blob

• blob 12 Feb 2021 20:13 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: TheSimplestExplanation’s comment on: Covid 2/​11: As Expected

  20.3% of the analysed cases in week 4 were B.1.1.7, and current numbers for week 5 show 28.5%. The pdf linked from https://​​covid19.ssi.dk/​​virusvarianter/​​opgoerelse-over-udvalgte-af-sars-cov-2-virusvarianter is currently updated daily.

• blob 6 Jan 2021 8:44 UTC

  1 point

  on: Data about the new coro­n­avirus var­i­ant (B.1.1.7) from Denmark

  This follow-up work is also interesting: https://​​www.ssi.dk/​​-/​​media/​​cdn/​​files/​​scenarier_for_udviklingen_i_den_engelske_virusvariant_af_sars-cov-2.pdf?la=da

  They use an agent-based model to extrapolate that the UK variant will reach 50% prevalence in Denmark around 40-50 days after Jan 1.

  The model does not account for control loop effects or vaccinations. It says that absent these and with the usual assumptions, Denmark would see a strong peak after 90 days where around 1.4% of the country would be infected at the same time, followed by herd-immunity decline to current infection levels after 180 days.

• blob 27 Dec 2020 9:52 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Oskar Mathiasen’s comment on: What ev­i­dence will tell us about the new strain? How are you up­dat­ing?

  On 2: This reports that Denmark has found 33 cases of the new variant, out of 7800 analysed between Nov 14 and Dec 14. Source: https://​​www.ssi.dk/​​aktuelt/​​nyheder/​​2020/​​statens-serum-institut-udgiver-opdaterede-tal-for-den-engelske-covid-19-virusvariant, English reporting: https://​​www.thelocal.dk/​​20201224/​​denmark

• blob 4 Jul 2020 6:43 UTC

  3 points

  on: LWCW 2020 - Euro­pean LessWrong Com­mu­nity Weekend

  Note that the 2020 LWCW was cancelled due to COVID-19.

• blob 27 Sep 2017 12:20 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Stupid Ques­tions—Septem­ber 2017

  Agreed!

  My slightly grumpy theory is that Apple introduced silly-high dpis as a unique selling point and the other manufacturers had to follow. Sure, some increase in pixel density was useful but they overshot the ideal. (maybe my eyesight is worse than usual, or I have atypical usecases?)

• blob 27 Sep 2017 12:14 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Stupid Ques­tions—Septem­ber 2017

  The typical distance between your eyes and the display is closer for a smartphone than for a monitor. If you had both and they had the same resolution the smartphone-pixel would usually take up more of your field of view than the monitor-pixel. The closer the display is to your eyes, the more pixels you’d like it to have. Think about VR headsets as an extreme case: their displays have resolutions like 2160x1200 and people complain that they can see every pixel.

  And relating to that, adding more pixels has diminishing returns. Personally for instance I don’t care about adding more pixels to current-gen monitors (while keeping the size constant; larger screens need more pixels). Some people would certainly be able to make use of it, but I would hardly benefit. Improvements in color would be very nice though and it’s nice to see things start moving into that direction.

• blob 22 Sep 2017 6:26 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Dustin’s comment on: LW 2.0 Open Beta Live

  I have the same problem with a gmail account. I’ve tried several times, checked spam, searched. I assume google didn’t accept the email.

  EDIT: One of them arrived now.

• blob 16 Sep 2017 12:42 UTC

  22 points

  in reply to: pepe_prime’s comment on: 2017 LessWrong Survey

  I’ve taken the survey.

• blob 4 Jan 2016 6:15 UTC

  5 points

  on: Why CFAR? The view from 2015

  Here’s a concrete anecdote related to the “Do-gooding and epistemic rationality” part.

  One of the key benefits I got from the workshop I attended in 2014 was clearer perception and acceptance of my goals.

  “I don’t know what’s important to me beyond myself, family, friends” and “It doesn’t seem like I really care about the world” (donating to EA charities seemed like a should) got changed. I do care, and already did before the workshop. It seems like the goals hadn’t propagated fully, I hadn’t accepted them—possibly because of the scope, the stakes and the implications of taking them seriously.

  I have a clear memory of this shift happening because the question “Given these goals, is what you’re currently doing correct?” popped up for real the first time. It was great to be able to talk about it directly.

• blob 26 Dec 2015 10:50 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Tenoke’s comment on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end 2016

  There’s a good chance you’ll be able to participate even if you sign up late. We plan for more participants this time (100 instead of 80) and will also stagger signups in a way keeps some tickets available until a month in advance. If you want to be sure, committing now remains the best option though.

• blob 19 Nov 2014 18:34 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end 2015

  There’ll be many international participants so the official proceedings and most informal discussion will be conducted in English.

• blob 20 Oct 2014 3:51 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: vollmer’s comment on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end 2015

  Of course it will also be possible to offer contributing content at a later point. There will be an additional “call for papers” at a date closer to the actual event.

• blob 28 Jan 2014 13:40 UTC

  1 point

  on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end in Berlin

  The response has been great: We now have 40 people tentatively signed up and can’t accept more, unfortunately.

  If you’d have wanted to sign up, please email John anyway! We may get back to you If someone can’t come after all. It also gives us a better idea of how many people to expect next time!

• blob 25 Jan 2014 15:55 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: MondSemmel’s comment on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end in Berlin

  Good point, done!

• blob 25 Jan 2014 13:30 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: akvadrako’s comment on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end in Berlin

  I’ll gladly clarify things:

  • The 70 Euro mainly include a bed in a shared room for two nights, two breakfasts and a part of the conference room rent. We’ve tried to keep it as cheap as possible to allow everyone to attend.

  • The conference room fits 40, maybe more. We currently only booked 30 beds but could surely extend that.

  • Signing up involves transferring money, possibly internationally, and banks are ridiculously slow at executing these transfers. So only one person has successfully signed up by now. Maybe some bitcoin transfers have reached John already, I don’t know. Yesterday evening there were 35 people who are definitely interested and 4-10 maybes.

• blob 24 Jan 2014 15:03 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: mjr’s comment on: Euro­pean Com­mu­nity Week­end in Berlin

  If you send me a message with your email address, I’ll make sure it gets to John. See you there!

• blob 4 Apr 2013 9:55 UTC

  0 points

  on: Meetup : Ber­lin, prac­ti­cal rationality

  The location changed! Please check the mailing list for details.

• blob 14 Mar 2013 18:12 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Mqrius’s comment on: Pro­gram­ming the LW Study Hall

  Somewhat customizable: It supports widgets, but I’m not sure to what degree the layout is editable.

  Rearranging the internal video canvas layout seems to be not supported.

• blob 4 Mar 2013 1:09 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Marios’s comment on: Meetup : Berlin

  Welcome to LessWrong!

  If you’re in Berlin and considering to attend, definitely join the mailing list. We usually have a poll to see who is coming to a meetup, but didn’t run one this time. There are usually 6-10 of us.

• blob 7 Dec 2012 7:06 UTC

  63 points

  on: 2012 Win­ter Fundraiser for the Sin­gu­lar­ity Institute

  I donated 650$ and will donate the same amount to the CFAR fundraiser.