A quick-and-dirty server-based webification (no Javascript): http://wry.me:7002/ with source code at http://github.com/darius/wason/ (only lightly tested).
darius
- 20 May 2009 5:13 UTC; 10 points) 's comment on Positive Bias Test (C++ program) by (
Thanks! I’ve addressed your latter two points (perhaps too minimally); though I think 3 input boxes would actually be less usable. I just made it accept both commas and spaces as delimiters instead.
If anyone would like to make a nice, pretty version, that should be easier now with the rule logic better-factored.
I just skimmed the results from it running the last few days at http://wry.me:7002/ -- it ran through to the end 49 times: 21 times the player got the right rule with no errors, 10 times they apparently got it right but with some errors, and 18 times they got it wrong. Of course I don’t know who was playing or what they may have read just before.
I’ve seen Roberts mention once or twice on his blog that he couldn’t get a controlled experiment approved by the review board. (No details.) Also he seemed open to the diet just not working for some people.
Some variations haven’t been mentioned here, like adding random combos of spices to your food to mix up the flavor. What I settled on, what worked for me without any unpleasantness drawing on willpower over time, was to pour flaxseed oil on toast and eat it noseclipped.
the brain misfires. It didn’t make me crave liver and shellfish and molasses, it made me crave water in frozen form.
I think it’s been suggested that this craving made sense when cracking bones with your teeth released iron-rich marrow, and ice cubes were not available. (Hearsay from Seth Roberts’s blog; I don’t have a reference.)
You could see that as anthropomorphizing the power of interaction.
Same here. I never watch an interview without a transcript, no matter who it is.
does that suggest that the filter for life given Earthlike planet is pretty easy to pass?
Robin argued that it doesn’t in his Great Filter article. If creating us takes several hard steps, hard enough that the expected time is much more than the time up to now, then for us to exist now we’d expect the first step to have happened quickly. (The detailed math is at a broken link.)
best estimate for when some interesting replicator populated a significant part of Earth?
There’s evidence for very early life (e.g.) but I gather it’s not nailed down.
Do we have evidence of any pre-RNA replicator of significance?
Here’s a pop science article on a plausible precursor (which I can’t competently evaluate).
I suspect ‘usual’ there meant not “done frequently” but “according to usage or custom”.
Would a detour through Burbank be any bother? I don’t have a car myself.
Thanks!
Even with quiet I’m pretty marginal at interacting with a group, I’m afraid, but it’s a nice suggestion. (What can work for me as the person in question is one-on-one chat in a quiet environment. So why did I come? Just for the sake of maybe getting surprised—and I did have a nice chat with mindviews on the way.)
‘Something to protect’ always sounded to me like a term for a defensive attitude, a kind of bias; I have to remind myself it’s LW jargon for something quite different. ‘Definite major purpose’ avoids this problem.
Stephan Guyenet’s blog is my favorite on diet from the kind of perspective presented in this post. It’s wide-ranging with regular critical discussion of research, with links to the sources. (My layman’s opinion.)
Anyone driving through the Burbank area? I’d like to hitch a ride; I’m just off the 134.
GOOD: The venue was quiet and roomy, with comfortable chairs, whiteboards, and an overhead projector, and it was easy to find.
BAD: limited and not-too-healthy choice of food and drink. (It feels presumptuous to post this, as I forgot to bring anything at all.)
Does anyone else remember a short article by Asimov presenting the idea of an intelligence explosion? I read it in the mid-80s in a collection of his essays I checked out from the library (so it wasn’t necessarily recently published); if I remember right and I’m not confabulating, the essay had been written years before for an airline in-flight magazine. If it mentioned I.J. Good’s paper, I don’t recall it.
This was the first I encountered the idea, as a teenager, and obviously it stuck with me.
“Does this position win?” has a structure like “Is there a move such that, for each possible reply there is a move such that, for each possible reply… you win.”—where existential and universal quantifiers alternate in the nesting. In a SAT problem on the other hand you just have a nest of existentials. I don’t know about Go specifically, but that’s my understanding of the usual core difference between games and SAT.
I believe that’s because line 23 should be
bool mywrongtests [NUMTESTS+1];
(It’s missing the “+1”.)