Dentin

Karma: 2,100

Dentin 1 Nov 2011 20:47 UTC
8 points
on: 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey
I took the survey. You should too!

Dentin 17 Nov 2011 14:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: RomeoStevens’s comment on: Poll results: LW probably doesn’t cause akrasia

I think this behavior is adaptive as it seems like part of our learning algorithm. In particular the feeling awful is a motivator to think about what information you should seek out in future similar situations that you didn’t this time. That this adaptation continues to execute even when there actually is no way to get the information is another cognitive cost shortcut bug.

Thanks. This little observation makes a lot of sense, and explains aspects of my behaviour that I really didn’t have a good explanation for. In particular, I’ve been trying to grow a small business for a couple of years now, and akrasia has been very difficult to fight at times. The correlation between effort and reward is virtually non-existent except over a multi-month period, and the constant second guessing can easily lead to paralysis.

Did I take the most optimal approach? Should I have done something different? I feel bad about it, but there just isn’t any way to obtain the necessary data in a timely fashion. This shouldn’t cause akrasia, but it does.

Dentin 7 Dec 2011 16:08 UTC
4 points
in reply to: shminux’s comment on: Richard Carrier on the Singularity
Actually, we’re only about five times faster than that, and the real (Shannon) limit for analog phone lines is somewhere in the 60-100 kbps range. It’s not fair to compare a modulation capable of using megahertz of bandwidth on a short unfiltered line with a modulation designed explicitly to be bounded by a 3 khz voice path and work across a pure analog channel hundreds or thousands of kilometers in length.

Some background:

9600 bps modems used around 2.7 khz of bandwidth, and had low grade error correction that allowed fairly reliable connectivity but didn’t have a huge coding gain. This was extended up to 19200 bps using V.32ter, but that never actually caught on as a standard and work on V.34 began.

V.34, for all its problems and imperfections, to this day remains a work of art. It can use almost the entire available spectrum of an analog line (all of 3.5 khz or so), can compensate for many different types of line distortion, and automatically adjusts to changing line conditions to maintain its connection. It really is a piece of high technology software—and its primary design criteria is to push bits reliably through a comm channel that’s not a whole lot better than two tin cans and some string.

(Note that V.90 and V.92 are faster than V.34, but they are digital standards, and make use of much stronger constraints on line quality. They also directly operate on digital data instead of having to do an extra A/D transform. The techniques and assumptions used in these standards are very different from V.34 and allow higher data rates, but when those assumptions are violated, V.90/92 fall back to V.34.)

The max data rate for V.34 is 33.6 kbps. There are a lot of improvements that could be made to V.34 with modern technology, the most significant of which would be use of better error correction. But even with all the resources of mankind thrown at the problem, I would be shocked if we could double the average data rate without loosening the channel constraints.

Dentin 12 Jan 2012 20:18 UTC
0 points
on: Meetup : Portland Meetup?
I and another lesswrong fan will be moving to Portland in the next four months (90% probability) and would be very interested in meetups when we’re in the area. Thanks for setting it up.

Dentin 4 Mar 2012 1:45 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Mercurial’s comment on: People who “don’t rationalize”? [Help Rationality Group figure it out]
I’m pretty sure I’m one of these unusual people. When I first read the litanies, I understood why they might be useful to some people (I have a lot of experience with religious fanatics), but I truly did not understand why they would be so important to Eliezer or other rationalists. I always figured they were meant to be a simple teaching tool, to help get across critical concepts and then to be discarded.

Gradually I came to realize that a large percentage of the community use the various litanies on a regular basis. This still confuses me in some cases—for example, it would never even occur to me that evidence/data could simply be ignored or that any rationalization could ever trump it.

I suspect this inability to simply ignore inconvenient data is the reason for my low rate of rationalization. I do actually catch myself beginning to rationalize from time to time, but there’s always the undercurrent of “wishful thinking isn’t real”. No matter how hard I rationalize, I cannot make the evidence go away, so the rationalization process gives up quickly.

I have been like this for most of my life, and have memories of the “wishful thinking isn’t real” effect going all the way back to my early memories of childish daydreaming and complex storytelling.

Dentin 14 Mar 2012 18:08 UTC
3 points
in reply to: bogdanb’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10
Actually, I don’t find the amount of light released to be far from the mark. Burning several pounds of acorns and converting all the released energy into light would be ridiculous—consider that even at a MJ per kilo, you’re looking at a million watts worth of incandescent bulbs for 50-100 seconds (incandescents are only 1-2% efficient IIRC.)

