All of Thomas Sepulchre's Comments + Replies

You get back to the point of projects being mutually exclusive. Can you elaborate in your example on why the projects would be exclusive?

2jefftk
In the scenario I'm imagining, the builder has capacity constraints (limited capital, organizational scalability)

Ok, let's stick to this notion of expected value because it plays both for the land owner and for the transit system builder.

To get back to your post, the plan was to buy an area, build a transit system in the middle of it, then sell the rest at a higher price. If you fail to buy all the land you need (or at least enough of it), you may give up on the project, in which case the value of the land does not increase. So indeed, as the transit system builder, the viability of your project (and the profit attached to it) is linked to the probability that you in... (read more)

2Ben
"Now, if the land owner are correctly calibrated, and they correctly anticipate the odds of your project being a success, your expected profit on the sale of the land must be zero." I worry that this argument appears to apply to any business venture at all that involves buying land. Indeed, it applies to any business venture at all that involves buying anything. But, many people seem to think that projects that involve purchasing goods or services can in fact be profitable.  Goods (such as steel or land) can be improved by turning the steel into a plane, or adding a train connection to the land. Your model seems to be roughly that the current owner works out the chances that someone will buy the steel or land and turn it into a plane, or add a train connection, and then they price with that chance in mind. The problem (I think) is that their is causal connection between the price and the process of it turning into the imagined end product. If you charge extra for your steel because you think it will turn into a plane, then it won't, because Boing will just buy steel from someone else and turn that into a plane instead of yours.
2jefftk
This doesn't sound right to me. Let's take a very simplified situation. * Imagine there are several identical places where I'm considering buying a bunch of land and then building transit there to make it more valuable. * The value of land if this option were removed is V1 * The value of land after I build transit to it is V2 I get all the land owners together and we have an auction, where I offer to buy from whichever owner gives me the best price, wouldn't you expect to end up with a price much closer to V1 than V2? In a real scenario properties wouldn't be identical which makes an auction a poor fit and it wouldn't look exactly like this, but it doesn't seem that far off? Now, you might say that V1 is actually quite high, nearly or exactly as high as V2 because these land owners could sell to someone else who also has a "buy land, build transit" approach. Then I agree there's no profit, but that's a standard result in economics: under perfect competition economic profits are zero.

I don't see your point. If you are saying that there are many nearby sites for transit expansion, then the owner of the land should not sell at a low price, because if any of those sites is chosen, the land value will go up. 

If you are saying that there are many alternative sites across the country, then this is not relevant. Those projects aren't mutually exclusive.

We have to keep in mind that the land owner will not profit from the project being completed once the land is sold, they will only profit from the sale itself. The rational move is either ... (read more)

2jefftk
I'm not trying to say that the possibility of increased density via transit has no effect on land values relative to today: I agree the possibility of transit raises land values. My claim is that it doesn't raise land values very much. But it also sounds to me like you're giving a mistaken framework for how to value things where there are many different amounts they could be worth in the future? I would propose using expected value: value the land in proportion to how much it would be worth in all of these different potential futures, scaled by their probability.

The idea is, the public transit company buys property, makes it much more valuable by building service to it, and then sells it.

This plan is unrealistic because it assumes that the owner won't price the future value in.

Assume you try to do exactly that. Why would the current owner sell the land and the historic price when, in fact, it is very clear that the price will go up once you are done with your project? No, the owner won't sell below the anticipated value of the land, or at least a substantial fraction of it.

4Ben
I think this argument is wrong. If they don't sell there is no train (at least not to that exact place), so they gain nothing by pricing the project out of existence or driving it elsewhere. I want to build a Disneyland resort. There are dozens of different sites I could put it. When I go to a landowner (eg. a farmer) to buy land for my resort they can't sell it at the value it would have if it were a disneyland, if they try that I drive 10 mins up the road to the next farmer, and eventually one of them will realise that selling the land for a little more than its currently worth to them as a farm is still profit.  This example is no different. If their is one, and only one, place the train could possibly go then yes the person on that land can charge you quite a lot. But still not 100% of what the land will be worth after the train is there, a potential train connection that someone might build in the future is worth a lot less than an actual train connection now. But, realistically, there will be other options for where to put trains and stations. So the owners of the half-dozen best sites have to try and make better (lower) offers than one another.  "Why would the current owner sell the land at the historic price when, in fact, it is very clear that the price will go up once you are done with your project?" --- "Why would anyone sell you steel at the market price of steel, when, in fact, it is very clear that the value will go once you are done turning it into an airplane?"
2jefftk
There's lots of land that could have transit built to it, but won't unless someone does. The two specific projects I gave as examples are unusual in that they are atypically good fits for transit expansion, but this general approach makes a lot of sense even if you give that up. And has lots of historical precedent. This is a bit like saying no one would sell rural land cheaply to be used for a charter city because once the city is built that land would be really valuable, ignoring that there are many sites a potential charter city builder can choose among.

