brook
Does this mean, then, that it is not merely difficult, but mathematically impossible for any matter to ever reach 0 Kelvin? This would seem to violate Liouville’s Theorem as stated here.
This feels to me like part of the puzzle, as you say.
I think the other part is some quality of mind-like-ness (or optimising-agent-ness, if you prefer). People rarely attribute free will to leaves in the wind, despite their inability to accurately model their movements. On the other hand, many people do regularly attribute something suspiciously free-will-like to evolution(s).
I don’t have a good idea how either of these two concepts should be represented, or attached to one another, though.
I’d like to suggest not using ibuprofen, or any other anti-inflammatory (NSAID or steroid: also includes aspirin, cortisone, etc. with the presumed exception of pre-prescribed steroids for e.g. asthma).
This is on the basis of this article from the BMJ. In summary, there are a handful of COVID-19 specific cases of young fit people becoming severely ill following ibuprofen use, combined with small studies on SARS-CoV and other illnesses.
Paracetamol should probably be used instead of ibuprofen/NSAIDs.
This seems like a cheap switch as they’re likely roughly equivalent in symptom control excepting this effect. Please let me know if you see or read any reason this may be dangerous/untrue. (Is this an appropriate place to post this? Or does it belong in the generalised advice thread?)
Coronavirus Virology: A Beginner’s Guide
To your first point: my intuition is that ACE2 is far too small for the genome to pass through itself. ACE2 is an enzyme that’s bound to the membrane—it actually just cleaves angiotensin 1 to angiotensin 2 (hence ‘angiotensin cleavage enzyme, ACE2). It does pass through the membrane, but it’s not really a ‘channel’—it is simply localised to the cell membrane, and acts on substances extracellularly.
Enveloped viruses can enter cells in many ways (principles of virology chapter 5 is really excellent for this, if you’re interested). It seems that SARS-CoV (the original outbreak) enters cells primarily how it is implied above—simple, direct membrane fusion mediated by the ACE2 receptor. There is some speculation that it may under some circumstances be endocytosed (taken into the cell in a separate sphere of membrane) and then break free of the endosome (the bubble) in a pH-dependent way. Obviously this is further complicated by the fact that this is SARS-CoV-2 that we’re really interested in, so I thought it would be best to leave it blank. You’re right in thinking this process is similar to SER budding, though.
To your second point: I wasn’t actually sure! I’ve done some research, but honestly I’m still not as confident about this as about the rest. As far as I can tell, for most viruses nucleocapsid shedding is either mediated by substances or organelles inside the cytoplasm—ribosomes in particular, apparently, bind to the capsids of some viruses and destabilise them—or is part of the process of receptor binding. Some viruses, for instance, seem to be able to leave their nucleocapsid behind with their envelope so it coats one side of the cell membrane.
Sorry I can’t give a better answer, hope it helps!
This is true, and a mistake on my part (they don’t bother with IFR in medical school, likely because it’s not as relevant for day-to-day medicine as CFR). I’ll update the post to try to explain the difference. Thanks a lot.
Are there any plans to implement tagging of whole sequences? I understand that tagging the first post in a sequence has a similar effect, but it might be more productive in some instances to have, for instance Slack and The Sabbath as the top link under the slack tag, rather than the individual posts from this sequence appearing in an order based on relevance.
Obviously that then creates issues about whether you want posts that appear in sequences to also appear individually or not, and whether you want all sequences to be taggable or not, and so on. I’m not sure if these issues outweigh the benefits; even just on an admin-only basis, it seems like a helpful feature if we expect a significant user base who don’t read the tag descriptions (the other place it might otherwise make sense to put sequence links).
(Other examples where this seems to me it might be more useful than the current method: Philosophy of language & A Human’s Guide To Words, Group Rationality & The Craft And The Community. I imagine there are more)
I’ve edited the Effective Altruism tag pretty heavily, and I now believe it qualifies as A grade.
I’ve also edited the Epistemic Modesty tag, and think it’s now C or B grade.
I’d also like it if the X-risk and S-risk tags are consistent with one another—I propose that “S-risks (Risk of astronomical suffering)” and “X-risks (Existential risk)” is the best format.
For sure! I figured the team wouldn’t have missed this, just wanted to give my two cents. For what it’s worth I think the tagging system is actually really nicely implemented already; I feel like a kid in a candy shop with all these posts that were just thoroughly inaccessible to me until now.
[Question] How do you organise your reading?
I’ve edited the Heuristics and Biases tag. I think it’s probably A-grade (I’m still getting a handle on exactly what an A-grade tag should feel like though, honestly).
That said, I’d like it if somebody could check the specifics of the three definitions, because I’m actually not completely sure, and check that it scans ok.
OK. So you see the grading as being more of a “neglected-o-meter” in the sense that it describes the gap between how a tag currently is and how it would be in an ideal world? (i.e. a more important tag would have a higher bar for being A-grade than a less important one?)
