All of XelaP's Comments + Replies

There's a minor error in the formula giving the cross entropy: you need a minus sign on the RHS so that it reads E[- log P[X|M_2] | M_2]

The preceding text is "Of course, we could be wrong about the distribution - we could use a code optimized for a model M2 which is different from the “true” model M1. In this case, the average number of bits used will be"

Certainly, you have pictures! Pictures are great!

I had no clue what SUVAT is and I know a relatively large amount of physics (advanced undergrad to grad level knowledge, currently an undergrad in college but with knowledge well above the curriculum). I feel a bit disgusted at the idea of someone memorizing those equations.

The first few letters are often used as parameters (e.g. p(x) = ax^2 + bx + c).

f is sometimes used for force density, e.g, in fluid mechanics (annoyingly, the wiki page on the Cauchy momentum equation uses f for the acceleration density caused by an external force).

Electrical engineers ... (read more)

For a fun puzzle, look into the Monty Hall problem. The usual explanation is bad. Use Bayes Law to figure out a good one. For the answer, along with some extra problems (e.g. The Monty Fall problem, where Monty slips on a banana peel and accidentally flips one of the levers, and The Monty Crawl problem, where our poor host now has to crawl, and thus will prefer to open the lowest number door as long as it doesn't contain the car), see https://probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf

I think you could've done better with integration by parts.

In physics, integration by parts is usually applied for a definite integral in which you can neglect the uv term. Thus, integration by parts reads: "The integral of udv = integral of -vdu, that is, you can trade what you differentiate in a product, as long as the functions in question have a small integral over the boundary".

Common examples are when you integrate over some big volume, as most physical quantities are very small far away from the stuff.

I also think the intuition behind Bayes rule as ... (read more)

Great explanation! I was linked here by someone after wondering why linear regression was asymmetric. While a quick google and a chatGPT could tell me that they are minimizing different things, the advantage of your post is the:

1. Pictures
2. Explanation of why minimizing different things will get you slopes differing in this specific way (that is, far outliers are punished heavily)
3. A connection to PCA that is nice and simply explained.

Thanks!

For a treatment besides Tamiflu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic cites the who and CDC stating that H1N1 developed resistance to Tamiflu but not Relenza

In December 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 314 samples of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu tested worldwide have shown resistance to oseltamivir (Tamiflu).[172] It is not totally unexpected as 99.6% of the seasonal H1N1 flu strains tested have developed resistance to oseltamivir.[173] No circulating flu has yet shown any resistance to zanamivir (Relenza), the other avai

I often find illustrative explanations like these either obvious or useless. But this was amazing! Those venn diagrams really are an extremely simple and intuitive and beautiful way to see Shapley values!

I think it makes sense to include the podcasts that aren't currently updating - for example, Rationally Speaking's old episodes. Affix needs a new link or an archived version, as the episodes are not listed at the current link, and I'm too lazy to track down the episodes.

I basically agree. The following is speculation/playing with an idea, not something I think is likely true.

Imagine it's the future. It becomes clear that a lab could easily create mirror bacteria if they wanted to, or even deliberately create mirror pathogens. It may even get to the point where countries explicitly threaten to do this.

At that point, it might be a good idea to develop mirror life for the purposes of developing countermeasures.

I'm not that familiar with how modern vaccines and drugs are made. Can a vaccine be made without involving a living cell? What about an antibiotic?

They don't need to solve the whole Halting Problem, for the same reason you don't need to contradict Rice's theorem if you had some proof (which I take as an axiom for the sake of the hypothetical) that the predictor was in fact perfect and that it is utility maximizing. Also, we can just try saying that there is a high probability that they will do this. Furthermore, you can imagine a restricted subset of Turing machines for which the Halting problem is computable. But also the only computers that exist in reality are really finite state machines.

Well, the perplexing situation doesn't actually happen if the predictors are good enough, because they'll predict you both won't update and won't take the bet. Thus you'll never have been approached in the first place.

There's 148.94 million km^2 of Earth land area, not ~500 million as you claim (which is about the entire surface area of the earth).

This is important because in the kinetic destruction section, you found that your lower bound on human habitation area is 5x larger than the total possible kinetic destruction area. However, your area number is 3.3x too big, since only 30% of the area is land area. Thus your lower bound is only 1.5x larger than the possible destruction area, which makes the bound weaker - it's pretty plausible that nukes might get 1.5x more de... (read more)

I assume your proposal requires trades be public, so that someone exploiting a proof to get free money ends up revealing the proof to others.

Until computerized theorem proving vastly improves, this system will only prove statements after the first proof is accepted.

This is a very good collection and distillation of rational college advice. However, there is very little advice from you, about your year, advice that's the title made me expect.

I mention this because sometimes in rationalist contexts, I've felt a pressure to not talk about models that are missing Gears. I don't like that. I think that Gears-ness is a really super important thing to track, and I think there's something epistemically dangerous about failing to notice a lack of Gears. Clearly noting, at least in your own mind, where there are and aren't Gears seems really good to me. But I think there are other capacities that are also important when we're trying to get epistemology right

A good way to notice the lack of gears is to ... (read more)

They aren't. brook is saying that picking locks might damage them, and damaging locks not in use at worst means you have to throw away a padlock, whereas damaging locks in use might mean you can't open your front door.

Woah, just on a watch-like device! How far along is this technology?

If this has been a thing for 30 years, why is the hardware best-in-class? Also, is there a presentation that is more impressive/innovative but perhaps less theatrical?

I think it is best to try to edit it anyway. I think if you have already seen the post, it does not take that long to see that there isn't a line added that is trolly. Also, you should do it for the sake of mathematical accuracy.

Hey! There are at least 3 channels where TBC-and-related-podcast-content is discussed!

(though, if you are only talking about the TBC podcast and not other podcasts hosted by the same people and that are plugged in the same places, then yes, there is only one channel).

I cannot speak for Scott, but I can speculate. I am quite sure a rock doesn't have qualia, because it doesn't have any processing center, gives no sign of having any utility to maximize, and has no reaction to stimuli. It most probably doesn't have a mind.