I think part of the question is:
1. Do you produce/distribute content via those sites?
2. What are they for? Are you killing off alternatives/not developing things in that vein yourself? Because you use them?
If someone wants to explain/convince me that this is highly dangerous to me in a non-obvious way or that **my kind** of usage is endangering the commons I’m open to hear it.
Perhaps: Facebook uses what it gains from you (money from ads?) to fight their ‘better alternatives’ (BA), such as via government lobbying, as well as via the normal channels (you’re using them instead of their competitors (this has the clear side effect that FB is more DOS resistant than BAs).
No, so I checked to see if it’s still an issue before doing so, and it isn’t.
1) The audience. 2) The presentation.
Is this why lesswrong doesn’t work on firefox? (Voting specifically.)
The truth value of this sentence is not INFINITE-LOOP
Can’t this sentence be assigned the value of “True”? If you have those 3 possible assignments (and there is no additional “unknown” value that may be assigned) then the sentences may be true or false or “infinite loop”. If it were infinite loop then it would be false. If it were false then it would be infinite loop. But if it is true, then (since true isn’t infinite loop) it is true.
In any case, the way that we extend the concept of truth to apply to these degenerate cases is purely up to what we find convenient. Obviously
How does this last sentence end?
How else does one know how complicated a problem is (if one hasn’t solved it)?
I fail completely to see what part of reality they make manageable.
I think the frameworks built on earlier work, and this review is not intended as a basic introduction (which would include the motivation/benefit).
the motivation for using simplistic schemes for things, like this color wheel example.
I think the purpose* is to make it memorable/easy to teach. Someone who employs it might say they’re following the 80⁄20 rule. If you’re teaching, starting with a simple model is one approach—and not everyone is interested in more details (whether or not you have them). The main advantage (specific to this case) is that by coming up with stages being colors means you can classify other things by stage and use color as an adjective in the same way. Color wheel might be the wrong word—if you go all the way along a wheel, you’re back where you started. Whereas if you progress in the “red”/“blue” direction, eventually you leave the visible colors for the invisible (eventually stopping at radio waves/gamma radiation).
*It is also possible that things which have such traits (simple models like color wheels) become more popular/successful. I am not sure whether or not self help books are an intentional paradigm, or if the authors like it so they use it.
The title (reality warping) initially made it seem like this was about something like the Alcubierre drive.
Additionally, there may exist sets of goals that if pursued together, one is more likely to achieve all of them, than if any one (or any subset less than the whole) were pursued alone. (To put it a different way, it is possible to work on different things that give you ideas for each other, that you wouldn’t have had if you had been working on only one/a subset of them.)
The claim was that, if there exists a bit, such that if that bit was struck by a cosmic ray, then for an agent which would be “safe” in a universe without cosmic rays, would become “unsafe” then, as cosmic rays exist, no agent may be “safe” with “probability 1″, as that would require it to not be stuck by cosmic rays with “probability 1”.
They’re saying we can’t be sure it won’t be hit by cosmic rays. This was meant not as a worry about cosmic rays, but to say they were interested in how you go about making “safe* agent/s” in a universe without inconvenient things like cosmic rays which keep the probability from being 1, but are otherwise unrelated to the work of making “safe agent/s”.
*Might be talking about things other than “safety” as well.
The brain really can’t handle very many levels of recursion
Nature never (or hardly ever) implements true recursion as it always stops after a few levels.
Do you have a source for these? (a book on neuroscience, a picture of simple animal brains, etc.)
The Interdict isn’t depicted in the series—with a few possible exceptions—if a wizard casts a spell with “incomprehensible words” that might be it. (For some reason it doesn’t seem to apply to sufficiently basic magic spells—most of the magic that’s been retained might fall into this category though.) What follows is thus speculation:
Yes, wizards can invent spells. The Interdict is like a spell that prevents you from reading people’s notes on their new spells, or hearing the words (possibly without their permission). It prevent knowledge transmission (but not generation) via “non-living mediums”. And possibly, unintentional verbal transmission, but not intentional.
is there anything to aim for that is stronger than asymptotic safety?
What defines a ravioli?
So you’re less likely to work on a problem if you think it has been given a lot of high quality attention/you don’t think you have a comparative advantage?
Because you don’t believe territory “exists” or because it’s simpler to not model it twice—once on a map, once outside?
This was surprising; in this context I had thought “useful” meant ‘helps one achieve one’s goals’, rather than being short for “useful for making predictions”.
My view of its capabilities certainly dropped.