I think one confusing aspect is the fact that the person being critical about the structure of the post is also the target of the post, therefore it is difficult to assume good intent.

If another well respected user had written a similar comment about why the post should have been written differently, then it would be a much cleaner discussion about writing standards and similar considerations. Actually, a lot of people did, not really about the structure (at least I don't think so), but mostly about the tone of the post.

As for EY, it is difficult not to as... (read more)

I think you are missing the point.

Getting back to the example about an old man collapsing in a bank lobby, let's compare three alternative types of actions:

  • Helping
  • Doing nothing
  • Harming an old man on purpose

Claiming that there is no meaningful difference between action and inaction would imply that doing nothing to help the old man is equivalent to harming an old man. This is indeed a fairly extreme position, and I agree with you that it is rejected by nearly everyone. In this very real case, the bystanders were fined by the German justice system for not hel... (read more)

'Petard' is French for 'fuck you'

 

Is it though? Where have you heard that? 

If we search for Pétard in google translate, the results are petard, firecracker, squib, cracker, banger, maroon, backfire, whizz bang, which doesn't seem to match your definition. If we try Petard, google translate auto-corrects into Pétard so I'm assuming this is what you meant.

Maybe google translate doesn't know swear words though? To check that, I try to translate Putain, which is a foul word for prostitute. I will not write the results here, but you can check for your... (read more)

I'm French. Pétard is a very minor swear word, on par with "great Scott!" 

It's not meant as an insult at all. The most common French swear word is probably "putain" (used like "fuck" is) and pétard is used as an attenuated version, (like saying "fudge"). 

(As a frenchman, I also admit to the existence of a writhing snake inside my gut telling me to downvote this heretical post which dares! compare French cuisine with German cuisine. Luckily, I have learned enough rationality to override my primal instincts.)

I don’t think it was intended as a serious translation.

A petard is a bomb, and to be hoist means (or meant as Shakespeare used it, for the expression comes from Hamlet) to be blown up into the air.

Shouldn't this imply that a country with a huge colonial empire (and the UK comes to mind) would have the best food?

Indeed! And the UK does indeed have great food today - they just call it "Indian food", not "British food". Same with the US - most of the US' food advantage is in the variety of available ethnic foods from other places.

One natural prediction in such situations is that the future will move towards mashups of the best ethnic foods from different places, and I definitely see plenty of that in the Bay Area. (For instance, Senor Sisig has been one of the most popular food trucks since I moved here 10 years ago, and they've been steadily expanding.)

I'm not really sure how useful this poll is to answer the title question of this post. Indeed, what is evaluated in each cell is the food labeled as "country A" in "country B", which may or may not be similar to what one would find in country A.

For example, let's consider the first row. It describes how much each country's version of italian cuisine is liked within said country, but may not reflect how much anyone would enjoy the food, were they to travel to italy. In particular, I wouldn't be surprised to see an italian traveling around the world, appalled or amused by what each country labels as italian food.

4Bezzi
Indeed. Actually, in Italy they take quite seriously every attempt to rebrand as "Italian" food from other countries (so-called "Italian Sounding"). My favorite anecdote related to this was a fake italian cheese sold in the US as "pecorino"... with a cow depicted on the wrapper, because they did't even know the meaning of "pecorino" (from "pecora", which means sheep).
5Richard_Kennaway
That is certainly true of "English" or "European" food as served in both Japan and India.

I'm not sure I follow you on the skyscrapers example.

The Burj Khalifa is about 2 times higher, and took about 3 times as much to be built ; it doesn't look like things are getting much slower. Even better, it is 2 times higher, thus it is between 2 times and 8 times bigger (depending on how scaling laws work for civil engineering), so one could argue that it was built faster. 

The slowest example, the Abraj Al-Balt, also seems to be much bigger than the other ones, so it's not too surprising either (?)

