This says that 16% of people remain infections at day 7 and 5% of people remain infectious at day 10:
jimv
Karma: 166
And around the paragraph where Fay is poking fourth years:
“Luna watched through the window.
...
Luna placed her hand over Fay’s wand-hand.”
It seems like Luna stayed outside, peering in through the window. Then in inside to put her hand over the wand hand.
Also this feels a bit jumbled: “It made not difference to just say you believed in a double-magic school.”
And there’s an instance of “She rubber her head” that should probably be “rubbed”.
Possible typo: ”… three fifth-years. The fifty-hears...”
Possible phrase left over from a previous edit: “Luna shook it.”
Have you come across the questionnaire-style instruments that aim to assess autism? I think they’re intended to be viewed as screening tools rather than properly diagnostic.
The one I’ve come across is called the autism spectrum quotient (AQ), and I think the longer version (AQ-50) is the one to check out. There have been done reports that the short AQ-10 is not very reliable.
I seem to recall that on UK forms related to employment and the like, the normal phrasing of the question about disabilities etc. has been moving away from “do you have a disability” and towards “do you view yourself as having...”. Perhaps a self-view, especially backed up by a self-completed screening questionnaire, might let you ask for adaptations without needing a formal diagnosis. I guess if so, that would still mean your self reported status would exist in records on your employer’s HR systems, though perhaps you would view that as less downside risk.
If you ever felt that in a certain circumstance the balance of benefits and risks were different, then it wouldn’t be unreasonable for you to adopt different approaches to answering questions. Where you feel that someone is positive and wants to help anyone with adaptation needs, you can honestly in the affirmative that you feel you might benefit from adaptations. Where you feel that they want to discriminate against those with a condition, it might make sense to assume that desire requires a higher standard of proof, so you can answer honestly in the negative that you don’t have sufficient (i.e. formal diagnosis) reasons to think you have a discriminate-able condition.
Six Feet Is An Arbitrary Number. There’s still nothing better than an inverse square law, so by default I presume 12 feet is a quarter of the risk of 6 feet, and 3 feet is double the risk, there is no magic number.
Should this say that 3 feet is quadruple the risk of 6 feet, if we’re assuming an inverse square law?
Maybe you would file this under your conception of governments not being competent in this area, but I wonder if part of this could be governments thinking that this is exciting new tech, and new tech that takes off often makes lots of money, so a government might assume that if the company that strikes it big in this area is based in its country that could be economically great. A big new business, based in their country, paying lots of tech salaries, income taxes rising, spending in the economy up, maybe even able to get some corporation taxes if they’ve not structured their business to put that offshore. Might sound positively attractive to a government that isn’t looking for the downside.
It’s many years since I played a version of Civ, but this sounds analogous to to tech trees.
We’re not seeing much decline in Delta though, which is scary.
I think this is mostly just a feature of using the ONS data, which is random sampling of people but reports a week lagged.
If you look at the chart by Alastair Grant that you feature at the top of the UK section (with red and black dots), it looks something like a halving (or more) of Delta in the week from 13 Dec to 20 Dec.
That would also be compatible with the story of substantial behaviour change.
A possibly-useful semi test for fit with N95s and the like is sharp inhalation and exhalation, observing whether the mask sucks in and puffs out.
Also, if you wear glasses then I think a well-fitting mask shouldn’t steam them up.
And yes, I was told being reasonably clean-shaven is important for a good fit.
Has your N95 mask been professionally fitted?
I was fitted for a mask and they had FFP2 and FFP3 options (which approximately equal N95 and N99, respectively, iirc), and the fitter said that far more important than the grading was the fit. If you had the higher grade FFP3 but air could leak in around the edge, you’d get less protection than the FFP2. Trying out different models of mask in the fitting I was able to detect the bitter tasting test solution in a model that was deemed to not be a good enough fit but not with the model that fitted me.
So by my model, the big advantage of the elastomeric mask you link to is not that it’s rated at P3 so much as the rubber around the edge should go to the contours of pretty much any face and provide a good seal.
I’m not sure how well these meet your criteria, but since you’ve asked a good question and had no responses I figured that potentially-not-precisely-matching responses might be better than none.
Willpower literature, e.g. the book by Baumeister and Tierney. (Not sure how much of this has replicated.)
Getting Things Done, David Allen
Flow, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Digital Minimalism or Deep Work by Cal Newport
These are not endorsements of these books, per se, but things that I have come across that I think might speak to your initial 3 questions, although perhaps not that well meeting your 3 criteria listed near the bottom.
Hope they help, and either way, good luck with the project!
I’m not aware of any writings like this, but the idea sounds interesting. Perhaps you could write a post on one of those project management concepts for a Less Wrong audience, explaining a bit about what it is and how you think it might help people improve their rationality?
(Posts in the other direction could be interesting too - ‘here’s how to apply a rationality concept to project management situations’. Or especially if you have applied it in project management and can share information on how well it went.)
Thanks for posting this.
A couple of nit-picks:
In the example under log-normal, you talk about stock prices. Stock prices are essentially approximately arbitrary, since they depend on the number of shares issued — you can have a stock split, were each existing stock gets replaced with 2 (or more) new ones, making no real difference to the ownership of the company.
Could you illustrate instead with market capitalisation of the companies?
Also, in your discussion of scale invariance, you talk about the size of stars and say “meters are an arbitrary unit”. But that is equally true of metres used to measure people’s heights, which is the example you use for normal distributions. I think that scale invariance means something subtly different from saying that a unit of measure is arbitrary. I think (though am not sure) that it’s more like saying that going from 10 to 20 is just as likely as going from 1 to 2, and the same is true of going from 1000 to 2000, or from 5 million to 10 million. I.e., doublings (or whatever scaling) are equally likely whatever scale you are currently at.
It sounds like “new”.
I imagine conversations going like: “So, this nu variant, huh?” “Which new variant? We’re getting minor variations all the time.” “But the nu one...”
And that would get even trickier if you want to some newer new variant that succeeds this one.
“Wait, when you say [?new | ?nu], are you talking about the old nu variant or the new new variant?”
No, the letter between nu and omicron is pronounced something like ‘ksai’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_(letter)
The one you’re probably thinking of is later in the Greek alphabet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_(letter)
It looks like for Omicron at least Modena, and possibly Pfizer too, will be working on vaccine updates, according to tweets:
https://mobile.twitter.com/moderna_tx/status/1464332834211045380
https://mobile.twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1464251996630831109
The sidebar at about 4m20s in the video says that Guateng province has fully vaccinated 30% of its adult population.
it went from a ratio of ~1:100 to ~890:100
I think ~89% is more like 810:100. Not that that changes the general message, and there’s no doubt a fair amount of uncertainty in the percentage anyway.
I think this is probably not a good idea. You are proposing to expose your body to a certain (modulo your success in freezing etc.) exposure of a virus to avoid the risks of possible exposure of that virus in the future. That doesn’t seem like a great trade in most circumstances. It’s not impossible that it’s OK, but probably very sensitive to a particular set of assumptions about likelihood of and expected severity of reinfection at various points (itself dependent on how much and what variant of the virus is circulating then) and also on how future vaccination waves are / aren’t handled or permitted.