3. put the spiciest posts behind a paywall, because you have something to say but don’t want the entire internet freaking out about it.
Elizabeth
Karma: 16,308
This seems like a great thing to exist and you have my encouragement to write it.
Well in that case I was the one who was unnecessarily anxious so still feels like a cost, although one well worth paying to get the information faster.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. Do you want people interested in solving your particular problem? Solving the class of problems you’re in (probably not option)? Solving mysterious illnesses in general?
Are you wondering why there’s no one to hire? No one will help you for free? Not enough research money is spent on the topic?
The phenomenon extends beyond math
Additionally, prodigies are amongst the most likely people to experience this, because they spend so much of their early life being the best in the room. Math grad students aren’t comparing themselves to the 8 billion people who are worse than them at math, they’re comparing themselves to each other, field leaders, and dead people who accomplished more at a given age.
I’ve heard that a lot of skill in poker is not when to draw or what to discard, it’s knowing how much to bet on a given hand. There isn’t that much you can do to improve any given hand, but folding earlier and betting more on good hands are within your control.
feels like a metaphor for something.
I don’t know what you mean by “total amount” because ppm is a concentration
The spray is clearly delivering a set amount, but describing it in ppm. Since the volume and density of air inside then nose isn’t changing, you can treat the change as a count rather than concentration.
that tweet’s interpretation agrees with mine.
My understanding of the tweet’s model is that [actual released amount] * [8 hours] = 0.11ppm, so [released amount] = 0.11/8.
I still don’t understand your number. Could you expand the equation behind “If NO is produced and reacts immediately, say in 20 seconds, this means the concentration achieved is 19.8 ppm”?
EA organizations frequently ask for people to run criticism by them ahead of time. I’ve been wary of the push for this norm. My big concerns were that orgs wouldn’t comment until a post was nearly done, and that it would take a lot of time. My recent post mentioned a lot of people and organizations, so it seemed like useful data.
I reached out to 12 email addresses, plus one person in FB DMs and one open call for information on a particular topic. This doesn’t quite match what you see in the post because some people/orgs were used more than once, and other mentions were cut. The post was in a fairly crude state when I sent it out.
Of those 14: 10 had replied by the start of next day. More than half of those replied within a few hours. I expect this was faster than usual because no one had more than a few paragraphs relevant to them or their org, but is still impressive.
It’s hard to say how sending an early draft changed things. Austin Chen
got some extra anxietyjoked about being anxious because their paragraph was full of TODOs (because it was positive and I hadn’t worked as hard fleshing out the positive mentions ahead of time). Turns out they were fine but then I was worried I’d stressed them out. I could maybe have saved myself one stressful interaction if I’d realized I was going to cut an example ahead of timeOnly 80,000 Hours, Anima International, and GiveDirectly failed to respond before publication (7 days after I emailed them).
I didn’t keep as close track of changes, but at a minimum replies led to 2 examples being removed entirely, 2 clarifications and some additional information that made the post better. So overall I’m very glad I solicited comments, and found the process easier than expected.
Wait if 0.11ppm*hr is the integral, doesn’t that suggest the total amount is 0.11ppm? My biologist friends have failed me but that’s this twitter comment’s interpretation.
on the reagent math: I believe the methycellulose is fairly bulky (because it’s sold separately as a powder to inhale), which makes the lower about of NO more believable.
Yeah I definitely misread that ppm/hour. I’m unsure how to interpret *hrs, that seems nonsensical. I’m under a tight deadline right now but have reached out to some bio friends for help. Assuming this doesn’t turn out to be a typo, I’d like to give you a bounty for catching this, can you PM me your paypal info?
I tried the imported ketoconazole shampoo recently and it indeed worked where American OTC shampoo had failed.
This is consistent with the dose being 130µl of a dilute liquid
Can you clarify this part? The liquid is a reactive solution (and contains other ingredients) so I don’t understand how you calculated it.
I agree the integral is a reasonable interpretation and appreciate you pointing it out. My guess is low frequent applications are better than infrequent high doses, but I don’t know what the conversion rate is and this definitely undermines the hundred-dollar-bill case.
To go one step further, potentially any and every major decision they have played a part in needs to be reevaluated by objective third parties.
I like a lot of this post, but the sentence above seems very out of touch to me. Who are these third parties who are completely objective? Why is objective the adjective here, instead of “good judgement” or “predicted this problem at the time”?
I haven’t looked into it; seems plausible it helps, but since it’s a signalling molecule I’m wary of amplifying it too much.
The best known amplifier of NO in the bloodstream is viagra. My understanding is they haven’t found general health effects from it, despite looking really hard and first investigating it as a treatment for heart disease.
Yeah when I was writing this part of me kept saying “but humming is so cheap, why shouldn’t everyone do it all the time?”, and I had to remind myself that attention is a cost. This is despite the fact that it’s not cheap for me (due to trigeminal neuralgia; I’ll probably stick with enovid myslf) and attention is a limiting reagent for me. The too-cheap-to-meter argument is really seductive.
I think some poly scenarios save money (although most are accessible without poly), but poly also gives you new and exciting ways to lose it (these can be replicated without poly too, but it’s harder).
If you can’t afford your home without everyone’s income, then your housing stability is dependent on every relationship in the house. Hope everyone is chore compatible. And is in agreement on if the house allows kid. And everyone’s work is near each other. And...
I’ve seen poly housing (and found family shared housing) go well and save money, but mostly when at least one person had a lot of financial slack (to paper over housemate losses) and no one was so badly off they can’t afford to leave. If someone needs the house sharing to work, issues will fester until they become toxic.
citric acid and a polymer
https://www.modestneeds.org/ will give one time cash infusions to people with capital intensive problems (like moving costs, or keeping a vehicle). I haven’t looked into them in a while; a few years ago there was a requirement that the cash infusion would get recipients on a stable track, I think that might be looser now.
All of the problems you list seem harder with repeated within-person trials.
1 day later, my retraction has more karma than the original humming post