In the traditional problem, you have to decide to discard the transparent box before opening the opaque box (single decision step). Here, you’re making sequential choices, so there is a policy that makes “strong Omega” inconsistent (namely, discarding B just when you see that A is empty).
Measure
Karma: 607
Is “positive” equivalent to clockwise (clocks) or counterclockwise (cartesian coordinates)?
My wife is a semi-professional photographer, and I can say that good equipment (including lighting) and post-editing are big parts of it in addition to just practice taking lots of photos. YouTube is probably the best cheap/low-effort option for learning this sort of thing.
The pronoun refers to probabilities, not decision theories. If you say these probabilities are undefined/invalid, then you need to specify what happens when a decision theory tries to run a calculation using those probabilities, and (hopefully) argue why whatever alternative you specify will lead to good outcomes.
FWIW, under the Many Worlds Interpretation quantum physics is just as deterministic as classical physics.
Immediately upon finding myself in the room, I could be the single copy in scenario B or any of the 8 copies in scenario A. I think I would have to assign 8:1 odds for A:B. Either way, I have a 7⁄8 chance of dying after a minute. After 1 minute, there is 1 clone in scenario A and 1⁄8 of a clone in scenario B, so I’m still at 8:1 odds for A:B.
Make the cutoff very high, and every widget fails the test—no false positives, but a very high false negative rate.
This is reversed. (The following sentence is correct.)
even though they would have bought
A couple of errors here.
My 5-second take is basically what Gunnar_Zarncke already said. If you’re finding difficulty writing something clearly, it might mean you don’t understand it as clearly as you think. Maybe you understand 90%, and you gloss over the unclear 10%. Writing it out (or trying to fully explain it to someone) forces you to work through that 10%.
I think you mean a queue rather than a stack.
I hadn’t previously heard of this method of combining candidate-within-party and party-level preferences into a single vote. Seems like a nice, simple system.
Measurement Is Great
I approve of this.
An argument could even be made for using a second period to close the outer sentence after resolving the inner sentence and the quote.
Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded, “I refute it thus.”.
This looks weird to me because it’s not what I’m used to, but it makes logical sense.
look enough → long enough
Blackwell’s theorem says that the conditions under which κ1 can be said to be more generally useful than κ2 are precisely the situations where κ1 is a post-garbling of κ2.
Is this reversed?
I had a lot of fun with this one. There were a lot of things I missed, and I could have spent a lot longer looking for patterns if I’d had more spare time. The 2d + time meant a lot of room to search, but this was partially offset by sensible real-world structure (e.g. northern icebergs, reefs near land, etc.) I agree with Yonge that this level of complexity was nice for a change but would be a bit excessive as the norm. I used a combination of Excel and Python and didn’t have as much trouble with the data format as others seem to have had.
As far as my strategy, I started with routes that avoided previously dangerous hexes (my eastern route was a bit long, but I was hoping that the two ships sailing together could support each other or at least increase the joint probability by correlating encounters). I missed the migrating merfolk, so I avoided the shorter northern route.
I didn’t spend as much time selecting ships. I noticed that Dhows had better survival rates but missed that they were assigned easier voyages. I didn’t notice the captain effect on reef encounter rate and chose Dhows to avoid the high per-encounter damage given that I had a lot of unavoidable reefs on my routes. I chose ships that had a long history of successful voyages and did manage to get two seamanship-3 captains.
Waves and symmetries don’t carry many bits of information. If you think valence and suffering are fundamentally few-dimensional, maybe that doesn’t bother you; but I think it’s at least possible for people know whether they’re suffering from arm pain or finger pain or air-hunger or guilt or whatever.
“What is the problem?” should have a pretty high information content, but there might be a separate “how bad is it?” question that constitutes the actual unpleasant part of the experience, which wouldn’t have to be much more than a 1d scalar.
One particular formalism that might work is continuous everywhere and differentiable everywhere except a set of countable size.
I’m confused by this part. If the function is stored numerically in network weights rather than symbolically, how do you verify that it has these properties?
Against a real partner — not a copy of yourself — it’s better to leave some wiggle room rather than simply rejecting offers less than 50% in case your partner has a slightly different notion of fairness from yours. For example, you could reject increasingly lower offers with increasing probability such that their expected utility is maximized at 50%.
The short answer is that if you have a set of mutually exclusive hypotheses, such as a proposition and its negation, then your credences for them should sum to unity. Conditional on MTBI’s assumptions, a 55% credence for T-type does indeed imply a 45% credence for F-type. If I think people will misunderstand me due to connotations, then I need to be more clear when expressing myself, but that doesn’t change my internal beliefs.
It seems like there could be a problem if you’re working with “prompts that are especially likely to have a violent continuation” where non-violent continuations would consistently seem unrealistic and thus fail the 50% goal.