If you use cut (or awk or sed for cutting), try https://github.com/sstadick/hck
If you use less or cat for source files, try https://github.com/sharkdp/bat
If you can’t ever remember the syntax for xargs (sorry, don’t have a 2nd other program), try https://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/
If you’re using standard command like tools for munging CSVs (like cut, grep, sed, etc.), try https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv
If you use grep (or ag) try https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep
Each of these programs only improves quality of life a little, but they make doing simple things without leaving the shell so much easier.
Looks to me like it’s in unincorporated Boulder County, just outside the city limits of Lafayette.
I swing between 1100 and 900 in chess ratings really obviously. Some days I’ll win and win and win until I’m around 1100; other days I’ll fall and fall until I dip into the 800s. A 200 ELO point difference is equivalent to winning the game 76% of the time, so this means that “best day me” would beat “worst day me” in 76% of head-to-head chess matches.
Using numbers from this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ucjfY46L6qyXefvBT/quick-examination-of-miles-per-micromort-for-us-drivers-with
Assuming you’re in a passenger vehicle, without correcting for drunk drivers/unsafe drivers, you have 132 miles per micromort. Using the $10 million value for your life:
I think that means that driving 13.2 miles is equivalent to $1.
If you’re willing to categorize yourself in the least risky class in the linked post, that’s 54.8 miles for $1.
The other thing to consider is how much you care about other risks to your life. For instance, I’ve been living with (a limit of) 200 microcovid a week for the past year. I’m young and healthy, so let’s say that’s 2 micromorts. Given that amount, I should be comfortable driving (a maximum of) 264 miles each week, as they provide the same risk.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the effectiveness of j&j and moderna/pfizer are 66% vs 95%, respectively, and this effectiveness comes in at the same time. Suppose you keep yourself to a constant risk of x per week, without factoring in vaccine protection, based on the case rates and variants in your area. If n is the number of weeks between getting the j&j vaccine vs the moderna/pfizer vaccine, and m is the number of weeks between getting the moderna/pfizer vaccine and the end of the pandemic, then you have the risk of (1-(x*.33)^(n+m)) if you get the j&j vaccine, and the risk of (1-x)^n * (1-(x*.04))^m if you get the moderna vaccine.
(1-x)^n * (1-(x*.04))^m
If I was offered the j&j vaccine tomorrow, vs the moderna vaccine I have scheduled in 3 weeks, and we assume the pandemic will be over in the first world by september 1st (20 weeks out), and my weekly (non-vaccinated risk budget) is 200 microcovids, then I would be looking at 0.132% chance of covid with j&j vs. 0.093% chance of covid with moderna/pfizer. So, it’s worth it for me to wait it out. But, if you think the pandemic will be over in half the time, then it’s 0.066% vs 0.085%, and so you should take the j&j vaccine.
Theory of Knowledge was perhaps the most useful class I ever took.
Oh, what did I do during it? I sat in the back and read the Sequences.
I also think Scott Aaronson’s view of this issue is interesting: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
His opinion is that you only really have two choices for a system with inherent uncertainty. Classical probability theory, or quantum amplitudes with the Born rule. I’m not sure to what extent the argument holds up, but he makes some compelling cases that the obvious alterations to probability theory or quantum amplitudes wouldn’t add up to normality.
IQ-like Chinese test
What test does this refer to? I’d love to see a side by side comparison of a western IQ test vs one of these tests.
No, that’s a great summary.
Specifically with regard to deontology, it also makes the problem of consequentialism easier for other people. If I am trying to form a course of action, it is easier for me to plan a high expected value action if I know that everyone will act within the limits of some deontological framework. Yes, a deontological framework reduces the actions I can take in a plan, but it’s consequentially better for me to act deontological so that others can come up with higher expected value plans.
It’s worth noting that this is nothing new; photographic prints have been sold for millions, despite them being trivially replicable. In this case, the uniqueness of what counts as the “original” is constrained by legal contracts as opposed to cryptography. In fact, it’s not unheard of for an artist to print some number of identical “originals” instead of just one. According to Wikipedia’s list of most expensive photographs, the most expensive photo ever sold was Rhein II. This photo has six original editions, of different sizes.
Hmm, I disagree with the “one intuition” way of looking at finances. Yes, you can’t drop your expenses by more than 100%, and you can increase your income by more than 100%, but what you really care about is increasing the ratio of income to expenses. In this context, halving your expenses is equivalent to doubling your salary, and if you drop your expenses to zero, that’s equivalent to increasing your income to infinity.
Well, I think that the Neural Net and Decision Forest I used in the last post both saw pretty much what you were going for; with the exception that they both put one too many points into CHA, bumping it up to 9, instead of into WIS.
All in all, a success for throwing lots of data into an ML model you don’t fully understand and walking away… except that I had two other models which performed abysmally.
I took a fairly black-box approach to this problem. Basically, we want a function f(str, dex, con, int, wis, cha) which outputs a chance of success, and then we want to optimize our selection so that we have the highest chance. The optimization part is easy because it’s discrete; once we have a function, we can simply evaluate it at all of the possible inputs and select the best one.
I used a number of different ML models to estimate f, and I got pretty consistent brier scores on reserved test data of ~0.2, which isn’t great, but isn’t awful. I used scikit-learn, and used a MLPClassifier, LogisticRegression, GaussianNB, and RandomForestClassifier, along with CalibratedClassifierCV so that they had calibrated probability scores. Most of them I left on their defaults, but I played around with the layers in the MLPClassifier until it had a pretty good brier score.
Despite the fact that these models all had similar brier scores, they had surprisingly different recommendations. The Neural Net wanted to give small bumps to strength, wisdom, and charisma. Logistic Regression wanted to go all-in on wisdom, and putting any remaining points into charisma. Gaussian Naive Bayes wanted to put most of the points into charisma, but oddly, not all; it wanted to also sprinkle a few points into wisdom. The Random Forest Classifier wanted to bring strength and charisma up a little, but mostly sink points into wisdom, and occasionally scatter points into constitution or intelligence.
The top recommendation for each method is as follows:
Neural Net: 8, 14, 13, 13, 15, 9
Logistic Regression: 6, 14, 13, 13, 20, 6
Naive Bayes: 6, 14, 13, 13, 14, 12
Random Forest: 8, 14, 13, 13, 15, 9
This is also my experience. Other misunderstood phrases are even simpler; I’ve told people “We need to do either X or Y” and have them come back later and say “X is impossible”, and then be surprised when I asked about Y.
This is an excellent quote… I had to write an essay last semester for one of my classes on how I would design my preferred interface, and I basically wrote my entire essay using this quote.
Metabeleifs! Applied math concepts that seem useless now, have, in the past, become useful. Therefore, the belief that “believing in applied math concepts pays rent in experience” pays rent in experience, so therefore you should believe it.
If this is a joke, I love it.
If this isn’t a joke, it’s probably just a typo.
I think that, while it is indeed possible for asexuality to arise that way, most evidence seems to point away from that conclusion....
I agree. I only know the name ’cause I clicked through the links. Like, okay, maybe the ESA should hire someone who will say “don’t wear that shirt over in front of the cameras to give the interview.” But it really isn’t a big deal