doing anything requires extra effort proportional to the severity of symptoms
that's what the entire post is about?
Getting oxygen from the moon to LEO requires less delta V than going from the Moon to LEO!
I think there might be a typo?
possibly an easier entry point to the topic is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin%27s_constant
which is a specific construction that has some relation to the ideas OP has for a construction
MoviePass was paying full price for every ticket.
Well what's the appropriate way to act in the face of the fact that I AM sure I am right?
I agree that my suggestion was not especially helpful.
I think a generic answer is "read the sequences"? Here's a fun one
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qRWfvgJG75ESLRNu9/the-crackpot-offer
With regards to subsidizing: all the subsidizer needs to do in order to incentivize work on P is sell shares of P. If they are short P when P is proven, they lose money -- this money in effect goes to the people who worked to prove it.
To be more concrete:
Suppose P is trading at 0.50. I think I can prove P with one hour of work. Then an action available to me is to buy 100 shares of P, prove it, and then sell them back for $50 of profit.
But my going fee is $55/hour, so I don't do it.
Then a grantmaker comes along and offers to sell some shares at $0.40. Now the price is right for me, so I buy and prove and make $60/hr.
https://gwern.net/tool-ai
ACT-R theory predicts that the "strength" of declarative memory in human brains decays as , where is the amount of time since the exposure to the fact. The power law here seems strange – surely things should either decay discretely or exponentially. My first reaction when I heard this was to think very confusedly about reaction rates between neurotransmitters, and my second reaction was to look for the empirical evidence.[1] As it turns out, the power law relationship was empirically established in the late 90s. [2] Ready for another shock? This matches closely with an empirical observation about information decay in financial markets! Our goal in this post is to give a theoretical explanation of this coincidence.
The... (read 1836 more words →)
There's probably more "bill-spotting effort per occupant" in grand central than elsewhere in life. Like maybe at a random train station there is on average $10/day available for the world to make watching the ground for abandoned cash, while at Grand Central there is $300/day. It is worth ~nobody's time to just sit around looking for bills in the random case, but in the grand central case maybe there is a kid who decides to try. If a bill drops within 20 meters of that kid, they are pretty likely (say > 30%) to notice it before anyone else does — just being the nearest person to the dropper isnt' good enough.
(If this is a claim about "market efficiency", then I'd say something like "the largest markets attract the most sophisticated participants".)