They get their base to vote for them no matter what.
I don’t know that this is true. The primaries effectively screen out candidates who aren’t blue or green enough for the base. From this anchor point, the winning candidate may moderate somewhat to try and attract swing voters, but they aren’t starting from a position of trying to get undecided voters.
I’ve been lurking on this site for a few months and seeing this in my RSS feed this morning was surprisingly shocking. I guess I just assumed that people trying to be more logical never made this kind of mistake. It was a good reminder that a mistake only invalidates the conclusions drawn from the mistake, so spelling and grammar errors should be pretty low on the list of offenses. It’s kind of saddening that this kind of problem draws my attention much quicker than serious logical problems.
I wonder how one would calculate what level of meta-knowledge about a completeness condition is necessary for a some priority task.
How did your randomized trial with Redshift work out?
My shoe doesn’t look like a duck in my closet, but it also doesn’t look like the absence of a duck in my closet.
I’m not sure I understand this. Do you mean that the way your shoe looks is not evidence for the presence or absence of a duck somewhere in your closet?
I think the original quote was meant to imply that as long as your shoe doesn’t have the properties that differentiate ducks from non-ducks then your shoe possesses the absence of duck properties and should be assumed to be a non-duck. In other words, for a given object each property must have a binary value for duckness and when all properties have non-duckness values, you should conclude that the object as a whole has a non-duckness property.
I get confused by too many negatives and ducks.
I am Pinyaka. I’ve been lurking a bit around this site for several months. I don’t remember how I found it (probably a linked comment from Reddit), but stuck around for the main sequences. I’ve worked my way through two of them thanks to the epub compilations and am currently struggling to figure out how to prioritize and better put into practice the things that I learn from the site and related readings.
I hope to have some positive social interactions with the people here. I find that I become fairly unhappy without some kind of regular socialization in a largish group, but it’s difficult to find groups whose core values are similar to mine. In fact, after leaving a quasi-religious group last year it occurred to me that I’ve always just fallen in with whatever group was most convenient and not too immediately repellant. This marks the first time I’ve tried to think about what I value and then seek out a group of like minded individuals.
I also hope to find a consistent stream of ideas for improving myself that are backed by reason and science. I recognize that removing (or at least learning to account for) my own biases will help me build a more accurate picture of the universe that I live in and how I function within that framework. Along with that, I hope to develop the ability to formulate and pursue goals to maximize my enjoyment of life (I’ve been reading a bunch of lukeprogs anti-akrasia posts recently, so following through on goals is on my mind currently).
I am excited to be here.
Thank you. I haven’t seen one in Iowa yet, but I do keep an eye out for them.
For reddit, I use leechblock with reddit.com on the blacklist but reddit.com/r on the whitelist. That way I can still check individual subreddits if they’re relevant to something, but can’t just constantly refresh the homepage and kill my day.
I’m sort of averse to moving at the moment, since I’m in the middle of getting my doctorate, but I’ll likely have to move once I finish that. Do you have specific suggestions? I have always picked where I live based on employment availability and how much I like the city from preliminary visits.
It seems like this assumes some kind of conservation of failure where you’re going to have some amount of breakage and it’s better to get it over with on the front end, but that doesn’t seem normal to me. There’s not an obvious reason why binge eating would make your diet more effective or easier to stick to. Hunger doesn’t work in such a way that you can have a huge caloric excess one day and then not be hungry for several days while build a habit of eating less. The excess calories are excreted or stored and when you start to run a caloric deficit again, you will feel hungry and have more weight to lose.
That’s pretty interesting. I wonder what the authors do with the statistics they’re gathering.
How so?
I assume that means that you won’t be publishing your findings stripped of the clients identifying information?
That assumes they find only one thing that she hasn’t tried. I have a sister with fibro and some cursory googling on my part suggests that there are so many theories out about what’s wrong and what can bring relief that it’s difficult to believe that a systematic search by good researchers will only turn up a single thing that she hasn’t tried. That said, you’re right that 1% helpfulness is probably pretty optimistic.
Well, until the mid-80′s doctors believed that infants either a) didn’t feel pain or b) wouldn’t remember it anyway (mostly because of this study from the 40′s), so they didn’t use anesthesia for infants when performing heart surgery until someone collected evidence that babies were more likely to live through the surgery if given something to knock them out.
EDIT: Removed extraneous word
I’ve generally observed this path as the default human behavior, with “call someone else” occurring when they hit the limit of their abilities.
Not a bad plan if you know the limits of your abilities and aren’t trained to act confident even when you’re not.
I’d go for full fat yogurt with some nuts and berries thrown on top,
This is an excellent dessert.
I wonder how long lived the new opinions are?