Dentin 14 Mar 2012 18:17 UTC
0 points
in reply to: malderi’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10
Perhaps I’m just overly simple here, but it seems to me that Draco decided to do the murder setup when he was writing the letter. I understand that it could be a lot more complex than that—but not everything -has- to be complex.

My prediction: Draco dueled with intent to frame Hermione for attempted murder. Hermione sat next to HP because she knows she’s screwed and there’s nothing she can do about it, and she wanted to be near him when the inevitable caught up to her.

This prediction creates what I’d consider an extremely messy political problem for HP, one that quite frankly I don’t see an easy magical or non-magical solution to. That may be the point.

Dentin 14 Mar 2012 18:28 UTC
1 point
in reply to: 75th’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 10
It just occurred to me that while some artifacts have not surfaced in canon order, there’s no reason other artifacts can’t surface out of canon order.

What about the diary, which was apparently in the possession of Lucius in canon?

Dentin 19 Mar 2012 17:27 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Joshua Hobbes’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance. Dumbledore in this fic is far from perfect and all-seeing.

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 14:21 UTC
11 points
on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
The best solution I’ve been able to come up with on my own involves Harry breaking the compact between the dementors and the ministry:

“I am not yet done!

Lucius, while I appreciate you desire for vengeance, pointing it at the wrong target gains you nothing. However, it does inconvenience me. Hermione Granger is mine. I have claimed her, and I will have her, healthy and with her magical abilities intact.

Dementor! The compact you have made with the Ministry has been broken. I have already begun teaching the charm which was used to destroy one of your kind at Hogwarts earlier this year. You will return immediately to Azkaban and tell the other dementors to leave that place. Should any of you wish to side with the ministry, be certain that we will destroy you all. Go, now.”

[dementor leaves]

“We are now at war. The spell to destroy dementors does in fact exist, a fact Albus Dumbledoor will verify. However, it is powerful, and can only be cast by very few wizards, wizards of a particular mind. Those who learn of it and fail will be permanently robbed of their patronus.

Hermione is one of the few wizards who can learn to cast the spell, and we all need her with her magical abilities intact.

Lucius, I may also need Draco, should he choose to side with me. As he is my friend, I will find who is responsible for this attempt on his life regardless of what has happened here today. As you have shown such devotion to him, I will not withhold anything I find from you.

I expect Miss Granger to be freed and returned to Hogwarts within the hour.

Professor, let us return.”

This puts Harry in a position of power, where only he and his select crowd can destroy the dementors, with sufficient proof for the wizengamot to believe him. Breaking the deal between the dementors and the ministry drains Azkaban of its potency for punishing Hermione, and house Potter has claimed Hermione; but Harry has also offered to house Malfoy the dual olive branches of an unconditional offer to find the real perpetrator, and elevating Draco to a protected position of power in Harry’s future hierarchy, which clearly does not involve the Ministry.

Should Lucius press Hermione to Azkaban regardless, it would be a hollow victory and serve only to piss off Harry. Harry has already demonstrated stronger control over the dementors than the Ministry, and can simply elect to send them to Malfoy Manor if he is sufficiently irritated.

The only down side is that I don’t see a really good political escape for Lucius. There are a handful of minor ones that Lucius could use, for example his Imperius debt:

“In deference to the Noble House Potter and the blood debt owed it by House Malfoy, I rescind the order sentencing Miss Granger to Azkaban. I trust Lord Potter and my son to ensure that her debt is paid in full. I propose we remand Miss Granger to Hogwarts and discuss this more serious matter of the dementors.”

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 14:28 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dentin’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
(The taboo tradeoff would be along the lines of sending hundreds of dementors out into the world at large to terrorize and kill, or starting a war, all for the sake of one personal friend.)

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 19:33 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Danylo’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
It says nothing about disabling anyone’s defenses against Dementors; it is a fait accompli, where Harry simply states that anti-dementor spells now exist and are being actively deployed. The Wizengamot can disable him if they want, but it will not change the situation (unless they know Harry is bluffing.)

And why disable one of the few wizards who -can- actually combat the dementors? The only reason the ministry used them in the first place was because there was no way to destroy them.

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 19:36 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Alsadius’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
(You mean like how the USA was stripped of multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons and how pretty much everyone was happy about it?)

My intent was that he should present it as an already accomplished fact. The alliance with the dementors was an uneasy one at best, something to be tolerated because there were no good solutions. This changes that—the alliance is broken, and there is a good solution.

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 19:39 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Paulovsk’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I like that it is ambiguous. Its direct meaning is that magical britain is now at war with the dementors, and that the alliance between them is done; the indirect meaning is that those who would stand with or use dementors are also included.