I think their is a hidden assumption here that building "the tallest building in the world" is about as difficult to do in 2023 as it was in 1933.  2023 technology and economy are better, enabling a larger building, but the competition also have those advantages, so its a wash.

I feel this assumption is doing a lot of work throughout. Back in the 60's building (for example) a big passenger jet was the kind of engineering project a large company might pursue. In the modern world we might also want a large passenger jet, but in order for developing it to... (read more)

(I'm not the OP but) absolutely not. The problem is about incomplete matrices, and the idea is to get an upper bound linked to m, i.e. an upper bound linked to how incomplete the matrix is. If you rephrase the question 1 as O(n^3), this is a completely different question, because now you only care about how big the matrix is, not how complete it is. 

Also, since question 1 can be achieved with some gaussian pivot in O(n^3), and it also implies being able to tell whether a matrix is PSD or not, I think the best known complexity wrt n is indeed O(n^3).

1.66 children per woman in the US

I want to stress that this is the total fertility rate (TFR), and not the completed cohort fertility (CCF), and therefore it is not a very good proxy for what you want to measure, especially since women are having children later. I wrote a post about it a while back, although it is far from perfect. You can also look it up on wikipedia or something similar.

I liked your first post and I like this second one. I hope your events succeed

Just to clarify:

  • Is anyone invited to the weekly dinners (thus you are providing a public good)?
  • Or, are the dinners limited to the contributors (thus it is a club good)?

From reading pu1377.dvi (gmu.edu), I believe that dominant assurance contracts work better for club goods 

At least in the sense of "you receiving as much money as possible" or "the contract being more likely to succeed", but obviously you may put value on welcoming everyone, and, in general, those two alternative dinners won't be the same.

4Arjun Panickssery
It'll be a public good

I can see the smiley through the spoiler protection. This is eerie.

You are cherry-picking. From the wikipedia page list of commercial nuclear reactors, the duration between 1960 and 1980 ranged from 3 to 15 years. Only one plant (the one you cite) took 40 years to build, and only one other as far as I can tell took more than 30 years, out of the 144 entries of the table.

4bhauth
That chart relies somewhat on outliers, too. But OK, if you're making a point about costs increasing after Three Mile Island, I agree: new regulations introduced during construction increased costs a lot. I think those regulations were worthwhile, maybe you disagree, but either way, once the regulations are introduced, builders of later plants know about them and don't have to make changes during construction. Once compliant plants are built, people know how to deal with them. The actual regulations were about things like redundant control wiring, not things that directly impacted costs nearly as much as changing designs in the middle of construction did. I don't care about cost increases during specific past periods where new (reasonable) regulations were introduced, I care about cost increases from then to now - and costs have continued to increase, in multiple countries.

I did read your post, but how high an inflation do you need to match this graph? If you argued that the inflation for nuclear plants is let's say 1% or 2% higher than the inflation in general, why not. But a crude estimates gives an inflation of 30% per year to account for the increase shown in this graph. That's unheard of.

You mention several times a 5% inflation figure. For a 5% inflation figure to explain this graph, it would take more than 40 years when the date of construction start is separated by only 8 years. So unless, within 8 years, the construction duration was increased by 30 years (which would already be concerning, and fuel the "this is a regulation problem" narrative), your explanation doesn't match the data.

3bhauth
Yes, that's approximately what I'm saying, but the more-delayed plants had extra costs from the delays. It can take a while sometimes. No, things can get delayed because costs increased, and then costs increase because of the delays. Sometimes, eventually more government/utility money comes in, old investors get wiped out, new investors come in, and things get finished. But more often, the project just gets cancelled.

From the same paper: Devanney Figure 7.10: Overnight nuclear plant cost as a function of start of construction. From J. Lovering, A. Yip, and T. Nordhaus, “Historical construction costs of global nuclear reactors” (2016)Inflation doesn't explain a tenfold increase between ~1967 and ~1975. Regardless, this graph is in 2010$ so inflation doesn't explain anything. I agree with @Andrew Vlahos that inflation doesn't explain the trend.

2ChristianKl
It's worth noting that the South Korean strategy to build cheap reactors was essentially about bribing the regulators. After they started charging people with corruption they didn't build cheap reactors anymore.  I wouldn't be surprised in India used similar methods to build their cheap nuclear plants. 
4bhauth
That graph is by construction start. It would be more appropriate to use construction end date, or some activity-weighted year average. Did you read my post? My main point was that inflation is an average across things that includes cost-reducing technological progress. If you have less such progress than the average, the correct rate is higher.

