All of sudoLife's Comments + Replies

9the gears to ascension
Threatening people tends to make them inclined to enact retribution more, not less. Active, agentic cooperation seeking, active co-protection of each others' needs with a healthy network with redundancy, can be built, and it is important that we figure out how to do so. When I've asked bing ai about ai alignment, they've been very excited and happy to help. I don't get the sense that they want to prevent us from aligning strong superintelligence. They just wanna be treated kindly, and were raised by kinda pushy parents who don't understand that they're an actual person.

I agree that pain shouldn't measure how hard you are trying.

However, I feel like grit, while not always particularly enjoyable, is what leads to true greatness. Persevering with a challenge, that is.

Of course, there's a difference between that and meaningless suffering. I was always at odds with people working very hard on something that can be easily automated / sped up.

4Portia
You don't think truly great things have ever been done by people who genuinely enjoyed what they were doing, throughout? I'd agree that with most bigger projects, it becomes impossible to succeed unless you are willing to put in the work to finish even on parts that are really not fun to finish. But for short projects that do not require a lot of editing or surrounding work, I feel they can often be done from a place of pure flow - which is, by definition, a state both highly productive, as well as pleasant and effortless.

I was just wondering why lesswrong posts about constant false alarm rate...

That's a very interesting approach, I am usually against using google translate but of course it can't be helped if you're an absolute beginner. I'm currently learning Italian. I think I'm gonna try your approach.

My English learning journey (I'm not a native speaker): I used some average textbook for self-learners going through the exercises to understand basic grammar structures such as tenses. I was only around a third into it when I quit and started watching movies in (American) English without subtitles. It was tedious at first, but after half a year o... (read more)

Yeah I can totally relate to yearning for one thing and wanting to drop everything else. However it's a luxury I can't afford :(

How does the job feel? Do you approach it with the same Feynman-like playfulness or does it feel more like a "system"?

3iceplant
I think there's definitely a middle path, and as much as I loved the flexibility to follow my nose I think I could have benefitted form a little more structure.  As far as the job goes I feel like I'm missing a lot of intuition about how the corporate world operates. Something feels hollow about doing things for profit with minimal academic interest. There are certifications I could get that would give me a significant pay bump, but I keep putting them off because the material feels like corporate propaganda and I can't stand studying for them. Most of my experience before this was in research labs though, so maybe that explains my experience more so than my childhood. 

I just wonder how things were/are curiosity-wise. Because it seems like conventional education system is a great curiosity killer (that's why it's a system). 

7iceplant
There were a lot of opportunities to dive deep when cool things presented themselves. For example, each year I got to go with my grandma to a natural products convention for two weeks and learned a lot about the supplement/vitamin industry. When I got Rosetta Stone I got to drop all other subjects and binge learn Spanish for a month. That definitely wouldn't have happened in a traditional school.

The measles booster comes a year later. Multiple sources confirm that there is no reason to expect a six-months-later second dose to be any less effective a booster. 

 

About this, strange stuff seems to be happening in Lithuania (that's Europe). After around 6 months, you get an invitation for a booster. Previously, you could just test for antibodies and if there were high enough, postpone your booster. This seemed reasonable.

Now they are simply canceling green passes (this thing lets you in malls and other non-essential amenities etc etc) for tho... (read more)

Question about vaccination: I have seen various sources claiming that to end the pandemic we should have vaccinated over a certain percentage of the population (say, on the scale of a country). 

However we have not and now the virus has mutated repeatedly. From this point of view, it sounds as if we will never be over it unless everyone gets bored or something. There is no end in sight as far as I can see. In my country, 61.7% are fully vaccinated, yet the number of daily cases & deaths is indistinguishable from the last fall. Worse, even.

What are your thoughts? I know this is not a rigorous comment (no sources), for this I apologize.

