All of Huera's Comments + Replies

Oddly enough, you're the second person to post about this.

I think sorting all posts by 'Top, inflation adjusted' and browsing by year is your best bet. E.g. 2016

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.

I have, indeed, misunderstood the concept—will retract my comment.

Going into account settings and clicking submit makes LessWrong switch to light mode.
[On a more meta note, should I report such issues here, in the intercom, or not at all?]

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 convin... (read more)

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.]

Were it not for the big red button™ , I probably would've opted in before reading what this year's Petrov Day was about (I didn't take part, since that would risk too much precious karma). I wonder whether it would be more fitting to make the opt-in option look maximally scary or nonthreatening.

I wonder how many traits there are that, for most people, are acquired responses to their environment, but for a minority are essential qualities of their nature.

Considering the poor track-record of the nurture assumption when it comes to psychological traits, I would surmise that the answer might be: almost none^[1]. Even perfectionism has at least moderate genetic influences^[2].

1. ^{^}

   Excluding traits that have close to no influence on one's life.

2. ^{^}

   And I would argue that the study underestimates the heritability due to measurement error, which can be a non-trivi

What I previously thought of as "no suffering" was actually torment which I had just gotten used to.

I've read similar sentiments expressed before, but I never quite understood them. If one starts to perceive a particular state of mind as torment, why should the conclusion be that one was wrong before? What makes the "I gained a valuable spiritual insight" hypothesis more likely than the "my mind broke in very specific way" hypothesis?

I was cognizant that I am the architect of my own mind, and used those powers.

Could you perhaps elaborate on how exactly you managed to "exotically self-modify"? Was it just the "aha!" moment you mentioned, or was it the meditation?

When I tried to do something similar a while ago (albeit probably with different methods), I just got null results. So what did you do that produced such undoubtedly strong effects?

(My current fide rating is ~1500 elo (~37 percentile) and my peak rating was ~1700 elo (~56 percentile)).

While I'm not that good at chess myself, I think you got some things wrong, and on some I'm just being nitpicky.

My rating on lichess blitz is 1200, on rapid is 1600, which some calculator online said would place me at ~1100 ELO on the FIDE scale.

I’m quite skeptical of such conversions, but I understand you had nothing better to go on. This website (made from surveying a bunch of redditors ^[1]) converts your lichess blitz rating into 1005, 869&... (read more)

I recently figured out a great way of restoring my hands to baseline functionality after they‘ve been exposed to cold for an extended period of time. It goes like this:

1. Put your hands under warm water for a minute or so. This will make your blood vessels dilate.
2. With your arms extended, rapidly bring your hands up and down about 10-20 times. This motion helps to improve circulation by using centrifugal force to bring blood into your hands.

I've tried this technique a few times and it seems to be vastly more effective than just using hot water alone.

I hope someone finds this helpful during the winter.

Have you tried generating images with prompts that only describe the general vibe of a picture, without hinting at the content? Something like: "The best painting in history", "A very scary drawing", "A joyous photo".

Could you elaborate as to why you think "need is a strong word"?

The lesswrong word counter tells me that this post is, 67927 words long. Is it a mistake?

Could you elaborate on why this study is dubious?  Is it because of the small number of participants? Is the test that was used to assess recognition of notes deeply flawed? Or maybe valproate just can’t possibly increase neuroplasticity?

I’m asking because I read this around a year ago, and to this day I’m puzzled as to why no one tried to replicate the findings.