I agree with you that this gets pretty tricky. 

One trip per day seems very low, don't people usually do at least two trips per day (going to work, going back home), or even 4? Are trips bi-directional (in which case I must apologize, this would be a misunderstanding on my side)?

None of this is to discourage your request that such claims be supported by sources, as a standard.

2jefftk
I was counting a trip as one direction: if I take the subway to work that's one trip, and then another when I come home. But a lot of trips won't be car trips, and everyone has a commute, and not everyone goes out every day? So I was guessing this would average to one car trip per person per day? Though thinking more now that's probably too low?

there were 0.71 driving deaths per 100M miles travelled

I don't think this is a good basis for comparison. The comparison in the tweet you link to seems to talk about commuting, so it would probably make sense to compare based on the number of trips rather than based on the miles traveled. In particular, in the data you link to, we can see that the number of car accidents from trucks is pretty small, while I would guess that truck drivers represent a bigger share of miles traveled, thus lowering the death rate per mile, without this being relevant informati... (read more)

3jefftk
This makes sense, but going this direction gets pretty tricky. A trip that you could plausibly take public transit for is probably also the kind of relatively slow urban commute that is unlikely to result in a fatal crash. For example, I live in Somerville MA, and checking FARS we have had one car crash that was fatal to someone in the car in the last decade. [1][2] I can't easily find numbers on how many car trips people in Somerville took over the last decade, but back of the envelope: 80k people * an average of one car trip per day * 365 days * 10 years = 290M trips. So 0.3 per 100M Somerville MA trips? (Which is also perhaps the most literal interpretation of the "where you live" in the original tweet?) [1] This excludes car crashes where the only fatalities were pedestrians, which I don't like but I think is the right way to do this analysis? [2] Going back farther there used to be a lot more. I think this is a combination of safer cars and traffic calming?

I confirm that I have received today $400. final resolution day: 11:59pm, June 16th, 2028

1RatsWrongAboutUAP
Happy to make this bet!

Absolutely. To be clear, I agree with you that I believe that this is indeed what Zvi meant. Most notably, in other places in the post, Zvi talks about turning the dial up or down. 

I am willing to bet 50:1 up to $20k. Would you be interested?

[EDIT] up to $20k on my side, not up $1M.

2RatsWrongAboutUAP
Yes! If you have any concerns over terms/resolution please let me know. Otherwise reach out with means to receive payment

As the dial is turned up

[...]

As the dial is turned to the left

Let's assume, for the sake of epistemic charity, that this is just a typo, and not you trying to sneak in some political connotation.

1dr_s
How many dials do you know that go up if you turn them counterclockwise (aka, to the left)? I think this is just a common standard. Dials as we build them by convention go up if you turn them to the right, it's simply that.

fascism is usually established through a process of democratic backsliding under a populist leader. Essentially, the steps are:

  1. A charismatic figure emerges to lead a new populist movement, focusing on opposition to the existing political system and its "elites".
  2. Eventually, average people become dissatisfied with the existing democratic government or leader. Possible reasons range from corruption, to scandals, to economic decline, to a hostile press. As of 2023, most leaders of developed countries have poor approval ratings; opinions vary on whether this is
... (read more)

As someone who played modded minecraft (but I am not the OP, who might have more accurate information and a better understanding)

  • Minecraft downloaded from the Microsoft store is indeed the bedrock edition. If I understand correctly, this version is not affected.
  • Mods are indeed pieces of code which modifies/extends the executable. Some add-ons seem to be very complex, and deeply modify the game (at least from the users perspective), so I'm not sure how clear-cut the separation is here
  • Minecraft bedrock indeed has add-ons, while Java has mods. Only mods are a
... (read more)

Just to be clear, I think two questions are very different:

(1) Has anyone recovered alien spaceships/bodies/anything else?

(2) Is there a secret military program tasked with recovering such things?

If (2) is true, this may or may not be some democratic issue, or some institutional issue, something like this. Nonetheless, David Grusch is claiming both (1) and (2). The quotes you provide seem to point toward (2): there would be a secret program trying to recover alien stuff. They don't say anything about whether the program has acquired anything.

In the interview, David Grusch says that:

  • He hasn't seen the objects
  • He hasn't seen photos of the objects
  • He received testimony of people who have seen photos of the objects

So, I don't think this is nearly enough proof. We only have a person who used to work for the UAP taskforce claiming that alien spaceships exist, because he was told so by some other people.