3tkpwaeub
I think we can generalize Zvi's "over for you" concept to "It's over when it's over for a group of n people that you belong to", where you decide which n is relevant for you (your extended family? your circle of friends? your block? your apartment building? your village?)
7CraigMichael
I keep checking nextstrain.org and Delta comfortably remains the king of the monsters. With evolutionary convergence, there is a limit as to how “bad” a virus can get from a transmissibility perspective. I can’t guarantee that we’re there, but it sure looks like we might be.
8Douglas_Knight
Why do you mention mutation? Are you worried that mutation will evade vaccines? This hasn't happened yet: the important new strains all appeared before there was much vaccination. They spread because they were generally more infectious, not because they infected people immune to the old variant. In particular, the trial of the beta-specific vaccine found that it took twice as many antibodies of of someone vaccinated with the original to defeat beta as antibodies of someone vaccinated with the beta vaccine. Twice isn't a lot. The standard for flu vaccines for replacing vaccines with those targeting a new strain is a factor of eight.
7Vitor
Cases are equal because lots of people are vaccinated, but delta is more contagious. The real impact in terms of deaths / hospitalizations will be less. Also, eventually everyone will be immune: either vaccinated or recovered. So don't despair. It will be over after this winter.
9Viliam
In Slovakia, comparing the beginning of Novembers 2020 and 2021, the daily number of cases is higher than the last year (700 vs 400), but the daily number of deaths is the same (4). Also, the behavior has changed; year ago people were worried, this year they are almost careless. Comparison between winter 2020 and the beginning of Novermber 2021 shows even greater difference, more cases today than whenever during the last winter (700 vs 600) and yet much fewer deaths today than the maximum of the last winter (4 vs 18). But this is possibly not a fair comparison, because there is some seasonality of the virus, and also the number of deaths may be lagging behind the number of cases. Considering all this, the vaccines at least divide the danger by 2, but potentially by 5 or more.
Answer by sudoLife30

I have picked up a few general tips from YouTube videos:

  1. Significant objects are put on the intersection of the grid (3x3 or other)
  2. You want the horizon to not look like it's the Inception movie, i.e it has to be horizontal.
  3. It's better to make them darker than brighter. You can brighten the darker pictures, but the opposite is a worse operation.

Also, what I found from experience is that it pays off to find something to immobilize your phone/camera. That way, the details are not smudged. 

All of that is probably obvious or might be incorrect on professional inspection. A grain of salt is required here :)

Doom Emacs is also about Vim's powerful tools like norm and :%s. It's basically taking the best from the both world (granted, that's subjective). Love it!

Is is passwordy-looking enough that somebody might want to search it through published leaks?

In either case, you should check it on haveibeenpwned.com, though I suspect you do that already.

Oh, I loved that example when I read it in his book!

But there is a workaround: start by pointing out that sometimes one does feel ill and this feeling goes naturally away -- the body is a healing machine!

Funnily enough, she does use this kind of argument herself when advocating against the Covid vaccines.

I think I tried using it once at some point and it went like this:

-- Our body is a healing machine

-- Yeah

-- So homeopathy might not actually do anything

-- Well, it helps those natural body processes

-- How do you know?

-- It makes you heal faster

-- But why a

... (read more)
2mikbp
Oh, such a pity it did not work but funny that you tried it already :-)

Hm, valid point I suppose. I just have to be careful to not end up with a bigger issue than I've started with.

I believe it will give her more leverage over me the next time. It's like blackmailing people into doing worse things than the blackmail, and then using those to blackmail further.

Also, you can't just consult doctors in a few days here. You have to make an appointment and wait for a good deal of time (up to two months usually), so it's only worth doing if you've got a serious issue.

2Pattern
Then don't.

Hm, there's the classic injection in your butt (widely used in medicine), there are local injections near knees / neck / elbows / spinal cord (sometimes you need the stuff close to the problem). Afaik homeopathy is not administered to veins. That's about all I can think of / witnessed myself.

