GP clearly thinks so to, which is why they presented the question, clearly trying to accuse GGP of a similar equivocation.
Your actual claim is ridiculous. It is most certainly not the case that believing in God can only connect to Stage One morality. Even in the face of a punishing god, this wouldn't be true, but not all gods are punishing anyway, making it even more off.
Convincing people to offer others programming help on the internet isn't a special accomplishment of SO. From usenet to modern mailing lists to forums to IRC, there are tons and tons of thriving venues for it. The gamification might have helped SO's popularity some, but taking time out of their busy lives to answer others' questions was alive and well.
SO is a dangerous trash heap. It doesn't encourage helping people make good programs; it answers extremely literal questions. Speed of post is important. Style of post is important. Blatantly wrong answers ar...
But you don't have to be perfect to be the right person in a team, and you don't have to be "the" right person to be an asset to a team.
Who said anything about being perfect?
And if you're an asset, you sound prettymuch like the right person to me.
Maybe. I don't have any actual sources, so I could be totally wrong. Still, I'm not sure I like the focus on "being" rather than doing things.
To me the clause "be the right person" sounds very much active/action-based.
I assume the original intent of the quote was about romantic partners, where it means, "Instead of searching so hard, make sure to prioritize being awesome for its own sake."
I was trying to repurpose it to express that action is better than preparing for something to fall into place more generally, and I think it's appealed to people.
It's funny, but you really shouldn't be learning life lessons from Tetris.
If Tetris has taught me anything, it's the history of the Soviet Union.
It's ridiculous to think that video games influence children. After all, if Pac-Man had affected children born in the eighties, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, eating strange pills, and listening to repetitive electronic music.
-- Paraphrase of joke by Marcus Brigstocke
exposure to objects common to the domain of business (e.g., boardroom tables and briefcases) increased the cognitive accessibility of the construct of competition (Study 1), the likelihood that an ambiguous social interaction would be perceived as less cooperative (Study 2), and the amount of money that participants proposed to retain for themselves in the “Ultimatum Game” (Studies 3 and 4).
-Abstract, Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice (via Yvain)
I read that as "looking for the right person to fall in love with". Then the sense is "be the right person for someone else". But that achieves a different goal entirely, since it doesn't make the other person right for you.
There are many cases where you want a different person right for the task.
Name three!
Romantic partners (inherently), trading and working partners (allowing you to specialize in your comparative advantage), deputies and office-holders (allowing you to deputize), soldiers (allowing you to send someone else to their death to win the war).
That's ridiculous.
That only serves to shut down discussion. Not only are analysis based on only part of the work fundamentally valid, they are exceedingly popular at the moment, and they are being participated in by the author. Besides...as Akin's 9th law of spacecraft design states, "Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis."
Whether or not I agree with the conclusion, your argument here is weak.
Calling an opposing viewpoint ridiculous (with formatting for emphasis, no less) does not advance the discussion. It's just a way of saying "I disagree with you strongly enough to be rude about it".
Saying that analyses based on only part of the work are fundamentally valid doesn't automatically make it so. You have to actually justify your claim.
Popularity is no indicator of validity.
If Eliezer is indeed participating in critical discussions of unfinished works, that m
I really didn't see why EY was so damn proud about it in that regard.
Because Hermione's death was motivating a female character, not just a male one -- i.e., an answer to the "fridging" complaint.
(Hence the importance of pointing out it was written that way to start with, rather than as a "half-hearted sop" to patch the fridging issue. i.e., he's pointing out that he didn't kill Hermione just to get a rise out of Harry -- the death is going to affect the whole school, and Gryffindor in particular, through McGonagall.)
If posting things said on lesswrong or OB or from HPMOR aren't in scope, it seems a little odd things said in HPMOR discussion on a forum run by you that doesn't happen to be those two is.
The idea of the rule is to not have this thread be an echo chamber for LessWrong and Yudkowsky quotes. As a sister site, Overcoming Bias falls under the same logic (though I think, given that the origin of LessWrong in OvecomingBias constantly becomes more distant in time, I wouldn't mind that rule getting relaxed for OvercomingBias more recent entries.)
But either way,...
Although it's still a point worth making that those technologies were adopted, they were not innovations--they were eastern inventions from antiquity that were adopted.
Stirrups in particular are a fascinating tale of progress not being a sure thing. The stirrup predates not only the fall of Rome, but the founding of Rome. Despite constant trade with the Parthians/Sassanids as well as constantly getting killed by their cavalry, the Romans never saw fit to adopt such a useful technology. Like the steam engine, we see that technological adoption isn't so inevitable.
Why do you find the idea of having the level of technology from the Roman empire to be so extreme? It seems like the explosion in technological development and use in recent centuries could be the fluke. There was supposedly a working steam engine in the Library of Alexandria in antiquity, but no one saw any reason to encourage that sort of thing. During the middle ages people didn't even know what the Roman aqueducts were for. With just a few different conditions, it seems like it's within the realm of possibility that ancient Roman technology could have been a nearly-sustainable peak of human technology.
Much more feasible would be staying foragers for the life of the species, though.
Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis.
A while back here a few people revealed they were Mr Money Mustache fans. One of the more intriguing blog posts of his I read touches on this topic
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/11/get-rich-with-trust/
Quite possibly.
The epidemiological studies, as I understand it, make the association between claims of flossing and improved tooth health unambiguously exist (though not huge). HHS didn't analyse them and find them too week, exactly; they simply want controlled studies for this purpose (for good reason, of course). Nonetheless, everything we know makes it sound like flossing is at least a little effective.
Whether the effect justifies spending minutes every week, who knows.