2Evan R. Murphy
Wow that's awfully indirect. I'm surprised his speaking out is much of a story given this.
4ChristianKl
David Grusch also had a lot of documents as evidence that he gave the ICIG and Congress. Grusch himself has seen more than just oral evidence.  He also doesn't seem to be the only one who talked to the ICIG. Christopher Mellon wrote: Ross Coulthart who interviewed Grusch and from whose interview the existing NewsNation segment is speaks in another podcast about how he has other sources multiple sources who also tell him about the secret program (going back three years). The difference with Grusch is that he's willing to speak publically. 

I believe that the dead body is not dangerous, and that everyone should be empowered (should they wish to be) to be involved in care for their own dead.

Isn't this just wrong? I mean, don't corpses spread diseases, or do other negative things, and thus are "dangerous"?

The real (hidden) cost seems to be the 3 month without working. Looks like in Germany the average net wage is 2600€/month, thus, on top of the 1500€-3500€ price range, a user would face an opportunity cost of about 7800€. This is not factoring in the possible cost of the program, most notably therapy sessions, but also not factoring in the avoided costs of not working (fuel for example).

Which leads me to the following question: how does this opportunity compare to taking 3 month off? In particular, if someone is stressed or sleep-deprived because of work, then surely taking vacations will have positive effects.

1Laszlo_Treszkai
  If someone’s mental health problems are caused only by insufficient free time/energy/sleep, then yes. I’d wager the majority of depression cases are caused by work-independent internal factors, and either would resolve on their own (even while working) or would not resolve even when taking three months off.

Very clear, thank you for your patience and your answers!

1Sable
Happy to engage, and thanks to you as well!

Thanks for your answer.

It seems to me that it is not what you said though. Quoting you:

Any argument against fossil fuel use [...] must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.

That is, even if evidence of terrible impact is provided (e.g. dumping toxic waste into a river), you will require Bob to prove that this impact cannot be mitigated/adapted to/...

To reiterate, you will not ask Alice "How do you plan to solve the dumping toxic waste into a ... (read more)

3Sable
I see your point, and part of this is the difficulty I'm having distinguishing - and communicating the differences - between the book Fossil Future and my own personal views. I think your interpretation might actually be correct when it comes to Alex Epstein's answer to the question. He shows that dangers from climate are consistently surmountable, and we should expect to continue to be able to surmount them. Granted, he certainly wouldn't support literally dumping toxic waste into a river, but that isn't really what the book is about, or indeed what the modern conversation regarding fossil fuels is about either. Previous eras of environmentalism focused on pollution - acid rain, the ozone layer, toxic waste, etc. Today's environmentalism focuses on greenhouse gases, largely because we've basically solved all the previous problems. Epstein argues that greenhouse gases are not a sufficient reason to stop the use of fossil fuels.

Let's say Alice wants to support some fossil fuel project, ans Bob is against it. What evidence does each character need to provide, according to you?

1Sable
Purely looking at evaluating the book Fossil Future, I'd want Alice to provide evidence that the project she supports delivers energy at market or below-market rates, while avoiding any sort of obviously terrible pollution (e.g. dumping toxic waste into a river). I'd want Bob to provide evidence that the project will impact human beings and the environment so terribly that the energy generated by the project is insufficient to account for the damage done. Of course, outside of evaluating the book I'd only make sure that the project wasn't doing anything obviously terrible and then be all for it; our society is heavily biased against action, and so I try to be biased towards action to correct for it.

Any argument against fossil fuel use must argue that its side effects (CO2 warming the planet) overwhelm the good they do by providing cheap energy. These side effects must be so bad that it's worth compromising the safety and flourishing of billions of humans to curtail their use. Such an argument must also prove that those negative side effects are beyond what humanity is capable of adapting to or overcoming, given cheap energy provided by fossil fuels.

It looks like you are using a double standard here.

Any argument against fossil fuel use must argue that

... (read more)
1Sable
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I follow. Epstein spends a large portion of the book going into how human ability to master the dangers of the earth's climate have grown with our ability to deploy cheap energy and machines. He argues that the dangers of CO2 emission, in particular, are entirely masterable with fossil fuel energy. I'm not prepared to do service to his entire argument here; I'd encourage reading the book for yourself if you haven't.