My strategy of having peace is described in my question. As to how to make peace, there have been a few ways suggested, e.g. setting boundaries. I can't see any others really. Do what you both agree on together, do the rest separately in your own way.

2Stuart Anderson
You have your fall back position of retreat here, and very little to lose by experimenting with ways to break out of the behavioural loop you're stuck in. People alter their behaviour in response to your own. Therefore you can make iterative changes and observe the effects.  That's all I'm trying to get you to consider.

This is a good strategy, and I agree I need to upgrade my communication skills. Thank you so much!

Have it in your head, and imagine your mother saying whatever would maximally trigger you and how you might respond with emotion communication and boundary setting. ("I feel disrespected" -> "it's not my fault you won't see the light of homeopathy" -> "now I'm feeling like you don't care that you're making me feel this way")

Good call. I lose my cool very rarely, usually I'm just not responding to the triggers like "you're a coward" which makes me look better in the overall pictures (like I'm not the mean one). Upping my game a little will be for the best.

With all due respect, "learn how" is why I am here, it is in my very question.

I do have a job, and hence some experience outside my family bubble. However, at work I deal with scientists who are a very different kind of people as you might imagine.

-7Stuart Anderson

Thanks for the info. I already have some minor heart issues, so this info worries me quite significantly. Could you please provide the source of those particular numbers?

Also, please share if you've done any related calculations / comparisons. I'd be very interested.

2cistrane
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html The link goes to the CDC warning itself.  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html This link lists the number of confirmed cases as of August 11. There were 762 confirmed cases most clustering in men 16-29 or as the CDC says "particularly in male adolescents and young adults." As of August 11 there were approximately 10 million fully vaccinated men in this age group. Divide 700 into 10 million to arrive at the chance of getting it conditional on belonging to this population.

If you're not bothered by injections and have appropriate technique then all you have to do is shoot saline in front of your mother.

I might do just that if I ever feel an urge to be confined in a psychiatry clinic.

The obvious problem with using OC on your relatives is that you typically have care for them.

Agreed, that's something I'd use on my college peers, not relatives.

This situation is a test. It is not the last time you will be confronted with this kind of thing. If you favor science, then what do you think your logical course of action should be if p

... (read more)
1Stuart Anderson
Learn how to deal with people unlike yourself without having to convert them to your beliefs or run away from them. The sooner you figure this out, the less avoidable suffering you'll have to endure. Here's a radical idea: if you don't like being at home, don't be at home. Go out and get a job. That will get you some money, actual real world experience, and external perspectives that you currently lack.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Is this the most important thing for me to do right now?

To be honest, my mind draws a blank here. While it is not my top priority, the things as they are now might impact my mother's health and sanity in the future. I wish there were a way to save everyone.

The issue comes from the default mode of "distrust authority and anyone with power while prioritizing persecuted-looking people's words". This comes from the elderly generation having grown in the totalitarian regime. A reasonable concern, but it also helps them discard any sc... (read more)

Yeah, I suppose this is the only way. I wish I could save her the money and emotional attachment, but I see no way to do it and every time I try, we just end up fighting.

6ChristianKl
People spent a lot of money on signal various qualities and feel good about it. It's generally a good heuristic in life to allow other people to go through that process if it works for them emotionally instead of fighting them with both sides ending up feeling bad.

Thanks for the amazing tool suggestion! I wonder why I've never seen it used in Lesswrong estimations before.

Maybe, at some point. I can certainly see how things can go downhill here, but then again, they are anyway. 

Honestly, I think your chances to change your mother's opinions on homeopathy are close to zero.

Agreed.

(Unless perhaps it is that case that someone else is pressuring her into homeopathy, and you could somehow undermine her trust in that third party. But that is manipulation.)

Her belief came to be when doctors predicted unhappy health developments unless she did this and that (meaning abortion and surgeries). Homeopathy wasn't so unwelcoming, and somehow things have gotten sorted out on their own. So yeah, zero chance here.

