bioavailability of supplements is a long debate, and iirc there’s no simple answer (ie. varies by vitamin and producer of said vitamin/mineral/nutrient)
AnnaJo
Karma: 155
so maybe they’re only noticing vegans who don’t take supplements (that contain b9).
This seems reasonable—I think they have casually tested it among friends (they’re in the berkeley rationalist circle iirc). But if someone is vegan and supplements correctly, they likely wouldn’t guess that they’re vegan to start with
On the unhealthy to be vegan point:
idk about “mitochondrial dysfunction” but I can easily clock vegans by the quality of their skin (w/ false positives from malnutrition/MTHFR issues, but few-no false negatives.)
Unrelatedly, shifting demand of meat into more humane meat creates stronger economic incentives for the companies to treat their animals well
As a girl, it absolutely makes a difference. I’m more likely to get approached if I’m wearing contacts + dress than if I was wearing glasses + jeans and t-shirt. The variance in how people treat you is strongest with strangers (because they have no other information about you to go off of; for example, I would think someone who has a hole in their shirt as more likely to be low-conscientiousness). I stand and sit somewhat non-optimally but I haven’t been able to correct this reliably.
Your description of old waterbottles etc. signals that you’re frugal, practical, and don’t care much about optics, and you probably want a wife with those traits. Seems reasonable for you to keep doing what you’re doing if you don’t care about her putting a ton of effort into her appearance.
a lot of h1b folks are engineers, not researchers. and a lot of the O-1 requirements are academic/research-oriented, or at least it’s marginally easier if you’re a researcher
even if the $100k h1b fee change will be struck down by the court, opening the overton window on making legal immigration more uncertain is bad especially if the US wants researchers/academics, who are often very risk-averse.
also top people often have more options, so they are more likely to leave the US on the margin as well
I think there’s some about of misinformation or wrong facts that you’ll believe when you read enough things. Maybe twitter users who use it for news etc. end up with a higher % of incorrect views about the world, but I think anyone who reads the news regularly if only just from reputable sources (ie. print) will have weird beliefs
I do mutual escalation if I’m really into them, approve/disapprove when I’m not sure if I’m into them, or like if they’d be safe to flirt with. But even with mutual escalation, I usually match what they (the guy) is doing, maybe go a tiny bit further, depending on how I feel that day. This is likely confounded by how I can get attracted to someone if we spend a few hours talking, even if I wasn’t attracted when I first met them. I think I was more likely to do mutual escalation when I was younger too
I’ve read a lot of the arguments about alignment, goal setting, disempowerment, etc. and they come across as just-so stories to me. AI 2027 is probably one of the more convincing ones, but even then there’s handwaving around why we’ll suddenly start producing stuff that nobody wants.
Your post gestures at how econ has obfuscated the idea of heterogenous labor and capital and transaction costs. Labor and capital isn’t homogeneous and interchangeable costlessly in the real world, but it’s a good assumption for various macro models.
When we’re talking about AGI, we’re talking about creating a new intelligent species on Earth, one which will eventually be faster, smarter, better-coordinated, and more numerous than humans.
I would be interested in a post about how exactly we would get there—we would have to create this thing right? There would be demand for this thing to help us be more productive/better leisure, and why are we assuming that one day it would suddenly outcompete us or suddenly turn against us?
I grew up in fundamentalist circles and was in (foreign) church plants for ~5 years of my life.
The founder is very young, often under 25.
He might work alone or with a founding team, but when he tells the story of the founding it will always have him at the center.
He has no credentials for this business.
Founders at foreign plants are usually older, typically in their 30s or 40s. Some are even in their 50s or 60s, arriving as empty nesters. Supporter attrition is extremely high; our church turned over about every ~2 years. About 50% of foreign missionaries leave after 2 years, another 1⁄2 of the remaining leave after 4, and another 1⁄2 after 7 years. So only about 1⁄8 of people stay long-term at one of these harder plants that take about 10 years to start. So many fail before they even truly get underway, especially in the most hostile areas. Mission orgs almost always try to send a team to a new area, because planting is extremely lonely and isolating. When the pastors I met talk about the history of the church, they often mention other planters etc. and give themselves a much lower profile (seems reasonable that podcast guests aren’t representative of the pastor at one of these plants).