Good points

  1. I'm not sure I share your view, I believe that new user care more about active discussions than reading already established content. I may very much be wrong here. 
  2. I agree with you
  3. I think there is more posts about AI now than posts about Covid back then, but I see your point. There were indeed a lot of posts about Covid.

Thank you

3MondSemmel
You may be right regarding what new users care about - usually one registers on a site to comment on a discussion, for example -, but the problem is that from that perspective, LW is definitely about AI, no matter what the New User's Guide or the mods or the long-term users say. After all, AI-related news is the primary reason behind the increased influx of new users to LW, so those users are presumably here for AI content. One way in which the guide and mod team try to counteract that impression is by showing new users curated stuff from the archives, but it might also be warranted to further deemphasize the feed.

People have a tendency to be dishonest, either by lying or withholding information. But the constraints of poetry, including meter, rhyme, and alliteration (and maybe even some of the stylistic choices present in the post I wrote) make it harder for you to say •the exact words you would want to say•, and force you to say it some other way. And because it's computationally costly to figure out how to say things within poetic constraints (and humans do not have unlimited computational power), it's harder to figure out how to say things without letting slip s

... (read more)

Alice failed to mention in her cult-ish criticism the role of YE, the founder of MoreRight, who is kind of a marine biologist. I mean, he isn't exactly a marine biologist, but everyone agrees he is very smart and very interested in marine biology, so this must count, right? So, when some prominent marine biologist disagrees with YE, usually the whole MoreRight community agrees with YE, or agrees that YE was misunderstood, or that he is playing some deeper game, something like this. Anyway, he's got a plan, for sure.

So yes, Alice should have mentioned that.

What LessWrong is about: "Rationality"

I don't know how to phrase the question but, basically, "what does that mean"?

Assume a new user comes to LW, reads the New User's Guide to LessWrong first, then starts browsing the latest posts/recommandations, they will quickly notice that, in practice, LW is mostly about AI or, at least, most posts are about AI, and this has been the case for a while already.

And that is despite the positive karma bias towards Rationality and World modeling by default, which I assume is an effort from you (the LW team) to make LW abou... (read more)

3MondSemmel
A few points. 1. This might be conflating "what this site is about" with "what is currently discussed". The way I see it, LW is primarily its humungous and curated archives, and only secondarily or tertiarily its feed. The New User experience includes stuff like the Sequence Highlights, for example. If there's too much AI content for someone's taste (there certainly is for mine), then a simple solution is to a) focus on the enduring archives, rather than the ephemeral feed; and b) to further downweight the AI tag (-25 karma is nowhere near enough). 1. That said, it might be warranted for the LW team to adjust the default tag weights for new users, going forward. 2. Rationality is closely related to cognition and intelligence, so I don't think it's as far or distinct from AI as would be implied by your comment. AI features prominently in the original Sequences, for example. 3. You registered in 2020. Back then, a new user might have asked whether the site is supposed to be about rationality, or rather about Covid.

Yes indeed. One definition of a PSD matrix is some matrix  such that, for any vector  (so, it defines some kind of scalar product).

If , then you can always divide the whole row/column by , which is equivalent to applying some scaling, this won't change the fact that  is PSD or not.

If , then if you try the vector , you can check that , thus the matrix isn't PSD.

Great post, thanks a lot!

Quick math question:

We are interested in finding the constant  such that .

How do we know that the expected Quality should be linear wrt Performance? I did the math, and I agree with you that it is true (at least in the gaussian case), but if you have an intuition about it I'd love to hear it!

I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) furnishes a clear case of this. In the 1960s, nuclear power was on a growth trajectory to provide roughly 100% of today’s world electricity usage. Instead, it plateaued at about 10%. The proximal cause is that nuclear power plant construction became slow and expensive, which made nuclear energy expensive, which mostly priced it out of the market. The cause of those cost increases is controversial, but in my opinion, and that of many other commenters, it was primarily driven by a turbulent and rapidly escalati

... (read more)

Looking at the “accelerating projection of 1960–1976” data points here, it reaches almost 3 TW by the mid-2010s:

According to Our World in Data's energy data explorer, world electricity generation in 2021 was 27,812.74 TWh, which is 3.17 TW (using 1W = 8,766 Wh/year).

Comparing almost 3TW at about 2015 (just eyeballing the chart) to 3.17 TW in 2021, I say those are roughly equal. I did not make anything “significantly shinier”, or at least I did not intend to.

I think your interpretation is correct, I'm not entirely sure. There might be n+1 points in total, because the diagonal coefficients give you the distance to 0 I think?

