This /r/askreddit post that I just posted might be helpful as well, since you’re presumably not just looking to solve rationalist’s problems.
EDIT: Unfortunately, it didn’t pick up at all. Oh well.
This /r/askreddit post that I just posted might be helpful as well, since you’re presumably not just looking to solve rationalist’s problems.
EDIT: Unfortunately, it didn’t pick up at all. Oh well.
Typo thread:
“Gant. Boon.” should be “Grant. Boon.”
Epistemic status: I do not speak for that moderator or the rest of LW. I rarely post here but have been a long time lurker. I believe that the following is correct, but I haven’t thought about it for a significant length of time.
I believe the issue is that you are asserting a specific issue as being the most important ever, with little proof other than that John Nash worked on it, which could be an appeal to authority. You provided little proof about why it is important. You gave no actual suggestions, merely comments.
You also posted three individual posts in a short time span, when all three could have been combined into a single one. It is considered polite to limit the number of posts started.
If I were you I would have presented the three separate posts in a single one, with more explanation about why you think the topic is significant, relying solely on the merits of the topic, not on an appeal to authority. I would also have given a suggestion, since you clearly seem to think that there should be something done about the issue, rather than relying on the community to give a suggestion.
Also, this might be just me, but I still have no clear picture on what the topic actually is after skimming the beginning of Nash’s lecture.
Link broken, just links back to this page.
The link just links back to this page.
The link links back to this page. I suggest resubmitting the link.
I think that this is a great idea and would be theoretically interested in it in the future, but there’s no chance I’ll be living in the Bay Area in the next four years.
I suggest, as a corollary to Clarke’s third law: any sufficiently advanced technology will be assumed to be magic.
For being diagnosed with depression, do you include only major depressive disorder or do you also include persistent depressive disorder and adjustment disorder?
I took the survey. I feel like the questions that ask for numeric answers about the probability of AI risk should have been optional because I have very weak fews about them
If it doesn’t, we’ll likely turn LW into an archive.
To clarify, does this mean that once the open beta conclude either A) we will switch permanently to the LW 2.0 or B) LW as a whole will close down to new posts/comments?
EDIT: From http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/pes/lesswrong_20_strategic_overview/ it is clear that this is in fact the case.
I’d love to see achieved the goal of an active rationalist-hub and I think this might be a method that can lead to it.
Ironically, after looking at the post you made on lesserwrong that combines various Facebook posts, Eliezer unknowingly demonstrates the exact issue: “because of that thing I wrote on FB somewhere” On one of his old LW posts, he would have linked to it. Instead, the explanation is missing for those who aren’t up to date on his entire FB feed.
Thanks for the work that you’ve put into this.
It appears that there is no way to insert an image into a post, which is a fairly nice feature that appears to be still supported on the backend, since old LessWrong posts still have their images.
Hmm?
I posted this to my user page, not directly to the frontpage.
Hmm, for some reason when I did this, I recalled that they had intentionally left it as a challenge to deduce their identity. There was also a somewhat active effort on r/rational to figure out who they are. Looking now, however, I can’t find anything from Wertifloke approving it, so I’m going to take down this post and my other posts on the subject.
Huh, that’s strange. If you click on the title from the front page, it links to the article.
I put the link into the body of my post.
Well, the velcro-shoes solution is mostly a societal expectation than a legal expectation, so that wouldn’t be solved.
Not OP, but each single person could be in room A for 1⁄1,000,000 the time that they’re in room B. The time doesn’t run slower, but they’re there less time, producing the same effect.