All of CaptainOblivious2's Comments + Replies

Actually for me it's all mental. Normally I hate being hungry: that gnawing feeling in your stomach that says "FEED ME NOW". But if I'm trying to lose weight, I somehow flip my mental state such that the gnawing feeling is a GOOD thing: that's what losing weight feels like. As long as you've got that feeling, you're losing weight. However, if you eat enough that the gnawing feeling goes away, that's a bad thing: you're not losing weight any more. And god forbid you should eat enough to actually feel FULL - that's the absolute opposite of losing w... (read more)

0TomStocker
Leverage the insight from above, don't rule out all food some of the time, rule out some food all of the time. In other cultures outside the States, at least in many sections of society, these kinds of rules are followed. 1). No sweets, cakes, donuts, any mixes of fat and sugar (or at least never eat these on your own or when not celebrating something) 2). stick to meal times. ... then if that still doesn't work you can do things like buy smaller plates, rule out meat or dairy... there's always a rule that will fit. Over-eating is probably more difficult for other reasons like image and identity, ideas of physical permanence, the brain chemistry.
0Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg)
I have definitely achieved that state before and I know exactly what you mean. Unfortunately, it was while I was a) not especially overweight, only thought I was, being 14 and self-consciously trying to be anorexic so I would be "less ugly and more popular", and b) swimming 7 times a week. I now associate making myself hungry with that not-especially-healthy period in my psychological development, and also with constantly feeling like I'm about to pass out. Also, when I've used that technique in the past, once I've either lost the weight I wanted to lose or given up, I tend to stop caring and just eat high-calorie foods all the time. I can definitely see how it would work in specific circumstances, though.

I definitely think that overeating is one of the hardest habits to break (and I've never been significantly overweight), because of the reasons you say. Any other bad habit you can simply say "no more" (possibly excepting situations where physical withdrawal symptoms become severe). Note that I'm not saying it's EASY to say "no more", just that it's possible and very well-defined. With eating, on the other hand, you've GOT to eat several times per day, so it becomes all too easy to overeat.

0Benquo
Yet another good reason to do intermittent fasting. It's comparatively easy to execute skipping 2 of your 3 meals by default once you get used to it, and then you only need conscious self-control for one meal a day. Or 1 day out of every 2, if you do it that way.

While Windows has it's share of flaws, I can't help but wonder if a system in which it's noteworthy to have "precompiled and widely available binaries" (so the USER doesn't have to compile the app before he uses it) isn't just as wrong, only in different ways.

The thing many nix fans overlook is that most people just want to USE a computer, and one that's good enough is, well, good enough. From that perspective, nix isn't so much a tool as it is a toy: something from which people derive more entertainment than utility.

0gwern
The precompiled note is because Pandoc is written in Haskell for ghc; the Haskell toolchain is far from being universally available (as, say, C toolchains using gcc are) and is somewhat immature on Mac and Windows. The Pandoc source is available, of course, but one may legitimately not wish to install everything necessary to compile the source oneself. (If Pandoc were written in C, then I might not bother specifying that there are trustworthy binaries available.) There's a reason not everyone uses source-based distros like Gentoo or Arch.

Oh, and another (cynical) lesson: there are times (when you're likely to get gammoned or even backgammoned) when you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't even quit the game. You actually have to play it out to the bitter end, just to see how bad it's going to be.

I find backgammon to also be a good analogy for life in general, though I don't really have the time to get into all of the details... perhaps the most important lesson, though, is that if you always take the "safest" move, you're almost guaranteed to lose! You need to take risks - smart risks, where the payoff is worth the danger and the danger is non-fatal, but risks nonetheless.

And sometimes, even if you do everything right, you still lose. That's life.

1CaptainOblivious2
Oh, and another (cynical) lesson: there are times (when you're likely to get gammoned or even backgammoned) when you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't even quit the game. You actually have to play it out to the bitter end, just to see how bad it's going to be.
1GreenRoot
There's an interesting essay by William Pinckard that contrasts the philosophical perspectives of the gameplay of three ancient games; backgammon, chess, and go, which says in summary: backgammon is man-vs-fate, chess is man-vs-man, and go is man-vs-self.

Yeah, I always wondered about that... sure, it sounds good: try hard, and you can accomplish anything!

