Hero’s eolipile was an invention that had no practical use. The stream engine that did have practical use relied on high quality brass that wasn’t available at Hero’s time and only available in the late 1600s.
Instead of Clausewitz’s On War, you might read Bruce Bueno de Mesquita The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics.
As far as understanding concept behind modern statistics Keith E. Stanovich’s How to Think Straight About Psychology. It also discusses other important ideas such as operationalization.
What does CT Charting stand for?
actually 100 people can live in walking distance to each other
What counts for you as walking distance? 10 minutes walking? 20 minutes walking? 30 minutes walking?
> Change is bad. Any change must justify itself, must offer not merely some benefit (itself an uncertain outcome), but enough benefit to overcome the inherent badness of any change whatsoever.
If you advocate that common resources should be spent on X instead of Y that’s change that needs justification.
If you however want to spend your own resources on creating a new event, I don’t see why you should have to justify yourself to other people beyond what you need to do to encourage them to come to your event. I would want people to start new events without feeling the need to justify themselves.
After the event is over it’s much easier to see what worked and what didn’t. Experimenting with different events is valuable.
Announcing an event is different then planning an event.
A post that’s about “hey, I have an idea of a weird but potentially awesome activity, here is an outline, contact me if you are interested”, is in the planning stage. In the planning stage it makes sense to have a lot more criticism and discuss how the event should work.
Coordinating online probably also makes things worse. When you announce an activity, people who dislike the activity will give vocal feedback, and you suddenly find yourself in a debate with them, which is a complete waste of your time.
In my experience if someone sets up an event via facebook people who don’t like the activity simply decide against coming. I can’t remember cases where that lead to longer discussions. Is your experience different?
A replication will always cite the original study. Google scholar can show you all studies that cite a given page and that list is often a good place to look.
I’m curious about whether you have more concrete thoughts about how to deal with bad actors and deciding how to draw fences. What you wrote in this article is quite abstract.
It’s likely very hard to speak openly about this topic, but when the goal is having shared norms for a community I would expect it to be valuable.
Courses seem to provide people a way to motivate themselves to study that most people wouldn’t have in the same way for reading a textbook (even when in the LW space there are more people who like reading textbooks).
If you wouldn’t fly faster then a given universe moves, I don’t see how you can ever catch up to the universe.
But humans are badly modeled as single agents. Our behavior is rather the result of multiple agents acting together. It seems to me that some of those agents do try to convince others.
A good book non-fiction book not only helps people to learn a new subject but it also provides evidence that what’s supposed to be learned is true.
I have the impression that the author of the article doesn’t see that as an important part of the job of a book and would be very willing to replace the book with edtech that only focuses on transmitting ideas so that they are in the head of the student without going through the trouble of providing a case for them.
Accelerating a probe to ~0.5c isn’t the biggest issue. It will be much harder to deaccelerate once you are at the target location.
You probably wouldn’t want both the drug delivery and the diagnosis part to happen on the same website. You likely want the diagnostics to be hosted in a jurisdiction like Ecuador or maybe India, that needs cheap diagnostics and doesn’t want to shut you down.
The problem is that the same untrustworthiness is true for the US regime. It has shown in the part that it’s going to break it’s agreements with North Korea if it finds it convenient. Currently, how the US regime handles Iran they are lying and broke their part of the nonprofilation agreement.
This lack of trustworthiness means that in a game theoretic sense there’s no way for North Korea to give up the leverage that they have when they give up their nuclear weapons but still get promised economic help in the future.
How do you think is a person like Nick Bostrom going to do something that’s helpful for the North Koreans? Could you give an example of what he could do, that would be valuable to them?
I would doubt that the North Korean’s believe that Western foreign policy is driven by a sense what prosocial action is in the first place. I would guess that from their view it’s all realpolitik.
Thinking of it as negative oxygen is a retcon that does not fit the history
Wasn’t that how Joseph Priestley identified it when he Isolated oxygen and called it dephlogistonated air?
Philosophic assumptions about what it means for a gene to have a given function aren’t trivial. It’s quite easy to fall victim to think about genes as platonic concepts that have an inherent function in a way that macro-phenomena don’t have in our world.
If you are dealing with complex system it’s quite easy to get mislead by bad philosophic assumptions.
In bioinformatics philosophers like Barry Smith made very important contributions to think better about ontology.
Apart from ontology epistomology is also hard. A lot of experimental cell biology papers don’t replicate. Thinking well about epistomology would allow the field to reduce the amount of papers that draw wrong conclusion from the data.
Distinguishing correlation from causation requires reasoning about the underlying reality and it’s easy to get wrong.