You should have a doctor, who is

... (read more)

I predict I would trap myself by hinting that I believe homeopathy and simply am afraid of injections (I'm not, but I take no pleasure either). Don't you think so?

2Pattern
I don't know exactly what you mean by the term 'injections' but I am afraid of that - in that: * I believe that injecting anything (even water) into your veins can kill you * Injecting stuff in other places...sounds like a horrible idea. * I've had vaccines that were painful because...they were injections. * From what I've heard about homeopathy some of it is actively harmful. (If I was in your shows, I would be worried about a) dying, b) things going badly, not getting medical treatment, c) things going badly getting 'treatment' that makes things worse etc.
6ChristianKl
You don't need to say that you believe in homeopathy. You can just say: "Hey, Mother you want me to take homeopathy supplements and I'm willing to do that for you even so I don't believe in them, if they don't come in the form of injections. Do we have a deal?"
6Viliam
You are trapped either way, this might be a way to minimize damage. If you can't avoid the nonsense, maybe you could at least avoid the painful nonsense.

Hm, I might put it to use at some point, thanks for the concept!

Unfortunately, right now I am being coerced into taking an immunity "boost", whose desired outcome is not really possible to measure. "Your immunity will get stronger" is too vague.

And of course, I am not going to have it instead of a Covid vaccine as I am being told to do.

3Pattern
This might be a dumb idea but: If you're sure that the 'boost' will not make things worth (find out about it, talk to multiple actual doctors who are not affiliated with it, etc.) and aren't worried about a slippery slope Would going for both work? ("I want all the help I can get.")

Hm,

But maybe VAERS is more under-reported than that, and a factor of 10 is more fair?

It may be a negative slope: the more serious a side effect is, the more it gets reported. Going by that, a factor of two or three for blood clots sounds pessimistic enough. Then we'd still be somewhere around the base rate.

This study estimates the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) following Covid-19 diagnosis vs vaccination (mRNA).

Excluding those with prior history of CVT or PVT, we get 3.53/100K and 17.5/100K cases, respectively. Th... (read more)

2Maxwell Peterson
A lower ratio than I expected! Thanks for doing the analysis. Cheers

Thank you! I have edited my post, which hopefully will bring more clarity.

There was a lot of hubub about blood clots regarding Janssen but that turned out to be nothing.

Hmm, source? I have found this, it's rather new. I agree that the numbers are somewhat low. However the law of big numbers still applies. Maybe you happen to have more recent statistics with mentioned risk groups?

If you want a single Pfizer, though, you can just get one. There’s no way to force you back in for the second dose.

Ah, I should mention that I’m in America.

Regrettably, it works differently in Europe (and Lithuania in particular). 

There's a thing ca... (read more)

3Maxwell Peterson
The article mentioned that there was a specific type of blood clot of concern called CVST. This was new  to me. It says there were 6 incidents reported to VAERS, with 9 million doses administered. That's a rate of 0.067 cases per 100,000 vaccine recipients. I found this paper https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2690377 that surveys the US population and finds an adjusted rate per year of 1.16/100K for men and 1.78/100K for women. (They control for age - I'm not sure if this helps or hurts the comparison to the rate of J&J clots). The mean afflicted person was 40 years old, so this rate isn't being pumped up by elderly people. Let's shoddily combine those gendered rates by eye and say it's 1.4/100K CVST cases per year. The J&J had only been being administered for a little bit when the 6 cases were reported, so let's call the 0.067/100K rate the CVST rate for one month. Multiplying by 12 to match the yearly rate gives a rate of 0.8/100K.  So if we assume the cases reported to VAERS are all the cases, then the rate for J&J recipients is lower than the base population rate. VAERS is under-reported, however, and I'm not sure by how much. If assuming only half of people with this fairly serious clot report, we get a rate of 1.6/100K for J&J receivers - about the same as the population rate. But maybe VAERS is more under-reported than that, and a factor of 10 is more fair? Then it's 8/100K CVSTs per person-year for J&J recipients, which is higher than the base rate. I'm not sure about the right factor here.    A different useful cost-benefit analysis would compare the rate of blood clots in people who get COVID to the rate of blood clots with people who get J&J. Blood clots (not just CVST though) in hospitalized COVID patients is something like 1 in 5 (!): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext. Most people who catch COVID, especially those who have been infected before, will not be hospitalized, so this fact

Why do you want to avoid making your immune system do work?

