Thanks. I haven’t used liquid products much before. Anything you’ve noticed that’s significantly different in terms of onset time, effect duration, etc?
Anyone know where I can find melatonin tablets <300 mcg? Splitting 300 mcg into 75 mcg quarters still gives me morning sleepiness, thinking smaller dose will reduce remaining melatonin upon wake time. Thanks.
Surely, as rationalists, we should
Surely, as rationalists, we should
So awkward it hurts that this is even a thing.
Thanks for noting this.
Aren’t new open threads usually posted on Mondays? Today is the 27th, not 28th.
404: Generalized model not found
Any particular evidence in favor of this approach, anecdotal or otherwise?
Seem to be implying that you are more likely to be in a simulation if historixcally impt. Interesting
No other source, but keep in mind that helmets are tuned for a certain force level. Too durable and helmet does not reduce peak force as it does not crush. Too weak and it crushes quickly, again with little reduction in peak force. This should just empasize to use the 25% number here though since the forces are more representative.
Redacting “won’t do much of anything” except as implied by 25%, but keep in mind that if peak accelerations are much higher than the given case, the helmet will be less effective due to the above. This may or may not be the case in car crashes depending on speed.
Interesting—thanks for checking this. If the Severity Index is claiming no significant damage below 1200, I think it may be incorrect or may have a different criterion for severe damage. Some helmet standards seem to be fairly insensitive, only accounting for moderate or severe brain injury whereas MTBI can have long lasting effects. Yes, I discount Severity claims as the metric does not appear to give reasonable results. 188g is a crapload of linear acceleration, but metric puts it under threshold...I dont buy it, so am left to judge on peak linear accel instead (shame that rotational accel was not measured...)
The data is posted above, unlikely to get around to Dropboxing it so I can link (as it was from an email). I agree with you re body movement in a vehicle collision. However, at some point your body would stop. If your head hit something while your body was in motion, thr impacted object would likely have enough strength to bring the head to an abrupt halt. (Contrast with a knife being punched through paper mache—I would expect the force on the lnofe to be much lower than if hitting concrete, as it would go through the paper mache without much velocity change.)
I am curious about your terminal goal here.
shrug The pdf for sincerity looks bimodal to me.
This is the most tantalizing thread on the page.
What is this, and why is it here?
(Original response was remarkably vehement, rather like I found a pile of cow dung sitting on my keyboard. Interesting.)
Thanks. How does one go about learning more about this, preferably while encountering minimal bullshit on the way?
Thanks for posting this. Just a quick note, many of the things listed above I would consider may be “common” terminal values, not goals. Might just be a wording thing, but I think of goals as instrumental, with values propagating to actions via the hierarchy values->strategies->campaigns->goals->actions.
Convergent instrumental goals might be an interesting collection as well.
A few nutrition-related questions:
Why does Soylent 2.0 have so much fat? They appear to be going for 45% of calories from fat, whereas the typical recommendation is 10%-35%.
Why does the Bulletproof stuff include so much saturated fat? It appears that the consensus is that saturated fat significantly increases blood cholesterol and arterial plaque formation—curious why such a deviation here.
Personal experience that it is useful or just from the indirectly linked papers?
Also, note that it may potentiallly insta-fuck your liver.
Why does Soylent 2.0 have so much fat? They appear to be going for 45% of calories from fat, whereas they typical recommendation is 10%-35%.