re 2: Now that you mention it, I realized sharpening can be easily outsourced. My mistake.
re 1: I don't see it, buying pre-chopped onions is simply not equivalent to having a freshly chopped onion and some vegetables cannot be bought pre-cut. While cutting isn't a bottleneck for most people I had this chain in mind: (no cutting skills) -> (cooking takes more time and is less pleasant) -> (Less willingness to try new or complex recipes).
(Also, if you don't have proper technique, you're at a higher risk of cutting yourself. In that respect, it's like free climbing / using safety ropes)
re 3: I had self-experiments in general in mind (people run self-experiments, without knowing statistics, or even gathering data), but it did not occur to me that not all self-experiments are QS (probably most aren't). As written you are, of course, correct.
I think that the training wheels example is wrong. A quick search suggests they hinder learning how to ride a bike.
Anyway, I have a few more examples ([actual skill] / [scaffolding skill]):
Minor UI complaint:
When opening a tag, the default is to sort by relevance, and this can't be changed (to the best of my knowledge). More importantly, I don't see how it is supposed to be useful. Users don't upvote the relevance of a tag when it fits—the modal amount of votes is 1 and, in almost all cases, that is enough evidence to conclude that the tag has been assgned correctly.
In other words, all the information that controls the shape of your face, your bones, your organs and every single enzyme inside them – all of that takes less storage space than Microsoft Word™.
See also: How Complex Are Individual Differences.
A blogger who goes by Troof created a huge questionnaire to get people to report their experiences with various nootropics including peptides. He writes:
Selank, Semax, Cerebrolysin, BPC-157 are all peptides, and they are all in the green “uncommon-but-great” rectangle above. Their mean ratings are excellent, but their probabilities of changing your life are especially impressive: between 5 and 20% for Cerebrolysin (which matches anecdotal reports), between 2 and 13% for BPC-157, and between 3 and 7% for Semax.
This article pretty much convinced me that cerebrosylin doesn't work (as a nootropic), which made me quite sceptical of all popular peptides, since it's also the highest-rated one in troof's survey.
Robert Miles has a channel popularizing AI safety concepts.
[Edit] Also manifold markets has recordings of talks at the Manifest conferences.
I feel like a lot more direct genetic evidence has surfaced: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Those first 4 links, I think, are pretty unconvincing in isolation, but this one is fine.
[Disclaimer 1: I just linked things that I remembered off the top of my head.]
[Disclaimer 2: I think that the case for hereditarianism was quite overwhelming even 14 years ago, so you should consider me biased.]
The most recent comments show up in 'Recent Discussion' on the main page, regardless of article age. But, of course, though some people may see them, you are still more likely to get engagement if you comment on recent articles.
Don't know about wikitags comments.