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 21:44 UTC
8 points
in reply to: lavalamp’s comment on: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11
I was never comfortable with dementors being that impressionable. Harry was able to threaten a dozen of them in Azkaban, and sure, he expected it to succeed; but afterward, that dozen returned back to the main body of hundreds of dementors, all of which then refused to assist dozens of aurors, who would have expected them to. I would argue for at least rudimentary intelligence on the part of the creatures.

Dentin 23 Mar 2012 21:52 UTC
1 point
on: Nonmindkilling open questions
I’m going to go out in the weeds, and simply point at places where probabilities are used all the time: betting.
- will there be more than one winner of the XYZ Jackpot Lottery on this drawing?
- who is going to win the superbowl?
- what are the odds of the Buffalo Sabres making it to the playoffs?
- who will win such and such boxing match?
- which horse will win this race?
Odds are well understood in these environments, and by picking a sport that a person is only peripherally interested in, most of the mindkilling effects should be reduced to a non-dangerous level.

Dentin 2 May 2012 21:18 UTC
10 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Rationality Quotes May 2012
This is a question that is very close to me, and which I’ve been chewing over for the better part of a decade. I have had a close personal friend for many years with a history of mental illness; having watched their decline over time, I found myself asking this question. From a purely rational standpoint, there are many different functions that you can use calculate the value of suicide versus life. As long as you don’t treat life as a sacred/infinite value (“stay alive at all costs”), you can get answers for this.

My problem is that a few years ago, I started noticing measures that were pro-suicide. As quality of life and situation declined, more and more measures flipped that direction. What do you do as an outside observer when most common value judgements all seem to point toward suicide as the best option?

It’s not like I prefer this answer. What I want is for the person in question get their life together and use their (impressive) potential to live a happy, full life; what I want is another awesome person making the world we live in even more awesome. Instead, there is a person who as near as I can estimate actually contributes negative value when measured by most commonly accepted goals.

How much is the tradeoff worth? If I sacrifice the remainder of my rather productive life in an attempt to ‘save’ this person, have I done the right thing? I cannot in good conscience say yes.

These are obnoxious problems.

Dentin 18 Jun 2012 21:11 UTC
1 point
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Thwarting a Catholic conversion?
My gut instinct is to find ways to get her to think about other religions instead. If she’s basing her belief on an emotional feeling and needs an anchor, you might be able to point out that there are other religions which have more general anchors, instead of extremely specific ones. I could see the discussion going along the lines of “which is more likely, a major earthquake happening in california, or a major earthquake happening in california that strikes los angeles?”, eg “which is more likely, the existence of a god, or the existence of a god that also happens to be made in the image of man?”

Regardless, the more general her anchors are, the easier it will be for her to give them up, or convert them into something more correct. I’ve seen people go from “some arbitrary god is out there” to “god is the universe” to “there is no god” pretty easily, but to shed the shackles of “I believe in our lord and saviour jesus christ who died for our sins” is much harder, if only because it’s so much more specific and detailed.

Dentin 18 Jun 2012 21:29 UTC
11 points
in reply to: coffeespoons’s comment on: Thwarting a Catholic conversion?
I’m getting to be quite old, and I have very little tolerance for people with strong political beliefs. For people I meet in passing, I generally ignore stupid beliefs and simply transition the conversation elsewhere—it’s not worth the time and effort.

However, for anyone I’m going to spend more than passing time with, I usually ridicule and/or contradict what I consider unproductive beliefs if they are expressed strongly. This puts the target on notice that I don’t approve and that they had best not talk about it in my presence; occasionally, it gets rid of the target completely, a fact for which I have been grateful many times.

My reasons for so blatantly violating social norms centers largely around the fact that no matter what action I take, I will have at best minimal impact on this person. If I support their view, it is reinforced. If I do nothing, they assume I don’t have a problem with it, and it is likewise reinforced. If I directly contradict their view, it also reinforces it, as discussed repeatedly in the articles on this site.

Quite frankly, I have limited time remaining, and better things to do with that time than try to fix an occasional broken belief system in a low- or normal-functioning person. If you’re not going to lead and you’re not going to follow, then get out of the way.

Dentin 22 Jun 2012 19:50 UTC
−3 points
on: Questions for shminux
Leaving aside the question of space-time curvature at various places near/around the rod, there is an obvious answer:

If an event horizon forms around some part of the rod, say near one of the ends, that part of the rod is no longer connected to the remainder, and the rod now exists entirely outside of the black hole.

As for whether or not a black hole is symmetric, the answer (in the real universe) is almost certainly no. There’s no requirement for symmetry in regard to event horizons (assuming that by ‘symmetric’, you mean ‘spherical’.)

-dentin