RSS for the comment page can do that. Same for recent comments on a post. Still, actual html would be nice.
ideclarecrockerrules
Karma: 49
You can append ”?context=100″ to the comment permalink.
Just some thoughts before I start my sleep interval :)
Plugins are great, especially because each can request individual permissions. That way, users don’t get scared away by permission requests. Some example code here.
Widget: yes, 1x1 [start|end|track|new_event|happy] button would probably be best. One can arrange those as they see fit.
Ordinal values: perhaps just an autocomplete option for event labels.
As for analytics, perhaps draw selected intervals above each other with selected tracks plotted over them (each with own scale) and vertically write labels of (selected?) events. This may be messy, but can be done later and elsewhere (e.g. Google charts, if they can be combined). Also, setting up icons for events/ordinals would be nice.
Thanks! I was looking for something like this after reading the luminosity sequence again. Haven’t found any on the android market.
Feature requests:
You could make it respond to specific intents to create (and let others create) separately-installed plugins (e.g. a plugin with location permission to automatically track where you are, one with internet permission to track various karma etc.).
Tracking ordinal values (e.g. happy, anxious, happy+anxious...)
A widget
Data export
More analytical tools, perhaps something to compare tracks/events.
You could possibly even monetize this by keeping the app free and offering an awesome analytic service online (I’d pay $10 for 10 instances of auto-generated full analysis report).
Nice. Same applies for extracting interfaces in programming (e.g. IComperable).
Yeah, I expected someone to point out a paper where this has been done (online Wikipedia references don’t have it and I couldn’t find the papers Ermer cited).
The paper presents good evidence in favor of its hypothesis, but I am more interested if ordinary people really do logic better in social context as opposed to other real-world tasks.
As for the test:
Made four cards out of paper, drew a lightning bolt, a light bulb, a crossed-out lightning bolt and a crossed-out light bulb. Back of the cards was empty.
Presented the cards as houses—one side specifies if lights are on, other specifies if there is electricity.
Told them that “if lights are on, there must be electricity in the house” and individually asked which house(s) they must check (flip) to see if any of them are impossible.
This isn’t a good test. I’d much rather go for something more primal, such as “If you don’t eat, you will die”.
when framed in terms of social interactions, people’s performance dramatically improves
From the Wikipedia article, after invoking evolutionary psychology and social interaction to explain the improvement:
Alternatively, it could just mean that there are some linguistic contexts in which people tend to interpret “if” as a material conditional, and other linguistic contexts in which its most common vernacular meaning is different.
It shouldn’t be hard to present the test as a real world example that doesn’t involve social interaction (e.g. “If lights are on, there is electricity in the house”).
/me goes off to test this on a couple of linguistics students
Result: One correct and one incorrect answer.
Here is some javascript to help follow LW comments. It only works if your browser supports offline storage. You can check that here.
To use it, follow the pastebin link, select all that text and make a bookmark out of it. Then, when reading a LW page, just click the bookmark. Unread comments will be highlighted, and you can jump to next unread comment by clicking on that new thing in the top left corner. The script looks up every (new) comment on the page and stores its ID in the local database.
Edit: to be more specific, all comments are marked as read as soon as the script is run. I could come up with a version that only marks them as read once you click that thing in upper left corner. Let me know if you’re using it or if you’d like anything changed/added.
re: old ideas
I can’t really figure out what he means by that. His example with dangerous doses of artificial sweeteners seems to be about asking the wrong question. It seems logical that no amount of data can get you the right answer if you don’t ask the/a right (set of) question(s).
He goes on about mutilating datasets, which seems to me a sin. Me, with GBytes of storage on my PC. When the medium of storage is paper, data gets mutilated. Consider a doctor writing up anamnesis: patient talks on and on, but only what the doctor considers relevant data is written down. Seems like a perfect example of a mutilated dataset and what Jaynes was talking about—if the doctor has a wrong model in mind while collecting data, (s)he is more likely not to collect important information.
I heard that the people at CERN don’t let a bit go unstored. But are there variables not measured at all, due to our existing models of the universe.
Will participate (online only, living in Serbia). Additional back-and-forth on IRC seems like a good idea.
This pretty much convinced me that the fine variances of sexiness have much more to do with memes than genes. It shouldn’t be hard to test if it is the case with cuteness as well: just find a culture that hasn’t been exposed to Disney/Pixar films.
The harmless surprise hypothesis fits my data pretty well. But are you sure repetition-based humor isn’t just conditioning people to laugh at a certain thing (catch-phrase or a situation)?
On the other hand, butt-of-a-joke hypothesis also sounds plausible.
There is an option in the bCisive application, under the “spaces” tab to turn on guest access. It should supply you with an URL you can include in your post here. Without turning that option on, we would have to register, and you would have to invite each of us to view the argument map.
So: “spaces” → “cryonics” → “manage” → turn on guest access
anyone know how to quote this url properly using the [ ] ( ) markup
\ before )
Possibly related: I have a bet going with a reddit-acquaintance; basically, I gave him an upvote, and if x turns out to be true, he donates $1000 to SIAI.
If members of this community have an accurate, well calibrated map, making bets could be a cost-effective way to pump money into SIAI or other non-profits/charities (which signals caring as well as integrity).
Is such a thing in the realm of Dark Arts?
Signaling may play a significant role in this.
I too would generally regard observations of black ravens as being weak evidence that all ravens are black.
Weak evidence, but evidence nonetheless. I read the essay again, and it appears that what the author means is that there exists a case where observing a black raven is not evidence that all ravens are black; the case he specified is one where the raven is picked from a population already known to be consisting of black ravens only. In some sense, he is correct. Then again, this is not a new observation.
He does present a case where observing a red haring constitutes weak probabilistic evidence that all ravens are black.
So, my disagreement comes from my misinterpretation of the word “may”.
Red herrings may (and black ravens may not) constitute evidence that all ravens are black.
Most of his other points rely on loose definitions, IMO (“rational”, “justified”, “selfish”, “cat”), but this one seems plainly wrong to me, as he seems to attach the same meaning to the word “evidence” as LW does (although not that formal).
I’m not saying philosophers do not contribute to problem-solving, far from it. It may be that he is wrong and this is not “at least as well-established as most scientific results” in philosophy. It may also be that a significant amount of philosophers disregard (or have no knowledge of) Bayesian inference.
A main form of insight is a hypothesis that one hadn’t previously entertained, but should be assigned a non-negligible prior probability.
I think of this as P(hypothesis H is true | H is represented in my mind) > P(H is true | H is not represented in my mind), largely because someone likely did some calculations to hypothesise H (no matter how silly H may seem, e.g. “goddidit”, it’s better than a random generator, with few exceptions).
So, in a way, I consider the act of insight as evidence (likelihood ratio > 1) for the insight itself (the hypothesis).
Two separate links, perhaps?