Blog at thelimelike.wordpress.org
Closed Limelike Curves
Karma: 580
Neat; would he maybe be interested in discussing social choice on his channel? I’m on the Summer of Math Exposition Discord with the name @statslime
I somehow doubt anyone is going to read this and immediately slather a mixture of every retinoid known to man directly to their face (including many which are only available by prescription). If they did, I honestly wouldn’t blame this post. They’re going to either go to a doctor to find out more about prescription treatments, or Google “retinoid cream” and find some over-the-counter retinol that’s safe and has no substantial side effects for most people. This is a perfectly OK introductory post.
The amount of time and effort you can invest into them is on a continuous scale. The more time you invest, the more impact you’ll have. However, what I can say is if you invest any time at all into advocacy, writing, or trying to communicate ideas to others, you should be doing that on Wikipedia instead. It’s like a blog where you can get 1,000s of views a day if you pick a popular article to work on.
The highly active form of vitamin A is isotretinoin, which you can take orally. It has substantial side effects though, meaning it’s generally only used for severe (cystic) acne.
If you want to think of it as a kind of deficiency you can, but then only your skin is deficient in vitamin A (not the rest of your body).
Y’know, I meant Wikipedia, but Arrow’s impossibility theorem kinda works too
Oh, same goes for if anyone knows a (preferably investigative) journalist interested in breaking a related story—I happen to have a scandal on hand related to this subject.
How I got 3.2 million Youtube views without making a single video
I’m less interested in spreading rationalism per se and more in teaching people about rationality. The other articles are very strongly+closely related to rationality; I chose them since they’re articles describing key concepts in rational choice.
Permanent link that won’t expire here. @the gears to ascension @Olli Järviniemi
I’m not annoyed by these, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I’m grateful for your comments. I just meant to say these are exactly the sort of mistakes I was talking about in my post as needing fixing! However, talking about them here isn’t going to do much good, because people read Wikipedia, not LessWrong shortform comments, and I’m busy as hell working on social choice articles already.
From what I can tell, there’s one substantial error I introduced, which was accidentally conflating IIA with VNM-independence. (Although I haven’t double-checked, so I’m not sure they’re actually unrelated.) Along with that there’s some minor errors involving strict vs. non-strict inequality which I’d be happy to see corrected.
Yes, but WP deletionists only permit news reports, because those are secondary sources. You have to write these articles with primary sources, but they hate those; see one of their favorite jargons, WP:PRIMARY.
Aren’t most of the sources going to be journal articles? Academic papers are definitely fair game for citations (and generally make up most citations on Wikipedia).
In this universe it would end just fine! Go ahead and start one. Looks like someone else is creating a Discord.
Brigading would be if you called attention to one particular article’s talk page and told people “Hey, go make this particular edit to this article.”
I think Arbital was supposed to do that, but basically what you said.
I think it’s unrelated; David Gerard is mean to rationalists and spends lots of time editing articles about LW/ACX, but doesn’t torch articles about math stuff. The reason these articles are bad is because people haven’t put much effort into them.
Sure, but you gotta start somewhere, and a Wikipedia article would help.
@ProgramCrafter Link is broken, probably expired.
We certainly are, which isn’t unique to either of us; Savage discusses them all in a single common framework on decision theory, where he develops both sets of ideas jointly. A money pump is just a Dutch book where all the bets happen to be deterministic. I chose to describe things this way because it lets me do a lot more cross-linking within Wikipedia articles on decision theory, which encourages people reading about one to check out the other.
Yes, these Wikipedia articles do have lots of mistakes. Stop writing about them here and go fix them!
I actually tried this on an unrelated topic earlier, but didn’t get a response. (Which has been my general experience—little-to-no interest whenever I send people cold emails, apart from academics.)