One could argue that it would result in a net happiness, as children tend to help their parents when they get older. My parents helped grandfather’s medical needs, and probably extended his life by about 5 years.
falenas108
I sought answers to that question before and I heard conflicting accounts
I think I can explain why that might be the case. Testosterone is the “male” hormone; estrogen is the “female” hormone. However, both guys and girls have some amount both hormones. It could be that those who are transgendered tend to have more of the hormone associated with the opposite sex, so adding more of that hormone would not do as much.
I think you’re right, that probably would be the case. I’m not sure about looking more feminine, but there would definitely be other characteristics that would be different.
This has already been shown in other areas, such as the digit ratio and gay men performing closer to females on certain physical and mental tests.
However, I don’t know if there are any studies like this done for transgendered people.
You can’t forget going to the movie theater afterwards
It seems that most of the arguments as to why having a period is good came around after it became possible to avoid it (Birth control).
Is it also true that the arguments for why death is good started appearing around the time when science starting theorizing the possibility of eternal life?
I will be summarizing some of my favorite university textbooks into 50-page blog posts.
I’m not sure, but isn’t taking the ideas of an author and giving it away for free in this way illegal?
I’m in favor of the lower limit. There’s no reason that a spammer would be able to get even 1 vote, so that should take care of the problem by itself. Getting 5 karma in the discussion section is easier than the main page, as there are more posts that a newbie can contribute to. Plus, we don’t want to drive away people who are frustrated that they aren’t able to comment on discussion posts.
Sorry, misread the post. I should probably stop reading LW at 6 A.M. and wait until I’m more awake.
Agreed that there is no secret to learning. Still, I think that the best models for computer learning will be very different than human learning, eliminating many of the biases humans have.
One thing to consider on the topic: Humans use this type of learning not only because it is a good method, but also because humans have limited memory space. Soon computer memory will exceed human memory, and this may not be as much of an issue.
Upvoted to help you get to that karma level.
I associate exercising with an enjoyable activity, listening to music. Not only does this help me exercise longer than I normally would be able to, but the idea of being able to blast music makes me want to work out more.
I just thought the Less Wrong community should know that a few minute ago, I was having trouble remembering the name of this fallacy, but I vaugely remembered the content of this post. So, I decided to use the search engine on this site to find this. I typed in “sexy,” and this is the first thing that came up.
Another place Pascal’s wager fails on is the cost one has to pay for believing (such as attending services, time/money for religious holidays, ect.). In Cryonics case, it is a literal price, the cost of keeping you frozen.
So, what this boils down to is calculating the utilities for the probability of being able to live in the future vs. the value of the money that you and your family could have used for something else.
I have a relevant story. I was once hiking down a mountain, and near the top I slipped and fell on a rock, cutting my knee to the bone. When I saw it, I calmly called out to the person I was hiking with to get gauze pads, without any panicking or shouting. He helped, and I was able to make it down on my own.
The way I did it was by looking at the situation and seeing what had to be done, then figuring out the best way to do it. I’m not sure if this was normal, but it was an immediate reaction for me.
Moral: Search for goals than find an optimal path to achieve them, even in stressful situations. The way to do this is by drilling a procedure in your head until you can do it by instinct. Not specifics, as you can’t plan for things like nails in your shoes. But you can plan general emergencies procedures, like remove the puncture, clean the wound, and apply pressure.
Having lots of people making leaps in different directions might also make science progress faster overall.
Yes, but some of this might be in the wrong direction. We have plenty of examples where scientists have gone with incorrect theories...
Sorry, should have been clearer. There are examples where scientists have had incorrect theories that science has accepted, which has set back scientific progress for decades.
This may not be due to running with it, maybe they did give their ideas a great deal of thought before writing about them, so your point may still be valid.
This is the next step for Google to take. If another company manages get this service out for free first, they will be the new search engine everyone goes to. This alone could be highly profitable if they aren’t as reluctant to use ads as Google is.
True. When I said that, I was thinking of a service that does what Watson does and gives Google-style answers.
So, if the query “What is the capital of the United States” was made, at the top it would say Washington D.C. and after that it would show search results, similar to how Google shows answers to unit conversion searches.
Damn, I was afraid it would show that. So a more difficult query.
Although, that is a sign that Google is already experimenting with that idea, only with a far simpler algorithm.
The idea of something becoming “critical” seems to sum up this entire book this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Tipping-Point-Little-Things-Difference/dp/0316346624