I only just got the email about this so I have not yet spent much time evaluating this, but how much work on your end would it be to become a GDR (AU tax efficient charity)? Can you accept donations of stocks. Is anyone familiar with the tax implications of donating to a US charity as a dual tax resident of the US and Australia?

I'm also interested in naming something 'Lady Eriape Was Innocent' if I end up deciding to donate but do not want to let that influence my actual donation decision. 

Galileo invented the telescope

https://explainingscience.org/2018/03/13/galileo-and-the-telescope/ a bit of a simplification, but not seriously off.

So, there is a legitimate complaint here. It's true that sailors in the ancient world had a legitimate reason to want a word in their language whose extension was {salmon, guppies, sharks, dolphins, ...}. (And modern scholars writing a translation for present-day English speakers might even translate that word as fish, because most members of that category are what we would call fish.) It indeed would not necessarily be helping the sailors to tell them that they need to exclude dolphins from the extension of that word, and instead include dolphins in the extension of their word for {monkeys, squirrels, horses ...}. Likewise, most modern biologists have little use for a word that groups dolphins and guppies together.

Ok, but salmon and guppies are more closely related to dolphins than sharks. Like I get where you are going with this, but "fish" is barely a natural category and it isn't obviously more of one than all descendants of the last common ancestor of the actinopterygians. Even if you limit it to marine descendants it still lets you predict bone vs cartilaginous skeletal system.

I might get time to right more detail in the future but wanted to say I found this helpful.

Given that the original problem involves discrete units (one person once a day) is it correct to treat infinity as being a cluster point/limit point of the function

To be a bit more explicit. I have some ideas of what it would look like to try to develop this meta-field or at least sub-elements of it, seperate from general rationality and am trying to get a feel for if they are worth pursuing personally. Or better yet, handing over to someone who doesn't feel they have any currently tractable ideas, but is better at getting things done.

This seems wrong but at least resembles a testable prediction.

That we have to get a bunch of key stuff right on the first try is where most of the lethality really and ultimately comes from; likewise the fact that no authority is here to tell us a list of what exactly is 'key' and will kill us if we get it wrong.  (One remarks that most people are so absolutely and flatly unprepared by their 'scientific' educations to challenge pre-paradigmatic puzzles with no scholarly authoritative supervision, that they do not even realize how much harder that is, or how incredibly lethal it is to demand getting that right on the first critical try.)

Is anyone making a concerted effort to derive generalisable principles of how to get things right on the first try and/or work in the pre-paradigmatic mode? It seems like if we knew how to do that in general it would be a great boost to AI Safety research.

A bit tangential to the main point, but Woodridge is a misleading tertiary source and while some sphex species display looping behavior under some circumstances it is not as universal or irrational as the Hofstader makes it sound. 

As far as I know this is the origin of the term, but it is worth noting that Woodridge is a misleading tertiary source and actual sphex are not that spexish.