In the board game Citadels, the players pick one of the 8 special roles every turn. Every role has unique powers. However, you are at a big disadvantage if the other players can guess correctly which role you have. And it turns out that some people (e.g. my partner) are especially good at guessing my behaviour, even when I am trying to do something unpredictable.
So what I do often is choosing the role card randomly, taking the card face-down, communicating this way to the others that I have no clue which role I am getting. I found it to be a surprisingly good strategy
Any idea where I can find this book for a reasonable price?
You are right, I will clarify the question. Thank you!
I don’t see how policies that are barely adequate to the task can result in an excellent outcome. I wouldn’t call them that way at least, I would call them appropriate policies.
if you maintain zero spread and crack down hard and early (on single-digit cases), the other details really don’t matter so much.
Yes, I agree too, but I would rephrase it: they got right the most important thing that they had to get right, and that’s what counts
Yes, I agree with this. I also think that many people in NSW are not taking very seriously the lockdown, which is really bad. However, if you look in other parts of the world, the discussion was not lockdown now or lockdown in two days. In Europe for instance, when a new variant appeared in the UK in December, some countries took days to close the borders with the UK… for 3 days, to continue later as if anything happened. Two different worlds.
Also in Australia:
The state government in Sydney extends the lockdown for one more week (and potentially more)
In QLD, a snap lockdown of 3 days (extended to 4) has managed to successfully control the epidemics so far. There are some restrictions for a couple of weeks (wearing masks, more strict QR compliance, etc), but nothing more. Extremely effective contact tracing.
International flights slashed to half.
I don’t think Australia got everything right, but they got most things right, and the results are there. “Australia ’s epistemology” might not have been 100%, but I would score it very high. Extremely low numbers of deaths compared to most other countries. Business running normally 90% of the time. The possibility of carrying normal lives where masks are not needed (most of the time). Saying that the success of Australia is due purely to luck is a profound misjudgement.
I am not Australian (but I have the chance of living here) and I have followed very closely how they handled the pandemics in Europe, where my family and friends live. Most Australians would not believe the total absurdity of most measures in Europe (many of those measures do not transcend to the news, sometimes not even to the national news). I feel living in two very different worlds when I hear the news in Europe and in Australia. It is also sad: in Australia, many people do not realize how well they are. In Europe, many start to believe that things couldn’t have gone in a better way and that the best measures were adopted.
I just finished listening to Lex Friedman’s interview of Yeonmi Park (here), a North Korean survivor living in the US, which I fully recommend, it touches on some of the things discussed here.
First, I agree with you in the fact that limiting our vocabulary does not necessarily mean that we won’t be able to talk about a specific idea. I also think that signalling is part of the reason, though I don’t think is the main one.
Words are forged to refer to clusters of reality that we consider worth referring to in an abridged way: remove the word, and you still can refer to that thing, but now it becomes harder and you need more effort. So in this regard, I do think that removing words from our vocabulary really conditions the sort of things we can talk about. You don’t need to make something extremely people in order to make people not use it, just a bit more difficult is enough. Even if you develop your own words to refer to certain unnamed clusters, you still need to transmit what those clusters are to other people in order to make a conversation going, and convince them to use them, which also takes effort.
In practical terms, the education system might work that way, but I doubt it is intended to do that by design. It is just an inadequate system trapped into a very stable Nash equilibrium from which the only families that can escape are the rich ones.
He is not asking to any random forum on the Internet, he is asking to a community of rationalists with many well-informed people about many different topics.
yes typo. Thanks! Corrected
Good point about the independence, I added a note. Do you think it would be possible to come up with a better estimate somehow of the likelihood ratio?
please do! let me know if I can lend a hand somehow ;)
Fanastic idea! I have just signed up.
It would be better in my opinion if you had a bullet list with the different options and you could click on the chosen answer.
You should add a way for people to send you comments about the specific examples
For instance, I think a proper explanation of the base fallacy rate should include the proper bayesian analysis. In fact, let’s try to do that with the example that you give:
Numbers taken from a quick google search. We are going to suppose that this takes place in US
Farmer population in the states ~2.5 * 10^6
Number of symphony orchestra 1224
Number of trumpets in a symphony orchestra 4
Total number of trumpets in a symphony orchestra ~5000
Odds farmer/trumpet player = 500:1
This gives us the prior odds. We have to multiply the prior odds by the likelihood ratio. This is tricky, but let’s put some numbers anyway just for the sake of explanation. For instance, we could assume that 80% of trumpet players are keen on Opera, 50% enjoy visiting museums and 20% grew up playing chess. We will assume also that for farmers, the numbers are 10% opera, 20% museums, 5% chess (this is assuming independence among the different factors, which is probably a bit of a stretch)
For farmers: 10% enjoy opera, 20% enjoy visiting museums, 5% grew up playing chess = 0.001
Trumpet players = 80% opers, 50% enjoy visiting museums, 20% chess = 0.08
L_r farmer/trumpet = 0.001/0.08 = 0.0125 (this is the likelihood ratio)
Posterior = 500:1 * 0.001:0.08 = 6.25
In this case, we can see that it is around 6 times more likely that the person is a farmer than a trumpeter.
However, if in our model we make the number of farmers who like opera just 1%, in this case, the posterior would favour the trumpeters.
Playing the guitar
Listening to this fantastic podcast: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT6Y5JJPKe_JDMivpKgVXew
thank you both for the explanation, that was very didactic
Interesting take. That would be effectively destroying (temporarily) the Bitcoin network and a massive blow to the credibility of cryptocurrencies. This applies though to any PoS algorithm in which the token owners are most of them in China, right? How is PoS different from PoW in this regard?
I am not familiar with the Chinese government having the power to freeze Bitcoin addresses. Can you expand a bit on what you mean?
Yes, but Bitcoin for instance is neither peer-review, nor published in a standard journal. There is however a massive community very interested in discovering bugs or flaws and the algorithms, and that’s all you need. I don’t see why doing this in a formal academic setting would be significantly better. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying is a bad thing. I am just saying that it is funny they want to sell that as one of the main points of their project.
And don’t forget that ADA is peer-reviewed!
I always found it hilarious that one of the main selling points for ADA was that it is peer-reviewed as if that meant something. The amount of absolutely atrocious peer-review science that is published every year is amazing, so I never really got why they insist so much on that.
This might be just prejudiced, but Charles looks to me like a very good and honest guy, but a bit delusional. And I cannot really stand the (probably good intended) paternalism that he distils when they talk about Cardano being adopted in Africa (teaching Haskel is the way to go, really??)
Don’t forget though, that they can talk beautiful things about how Cardano works, but right now is just promises, they don’t even have SC capabilities yet (!) I expect they come across many problems once they start doing real things, and probably by that time, Ethereum will probably be too far to catch up.
Having said that, Cardano seems like a promising project, but it is difficult to predict how the landscape in the crypto space will be in a few years. It might very well be that Cardano still exists but it has just a very residual influence since Ethereum has the advantage of being the first mover. Or it could be that some of the big companies push forward any Ethereum competitor to balance things out. It is hard to predict. But to me, investing some money in ADA seems like a risk worth taking.