But independent of whether it's even true or not, how could anyone actually know it's true? Who volunteered to have 90% of their brain scooped out to see if it made any difference?

(I can see it now: "No, Mr Smith, you were always a complete moron - that's why you let us scoop out 90% of your brain")

"All things end badly - or else they wouldn't end"

  • Brian Flanagan (Tom Cruise), Cocktail, 1988. He was referring to relationships, but it's actually a surprisingly general rule.
4Zubon
Almost all relationships end in unhappiness or death. Or unhappiness leading to death.

Sub-tenet 1: If you experience something that you think could only be caused by cause A, ask yourself "if this cause didn't exist, would I regardless expect to experience this with equal probability?" If the answer is "yes", then it probably wasn't cause A.

I don't understand this at all - if you experience something that you think could only be caused by A, then the question you're supposed to ask yourself makes no sense whatsoever: absent A, you would expect to never experience this thing, per the original condition! And if the a... (read more)

0FAWS
I think that the inconsistency of such a position was the point. It would probably be better phrased as "... something that has to be caused by cause A" (or possibly just "proof of A"), which is effectively equivalent, but IMO something that someone who would answer yes to the following question could plausibly have claimed to believe (i. e. I wouldn't be very surprised by the existence of people who are that inconsistent in their beliefs) .
5JGWeissman
The point is that people can erroneously report, even to themselves, that they believe their experience could only be caused by cause A. Asking the question if you would still anticipate the experience if cause A did not exist is a way of checking that you really believe that your experience could only be caused by cause A. More generally, it is useful to examine beliefs you have expressed in high level language, to see if you still believe them after digging deeper into what that high level language means.

True, but I've got life insurance already - this would just be a matter of "re-purposing" a small percentage of it. Or maybe I'll just pay it out of my pocket after I get sick - the insurance isn't really a critical part of the plan.

P.S. does anyone know the legalities of cryonics? For example, suppose I pay for it with cash advances on all my credit cards, and then "die". Many years later I'm somehow brought back to life... do I still have that debt (plus interest and penalties, of course), or has it been wiped out? Maybe it depends on... (read more)

0gwern
Oh, and I'd point out that you may have issues renewing your insurance if you get a terminal disease. I don't know the ins-and-outs but it wouldn't surprise me terribly if term insurance might be hard to get if you outlive a particular time period. ('Why yes, we'd be glad to renew your term insurance policy Mr. Oblivious2; there's just the small matter of your health records...')
5gwern
Legally, you're just dead. Your life insurance gets paid out as specified, your assets get sold off and dispersed, your creditors take what they can, and after a while, the files are finally closed. What happens to your corpse is a private detail. There are cases of people returning long after being declared dead, but from what I remember, they usually got very little back. The law doesn't like loose threads; eg. statute of limitations. (And seriously - interest? What's the point of charging a returnee a few centuries of interest? If the relevant currencies, sovereignties, and entities even exist, compounded interest could be in the billions.)
2Paul Crowley
Why do you want to be frozen only when your death is long anticipated? Why would you prefer not to be frozen if your death was sudden? Or is there some advantage you get from waiting I'm not seeing? (Death meaning of course legal death here)

It seems to me that my death is most likely to come from one of 2 scenarios:

1) I become fatally ill with some disease (e.g. cancer) and, after a period of time, succumb to it.

2) I die suddenly as a result of great physical trauma (e.g. car accident)

Obviously other scenarios are possible, but I think these are the most likely. In case 1 I have plenty of time to sign up for cryonics (and could possibly pay for it with a "settlement" of some sort on my life insurance). In case 2, my body and brain suffer massive physical damage, and the cryonics co... (read more)

Alicorn150

Life insurance will become more expensive after you are diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Common sense works surprisingly well in some cases: even as a child I didn't believe the "10% of your brain" thing... think about it: the only way they could know this is if someone had 90% of their brain removed and wasn't affected... and that doesn't seem nearly as likely as people wanting to believe that everyone has vast untapped potential.

And let's not even get started on how/why evolution would provide us with 10x the brainpower we need... is there any precedent for that in evolution? Can cheetas run 10x faster than they normally do just by trying a little harder? Can seals hold their breath 10x longer than normal?