What if one considers the following approach: Let e be a probability small enough that if I were to accept all bets offered to me with probability p<= e then the expected number of such bets that I win is less than one. The approach is to ignore any bet where p <=e.
This solve's Yvain's problem with wearing seatbelts or eating unhealthy for example. It also solves the problem that "sub-dividing" a risk no longer changes whether you ignore the risk.
A possible dark explanation:
-The main reason people cared about lesswrong was that Scott and Elizier posted on lesswrong. Neither posts on lesswrong anymore. Unless some equally impressive thinkers can be recruited to post on LW the site will not recover.
Phill presumably believes in Divine Command theory. But its not really obvious why "Divine command theory" really solves the problem. For example consider the following passage: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - Imagine Phill was an Amalekite. Then the murder of his whole family would be morally righteous?
Just bought the book for 5 dollars via paypal!
I have already read most of the sequences but not in a structured way.
I tend to repeat the "Glory Be" over and over when someone I love dies. This is a very short Catholic prayer that goes:
"Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."
Imo saying "Glory be" to (Non-existent) God feels like a good way to accept the loss.
I really do not understand how "ruthless truth telling" is supposed to work. Lots of behavior is motivated by reasons that cannot be said aloud with hurting people. What if my reasons are things like "I think X person is pretty dull and I am not interested in what they have to say." There are alot of unpleasant feelings in most people's heads (including mine). I would strongl prefer these unpleasant feelings not be spoken aloud.
This is the first time I have encountered the idea of freezing cells. Is this a viable options for people who are not rich?
Speed x 100 would almost certain make a normal intelligence person very smart. Speed x 100 means one week for you is 2 years for them. Maybe you couldn't beat Einstein. But imagine some common tests of intelligence such as the Putnam or a normal IQ test. People have 6 hours (in two blocks) to finish the Putnam, 600 hours is 25 days. And presumably you are not sleeping during those 25 days. If a normal person gets 3 minutes to finish a problem on a certain iq test you have 5 hours.
On the margin I think its usually better to take less and/or easier courses. It is better to do very well on an easier schedule than do "ok" on a hard schedule. If you apply for a job or grad school everyone will look at your gpa. If a semester is too easy this is not a serious problem. You can always read an extra textbook or do some coding projects in your spare time. Next semester you can up the difficulty. If a semester turns out to be too hard and you do badly the penalties are real (though survivable).