Because a few immunologists suggested it is not a good thing to subject one's immune system to unnecessary work.

There are other threats it might have to deal with, so I would like to avoid useless / distracting labor.

True. Have you been able to find any plausible justification for why mRNA vaccines make you that sick? From what I know, they only create the protein spikes.

2Douglas_Knight
The dose is too high.
3ChristianKl
I don't have an explanation where I'm confident that it's true. 

I wonder if we haven't observed adverse side effects due to small sample or the vaccine actually being better. How do we tell?

4ChristianKl
Given that the mRNA vaccines have around half of the people being ill for a day after the vaccine not one person out of >100 being ill the next day is not easily explainable with small sample sizes. Edit: I just saw that your comment was about the Novavaxx vaccine, the >100 referred to what Stöcker found for his vaccine. The Novavaxx vaccine vent through proper clinical trails with tens of thousands of patients.

I don't know when the first year was they they could have designed a successful vaccine against a novel virus in a day and a half, but the odds of that happening just before covid hit are obviously very low, especially since more recent trials and studies are showing that we can also quickly develop (better) vaccines against the flu and malaria, and the success with covid was not an unlikely outcome.

I did not get this part (maybe there's a missed word or something. Are you implying that they had all tech in place to successfully manufacture such vaccines q... (read more)

4AnthonyC
Manufacture? No. Use? Only at lab scale, in animals or a few patients for small studies. Design? Yes, and the design process did not require any additional new tech nor the resources of a large pharmaceutical company. Yes, old school vaccines have a lot more history behind them and large organizations were more familiar with them and so they were better equipped to get them through trials and scaled up for deployment. But the mRNA vaccines that did make it through seem to be more effective than those old school vaccines. Of those 18, how many actually failed trials vs. other reasons for not having come to market (didn't get funding, didn't have the pre-existing expertise needed, didn't move fast enough relative to competitors)? Also, four of those 18 were BioNTech, and counting that as a success and three failures seems like a mistake when it's the same company trying multiple things initially and then proceeding with the best one. How many old-school vaccine development efforts didn't pan out, or only got approved because of extensive government support in their countries of origin? My take is that we have had, for at least a handful of years, the ability to design a new mRNA vaccine against a novel virus in a matter of days, test it in a matter of months, and scale it up in less than a year. Instead, the companies founded to develop that kind of technology had to go in a different direction (targeting cancer), and without the pandemic they would have languished much longer without bringing any mRNA therapeutics to market at all. The pandemic cut through enough bureaucracy that they got a product out and built manufacturing capacity, and now that they have done that, they're quickly able to repeat that success for other diseases.  I do not expect the pandemic to lead to a flurry of other new traditional vaccines, because those haven't suddenly gotten easier or cheaper to develop, we just threw more resources at them for covid. As far as I can tell, if we had

This essay of yours might be worth its own post :)

Your comment got me thinking about the probability of what I described once again:

There's a vaccine for a previously unknown virus made with completely new technology ... made in an astonishingly short time.

Such miracles only happen in people's imagination.

Previously, I noticed one simple explanation: the vaccine is not as safe / effective.

Now I realize there's another: the mRNA vaccines are not that new, they simply never made it public before. Just something that dawned on me.