I think that makes more sense than an absolute-quality stamp, but I think the tag grading post as is currently written should make that clear (if it is the case)-- currently it implies almost the opposite, at least as I read it. For instance phrases like “It covers a valuable topic” in A-grade, and “tagged posts may not be especially good.” in C-grade. To me these read as “quality/importance of topic and of posts are as important for grading as description”.
I think actually the way you’re describing tags now is more useful (for e.g. directing peoples attention for improving tags), but I’m not sure if it came across that way (to me) in the initial post. I would be interested to hear how other people read it.
I’ve updated the Heuristics and Biases tag again btw. I don’t think it’s A-grade based on “I’d like to see more work done on it”, but I think it’s about as good as I personally am going to be able to get it. I’d really like somebody (yes you, fellow user reading this) to have a read through and make any adjustments that make sense and/or make it more comprehensive.
re: fallacies, I thought about it, and I think they’re actually used pretty similarly, at least here on LW. Planning fallacy could easily be described as a bias generated by an ‘imagine your ideal plan going correctly (and maybe add, say, 10%)’ heuristic. At the very least, there’s plenty overlap. Really what I envisioned for that section was making the point that a heuristic can be good (or just ok), because that was something that I didn’t realise for a long time.
Edited the courage tag, think it’s C-class (Not sure if it needs integrating somehow with the groupthink and/or heroic responsibility tags? certainly some things in each of these don’t fit under the others but there is a fair amount of overlap at present)
Edited self-deception & superstimuli, think they’re now C-class (self-deception in particular, I’d like somebody who’s actually read Elephant in the Brain to have a look over it, because it seems relevant but I’m not overly familiar)
Edited evolution and think it’s now B-class
Hmm, ok. I think both courage and evolution I found more difficult because they’re less well-defined clusters in postspace (compared to self-deception and superstimuli). I’m glad you found the feedback helpful.
I’ve also edited gears-level and spaced repetition. I think they’re probably C and B class respectively, but I’m still very unconfident about that. Gears-level in particular I’m not sure if it might not just be better to point to Gears in Understanding, as it’s pretty well-written and is pointing to an odd (& specific) concept.
From the old LessWrong Wiki Discussion Page:
Talk:Jargon
Phyg and Phygish
“Phyg” and “phygish” are used a lot. I’m looking for recommendations on how to define them without putting this page in the wrong Google index. --R claypool 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What counts as jargon?
I’ve recently had an addition or two of mine removed form the jargon file that I disagree with. So let me explain why I’ve been adding them.
I’m happy to take the definition of jargon to be “the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group”
Now, I’m a reasonably well-read lay-person, but every so often, when I’m reading a discussion in comments, I’ll come upon a word that I have to go look up on wikipedia to understand it before I can figure out what the commenters are talking about.
I consider most examples of this happening to mean that they’re using a word that is jargon. In most cases—the words I’ve not understood were philosophical jargon… ie you have to have studied at least a solid base of philosophy to understand what they mean without reaching for the dictionary.
I’d consider words such as utilitarianism, consequentialism and deontology to be good examples of such philosophical jargon. I might guess at what I think they might mean—but to be sure—a definition (and link to a better explanation) is a good idea to have on hand… and therefore I added them to the jargon file.
The reason being that: if a complete newbie (such as myself) doesn’t understand them… then so will other newbies—and we are excluded unnecessarily from the conversation.
My argument is in favour of allowing these words in the jargon file for this reason.
Content of this article
Should this article be a list of Jargon with short descriptions or just repeat the contents of Category:Jargon? MrHen 16:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Random idea: Make this article a list of Jargon with short descriptions, and transclude the contents of this article onto the category page. The reason for duplicating the content on the category page is because when browsing through the category trees, users will often end up on the category page, rather than the article page. --PeerInfinity 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Unclear and hard to use
Unless there’s overwhelming objection, I’m going to merge the acronyms list to this article and reformat it more like a list of short definitions for the newbie, like most jargon lists I’ve seen. (Certainly it shouldn’t be spread over two pages as it is now, with this page not actually providing any explanations at all.) This should be a single-point info list for n00bs—David Gerard 09:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
No objections, so I’ve done this. Do of course feel free to fix any of my quick definitions you don’t like—David Gerard 18:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this should probably be merged with cognitive reduction, which is more general and (I think?) encompasses this one
Online Privacy: Should you Care?
This elicited in me a very specific kind of joy I first experienced reading ZAMM, and for which I have made all too little time ever since. I have nothing substantial to say beyond that I find your prose delightful in the same way I find delight in Original Seeing. Thank you!
On one notable occasion I had a similar discussion about sound with somebody and it turned out that she didn’t simply have a different definition to me—she was, (somewhat curiously) a solipsist, and genuinely believed that there wasn’t anything if there wasn’t somebody there to hear it—no experience, no soundwaves, no anything.