The link to the next post in this post is broken.

# philip_b

Is this the beginning of Friendship is Optimal?

What role do I, the data scientist dwarf, have?

In the first part, the two respective properties of the two definitions of chaaness you mentioned apply after rescaling and shifting of utility functions is done, right? I.e., the properties actually say “after rescaling and shifting the points, if you move the Pareto-frontier points for a player up, they should get more utility” and “untaken options are irrelevant if you don’t change the scale after removing them”. Now, I don’t see why these properties are interesting and what they correspond to in real life. In contrast, if they applied before rescaling and shifting, then they would be quite interesting. So, can you please elaborate why they are interesting as they are and what they actually mean as they are?

I just want to say that your described solution to “Problem 1: Differentiating effective interventions from unfalsifiable woo” suggests to me that your curriculum would be mostly useless for me, and maybe for many other people as well, because it won’t go deep enough. I think either I’ve already gotten everything I can get from shallow interventions “like better nutrition, using your speaking voice more effectively, improving your personal financial organization, emergency preparedness, and implementing a knowledge management system”, or they were never that good in the first place. Personally, I am focusing on psychotherapy right now. It’s unfortunate that it consists mostly of borderline-unfalsifiable woo but that’s all we’ve got.

My solution:

I choose Radiant Splendor and Enlightenment simply because out of all champions with personality like mine, it had the highest win frequency. And it even has a solid number of samples − 244. Basically, I narrowed down the dataset to only rows with the same personality like mine. Perhaps I could get some more info from other rows, but that would require spending more time.

Does the order of the two skills matter?

*Of course, I can check this from data, but perhaps you’d be willing to just answer this straight away so that I won’t have to.*

I am glad to hear that.

Can I choose to get a god partner?

Not clear to me why we should think of these as different. We care about the effect on the kid, right?

I suppose that when I think about the situation when you only pretend not to understand them, I imagine something like a strict dad telling his son “Pull yourself together, you wimp!”. While if you actually don’t understand them, then I imagine a cooperative conversation between the two of you, where you not understanding them while they are crying is an obstacle both of you would like to overcome.

Would you feel differently if it was actually the case that I was bad at understanding kids who are currently crying?

Yes, of course.

So the approach I’ve generally taken is to talk to kids and help them solve the problems they say they have. This generally seems to work pretty well?

This sounds good! However, another thing that matters is whether you give off a “you’re only allowed to give respectable reasons for your feelings” vibe.

Btw, I wanna say that I enjoy reading your parenting posts a lot.

I don’t like this. It looks like you pressured the kid to stop crying and just hide their feelings (“I told them that I couldn’t understand and asked if they could speak normally”).

Also, it seems unlikely to me that the kid’s real reason for getting upset was that “they were worried the pasta was going to run out and they would still be hungry after dinner”. But still, I observe that this is what the kid said. From this I infer that either you, in this situation, or the kid’s social environment, before this situation, pressured the kid into generating fake but socially acceptable explanations of their feelings. I don’t like it that people often have to generate fake but socially acceptable explanations of their feelings, even with close people. At least, if you’re a very close person to this kid who acts as his guardian.

Mathematical Components—a textbook on formal proofs using Coq with MathComp library.

“A screenshot of the Wikipedia home page, Halloween version” please.

I suspect that after doing this enough times, you will internalize that generating words like this leads to them being published under your name and thus your filters will adapt and make this way of writing anxiety-inducing too.

There is an inconsistency in the formatting of (simulated) user feedback. Some are formatted as

*Username: “XXX”*, e.g.Anna Salamon: “I can imagine a world where earnest and honest young people learn what’s rewarded in this community is the most pointed nitpick possible under a post and that this might be a key factor in our inability to coordinate on preventing existential risk”.

while others are formatted as

*Username said “XXX”*, e.g.Eliezer Yudkowsky said “To see your own creation have its soul turned into a monster before your eyes is a curious experience.”

Yes, indeed.

Is the following a correct reformulation of your problem?

Say that a magician’s pure strategy is a function on finite bitstrings which returns either “go on” or “stop” with a positive integer and a frequency of zeros.

A magician’s mixed strategy is a probability distribution over magician’s pure strategies. (Btw, I’m not sure what kind of sigma-algebra is suitable here.)

A player’s mixed strategy is a probability distribution over infinite bitstrings.

A magician’s mixed strategy together with a player’s mixed strategy define, in the obvious way, a probability distribution over outcomes “magician wins” (i.e., the magician’s prediction was within 1%) and “player wins”.

You’re claiming that there is a magician’s mixed strategy s.t. for every player’s mixed strategy, magician wins with probability at least 0.99.

I’ve formalized this problem in Coq with mathcomp. Yeah, idk why I decided to do this.

`From mathcomp Require Import all_ssreflect. Set Implicit Arguments. Unset Strict Implicit. Unset Printing Implicit Defensive. Definition hats_assignment : Type := nat -> bool. Definition policy_of_one_person (n : nat) : Type := {policy : hats_assignment -> bool & forall ha : hats_assignment, let ha' := fun m => if m == n is true then ~~ (ha m) else ha m in policy ha == policy ha'}. Definition strategy : Type := forall n : nat, policy_of_one_person n. Lemma ex_good_strategies : exists s : strategy, forall ha : hats_assignment, exists N : nat, forall n : nat, n >= N -> (projT1 (s n)) ha == ha n. Proof. Admitted.`

If you want to solve it, you need to replace

`Admitted.`

with an actual proof.

I also don’t know how to find tutors for narrow subjects. For instance, I would like a little bit of tutoring about

panoptic segmentation

dependent types

but I don’t know how to find one.