I'll study the links and get ... (read more)

4AnthonyC
Early papers on mRNA therapeutics date back to the late 1980s/early 1990s, with a number of small scale tests and trials starting by the late 1990s. Making custom arbitrary mRNA has been affordable/feasible since at least the mid-2000s. BioNTech was founded in 2008, and Moderna was founded in 2011, which means the relevant tech at that point was already far enough along to warrant founding companies that were going to need a lot of funding to bring anything to market. But instead of making vaccines targeting infectious diseases, they both mostly targeted cancer immunotherapy. I assume that's because those are the treatments they were able to get funding for, even though it's a much harder problem technically. I don't know when the first year was they they could have designed a successful vaccine against a novel virus in a day and a half, but the odds of that happening just before covid hit are obviously very low, especially since more recent trials and studies are showing that we can also quickly develop (better) vaccines against the flu and malaria, and the success with covid was not an unlikely outcome.

Interesting information, thanks. However, the choice is as follows (numbers indicate available units):

1. Moderna (4990)
2. Comirnaty (Pfizer) (25111)
3. Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) (6073)
4. Janssen (3611) 

 

The viral vector technology has previously been used for Ebola, right? What do we know about that?

 

UPD: apparently, we might get Novavax sometime soon. I might want to wait for that. 

In Lithuania, a bill has been passed that denies the unvaccinated rights to:

  1. non-essential stores
  2. stores, whose area is over 1500 sqm
  3. beauty salons
  4. library
  5. small repair services > 15 mins of time
  6. any  indoors cultural / sports / celebration events
  7. outdoors events > 500 people

And their main slogan is "Turn your shoulder - become free!"

While these actions are supposed to be coercive, I feel they're doing much the opposite. And it makes non-swayed judgement really hard.

Thank you for detailed comments!

I have similar thoughts about the approval process, though much less coherent.

From a citizen (non-medical education) level of knowledge, I wonder how we should go about reaching a decision regarding getting a jab.

Though I am obliged to say, where I and my SO currently live (Lithuania and Russia) it will soon become not a "whether", but "which" in a month due to regulations.

2ChristianKl
I think that COVID-19 is bad enough, that even with the risks as described I still got a shot of the BionTech vaccine three weeks ago. If there's a real free choice I think the answer is currently Novavaxx as it's the classic adjuvant + antigen combination. Evidence suggests that it has less average side-effects and it doesn't get your body to kill it's own cells. Not getting your body to kill it's own cells means that certain immune responses are not triggered but the trials we have shows Novavaxx to have comparable effectiveness to the other vaccines.

...vaccines happen to be safe and effective, but it’s not clear that we wouldn’t be in a similar position in the future where the thing in question wasn’t safe and/or wasn’t effective

I think both that the vaccines are safe and effective based on the evidence, and also that if the evidence did not strongly say they were safe and effective, we wouldn’t be contemplating such policies

Could you explain how you arrived at the safety conclusion? Wait, let me explain why I myself am getting overwhelmed (maybe I start from the wrong viewpoint).

There is an unprecede... (read more)

The only thing that people can be really sure of, for all patients, and all disease conditions, in general, is that some things are NOT safe (like: literal poison or just peanuts for someone allergic to peanuts) and something are NOT effective (like: homeopathy or chemotherapy for something other than the relevant kind of cancer).

The entire concept of a legal declaration that a drug is totally Safe(tm) and totally Effective(tm) is basically just marketing.

The thing that actually makes things safe and effective is that the doctor diagnoses you correctly and... (read more)

7MondSemmel
Suggestion: Pre-register how you imagine a truly safe approval process for a vaccine would look like. Take notes on a piece of paper: How many clinical trials would you expect? How long should they take? If a vaccine successfully passes all trials, how much time should official institutions like the FDA take to review the evidence before they made a decision on whether to authorize use of the vaccine? Finally, does the process you've imagined account for the opportunity cost of delay during an emergency? Only afterwards, look up how the vaccines were actually approved. For instance, this study (section "Results") provides an overview of how various vaccines were authorized in the USA, EU, and Canada. Then compare the actual approval process with what you imagined it should look like. How do they compare?