain did some spamming. The other domain "singinst.org" has good rating.
EDIT: See here -- SIAI purchased the domain in April 2011, but the spam complaint was written in January 2012, which is later.
I want to design a reinforcement schedule in one of our apps. Can anyone link me to some specific guidelines on how to optimise this?
(Reinforce exactly what % of successes (30%? 26%? 8%?)? Reinforce performances in the top 10% of past performances (or the top 12%, or the top 8%?)? How does time factor (if the user hasn't used the app for a week, should I push a reinforcer forward?)?)
I'm looking for someone to help with me on a paid basis with statistical analysis. I have problems like the following:
1. When to inspect?
I have 10k documents per month steaming to office staff for data entry in offices scattered around the world. I have trained staff at HQ doing inspections of the data entry performed by the office staff, detecting errors and updating fields in which they detected errors. I will soon have random re-checking by HQ inspectors of entries already checked by other HQ staff.
The HQ staff currently detect errors on ~15% of docum...
I pushed all the way through. I'm signed up with Alcor, but feel very much as you do about how hard signup was, and how unlikely it is that Alcor will survive very long. I know only one other Australian who tried to sign up, and he also gave up in frustration.
(I've tried to volunteer my time and efforts to Alcor, and they can't organise enough to accept my help.)
There's some weight behind this proposal. Consider modifing the Anti-Kibitzer (http://lesswrong.com/lw/1s/lesswrong_antikibitzer_hides_comment_authors_and/1hvk) to do what you want (or adding a ticket to request same - http://code.google.com/p/lesswrong/issues/list).
Test comment:
It's too bad that automatic wiki editing privileges don't come with a certain level of karma
Hmmm... you know that wouldn't be too hard to arrange. Keeping the passwords in sync after a change to one account would be much more work, but might be ignorable.
I'm trying to apply the ITT to your position, and I'm pretty sure I'm failing (and for the avoidance of doubt I believe that you are generally very well informed, capable and are here engaging in good faith, so I anticipate that the failing is mine, not yours). I hope that you can help me better understand your position:
My background assumptions (not stated or endorsed by you):
Conditional on a contribution (a post, a comment) being all of (a) subject to a reasonably clear interpretation (for the reader alone, if that is the only value the reader is optimi... (read more)
There is an important class of claims detailed enough to either be largely accurate or intentional lies, their distortion can't be achieved with mere lack of understanding or motivated cognition. These can be found even in very strange places, and still be informative when taken out of context.
The claim I see here is that orthonormal used a test for dicey character with reasonable precision. The described collateral damage of just one positive reading signals that it doesn't trigger all the time, and there was at least one solid true positive. The wording ... (read more)