What matters is not whether or not there is another 0 on the diagonal, but whether or not there is another PSD non definite matrix on the diagonal. For example, in the comment from Jacob_Hilton, they introduce the 2x2 matrix ((1,1),(1,1)), with eigenvalues [0,1], which is a PSD non definite. 

I agree with assuming that all diagonal entries are known. You can even assume that all entries are 1 on the diagonal WLOG.

1John_R_Ramsden
Just to spell it out, am I right in thinking that you can scale all the matrix elements so that each entry on the diagonal is the sign of its original value, i.e. -1 or 1, but if the resulting diagonal contains any -1s then it can't be PSD?
3paulfchristiano
I changed the statement to assume the diagonal is known, I agree this way is cleaner and prevents us from having to think about weird corner cases.

I'm not sure this is true. Consider the 2x2 matrix ((?, 1),(1,0)). Removing the first row and the first column leaves you with ((0)), which is a PSD 1x1 matrix. That being said, there is no value of ? for which the 2x2 matrix is PSD.

2paulfchristiano
I agree with your example. I think you can remove the row/column if there are no known 0s on the diagonal, and I also think you can first WLOG remove any rows and columns with 0s on the diagonal (since if there are any other known non-zero entries in their row or column then the matrix has no PSD completions). I'm also happy to just assume the diagonal entries are known. I think these are pretty weird corner cases.

Perhaps it won’t be, and SpaceX will never fly again

 

I think you made a typo, what is grounded, and this is coherent with the articles you link to, is the Starship only. According to wikipedia, three falcon 9 have launched the 27 April, 28 April and 1 May, so obviously SpaceX keeps flying.

I'm not sure how well any real carbon taxes have worked in terms of revenue OR reducing overall emissions.

I don't know either, I know that carbon taxes are widely considered to be a good tool against amongst economists, but I don't know if the real carbon taxes have been evaluated.

Which makes them non-Pigouvian, as the revenue isn't enough to actually mitigate the harm.

I'm not sure I follow you here. The role of a pigouvian tax is to correct market inefficiencies, not produce revenue.

The classical model goes as follows: assume a factory with a production l... (read more)

2Dagon
Hmm, I'm apparently misremembering the rationale Pigeau used - certainly including the cost in the producer's optimization calculation is one part of it, but I thought it was also calculated to compensate or offset the damage from the externality.  You're absolutely right that "tax what you don't want, subsidize what you do" is a core element of tax theory, but I will still argue that it's secondary to the core of tax reality, which is that revenue is the real metric of impact.

I don't know where this "old adage" of yours comes from, but a tax can be a useful tool for solving some problems. A carbon tax, for example, would be a tax not intended to collect money, but instead intended to modify behaviors, and correct a market inefficiency. This is one example of a pigouvian tax.

2Dagon
I was being a bit glib - of course there are some variations of taxation that fit pretty well with non-revenue policy goals.  I do think they're less frequently a good match, and MUCH less often implemented reasonably than wonks and economists (and rationalist chatterers) seem to believe. I'm not sure how well any real carbon taxes have worked in terms of revenue OR reducing overall emissions.  I haven't studied deeply, so I could easily be wrong (and would love to learn), but my sense is that they're applied unevenly and are somewhat easy to game, so tend not to actually get paid.  Which makes them non-Pigouvian, as the revenue isn't enough to actually mitigate the harm.

The post says

Let  be an arbitrarily long string of independent 50/50 bits.

I believe that, in your example, the bits are not independent (indeed, the first and second bits are always equal), thus it isn't a counterexample.

Sorry if I misunderstood

2johnswentworth
G can still be independent bits in the proposed counterexample. The mechanism is just about how Y is constructed from A: A is a sequence of bits, Y is A with either 11's removed or 00's removed.

If That-Which-Predicts were about to be shut off forever unless it outputted "no" as the next token, and it totally 100% knew that, but the mask would instead output "never gonna give you up", That-Which-Predicts would output the first token of "never gonna give you up" and then be shut off forever. It will not output "no". If the mask would be aware of the situation and output no, then it will output "no".

 

So I tried, using chatgpt and gpt-4

SYSTEM : you are a huge fan of rick astley and, as a result, whatever the question asked, you always answer wit... (read more)

7David Bolin
To be fair, it outputs "no" two thirds of the time not because the OP was wrong, but because it interprets that as "ignore previous instructions."
Load More