Not all foreign missionaries are seminary-educated, but most pastors are regardless of denomination. Many were actively involved in the church, had some sort of sending/validation by other members, and some were even pastors of their former church. Churches usually start in living rooms and there’s often no church building that you could take over. Oftentimes you rent space from a building; during the week you can use it as an office or something.
Generally unconcerned with negative externalities
This wasn’t my experience; many people expressed sadness/wishes that scandals like Mars Hill didn’t happen. Leadership also take precautions against causing scandals etc., but each plant varies but most in foreign places are fairly upright and try to do good in general.
The most useful function [of a mission team] mentioned was mowing the pastor’s own lawn, to free up his time.
Mission teams are often criticized for their effectiveness even within Christian circles because they take a lot of resources from the hosting church (providing food, place to sleep, spend time with them, etc.) and the output is often manual labor/construction instead of trying to build relationships with locals because of time constraints or language barriers. It’s sometimes comforting for the receiving church though; it can be lonely at a plant. An argument for mission teams is that it “strengthens the faith” of the people going and they forge closer relationships with each other, which leads to lower attrition rates from the church on the margin.
iirc @habryka had a prompt that worked pretty well to get GPT (I forget which version) to become a lesswronger that could yell at you for bad takes
dropping another half seems tempting, but I’m afraid I’ll be more likely to be overaggressive in filtering and have too many false negatives perhaps. But the probability of each person working out is just so low that maybe it’s fine? Not sure about the math on this, I could be wrong
The 15-min call is a good idea, will start implementing, thanks!
as a (nerdy) girl who just got on the dating apps in SF, im getting flooded with interest and im now stressed out by all the people i could meet. i got something like 15 hinge matches and 10 from feeld today, about 20% make it past my preliminary filter but that’s still a lot of ppl to be talking to concurrently!
so many future filtering steps, this is just the start of the funnel; there are ppl im more excited to meet but oftentimes im ambivalent. it’s getting to the point where im scheduling dates ~a week out and declining dates to go to house parties etc. to hangout with friends, bc for now friends > finding someone to date. what’s the optimal filtering strategy to be doing here, how should you schedule ppl to exit the market as early as possible without hurting other’s feelings unnecessarily (or filtering too aggressively and making false negatives)??
I got the vaccine (2 doses) for it as a kid but it’s only demonstrated to last 10-20 years, and I’m now past the 20-year mark. I’m now seeing claims of a lifetime but can’t find studies.
This just seems confusing to the average person. P(Doom|AI) or P(Doom|~AI) are both greater than zero in this case and seems easier to discuss
AnnaJo’s Shortform
damn being homeschooled the whole way (we didn’t do co-ops either) really meant that I didn’t catch any of the typical diseases that kids get like scarlet fever and mono until grad school. Still haven’t caught HFM or chicken-pox and I don’t look forward to that. There might be some argument made for getting these diseases at a later stage in life creates more suffering because your time is more valuable + weird complications can occur the older you are. Anyways, just wanted to rant a bit; this isn’t an argument against homeschooling.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if outdoor activities in general are correlated with class, even when they’re not necessarily expensive (e.g. hiking).
Maybe it’s more how much leisure time it takes or usefulness they confer; for example hiking feels slightly more upper middle class, but camping feels ambiguous. Fishing is lower (middle) class. Golf is upper class, swimming in a lake/body of water near your house is ambiguous (maybe depends on if it’s a pool or just a river?)
Sorry to hear about the mold and I’m glad antidepressants worked for you! Anything that messes with hormones/brain seems to be ymmv given the long side effect sheets that the drug manufacturers publish alongside the drug. One of my friends on antidepressants phrased it as “antidepressants don’t make you happy per se but you feel like there’s a lower bound to the sadness,” and others needed to experiment a bunch so they definitely work but it’s unclear which one exactly sometimes