Write a letter to NASA
Write a letter to China
Write a letter to Russia
Write a letter to SpaceX
Ask [Redacted 1] to ask Elon Musk
Ask [Redacted 2] to ask Elon Musk
Ask [Redacted 2] to get me invited to a party where Elon Musk will be so I can ask them
Travel back in time and kidnap Wener Von Braun to recruit him to my space program instead
Send item back in time and hide it in Apollo 11 landing module
Start my own rocketry company
Does EU have a space program? Write to them.
Get really good at Kerbal Space Program until I can start my own rocketry company
Give money to KSP devs and see if they can make a real rocketry company
Cannon (won’t work because escape velocity)
Cannot on ISS.
Invent teleportation myself
Fund invention of teleportation
Develop psychic powers, steal secret of teleportation from someone who already knows.
Ask for ideas on twitter
Ask for ideas on FB
Ask for ideas on LW
Ask for ideas on my blog
Ask [Redacted 3] in particular, he seems good at interacting with the physical world.
Recruit top rocketry dude at Space X to my own program
Have child, raise to be rocket scientist, polgar style.
Kick it really hard
Bring enough moon rocks down to Earth to make it count as “The Moon”, walk to it and place item
blow up moon, let dust settle on Earth, making it “the Moon”, place anywhere
Drone but better
Hang around by NASA campus and make small talk till I find someone who can help.
Find the guy who wrote the moon jujitsu class poem, maybe he has ideas.
Convince DARPA/IARPA to fund teleportation to the moon
Endow a prize to whoever gets item to the moon, see what turns up.
Convince someone else to endow said prize.
Get 3D printer on moon, send information to spin up my item.
Invent nanobots, send to moon on a spaceship, have them assemble item.
Invent flying nanobots, let them get to the moon themselves, assemble item.
Flying nanobots carry item to moon.
Get EM to build space elevator, launch from top
Get NASA to build space elevator...
Get China to build space elevator...
Get EU to build space elevator...
Get Russia to build space elevator...
Start moon tourism company, include item as payload
Start prison colony on moon, send item up as payload
Plant idea to place item on moon in EM’s head, Inception style.
Convince China US is about to do it, see if they beat us to it
Will that cannon from Moon is a Harsh Mistress work in reverse? Seems like it could, especially if it was a guided missile instead of a rock.
I’m Elizabeth.You may remember me from such series as Epistemic Spot Checks and the LessWrong Covid Effort, but for the last year my main focus has been developing a method for Knowledge Bootstrapping- going from 0 to 1 in an unfamiliar field without undue deference to credentialism. I’m at the stage where I have a system that works well for me, and I’ve gotten feedback from a few other people about what works and doesn’t work for them, but there’s a long way to go. A lot of my knowledge is implicit and not explained on the page, plus I am only one person; what works for me will not translate perfectly for every human. So I’m looking for test subjects.
One particular part of my method is breaking down one large question into many smaller questions. This has several purposes: it forces you to clarify what you actually care about, and makes it more obvious what information is relevant. I describe this process and the reasoning behind it here, but not very well. I’m looking for test subjects that have a research question, and would like to practice breaking it down into smaller questions, with the goal of refining the technique and my teaching of it.
Come up with a question you might like to research.
You book a phone call with me via calendly, or email me at elizabeth -at- acesounderglass.com to set up a time.
We discuss your question in an attempt to break it down into smaller parts.
I sure hope some people actually go off and research the new questions but there’s no commitment required to do so.
You will have a better understanding of what you actually want to know and will be better positioned to find answers.
You will be better able to break down your next research question, without me.
I will make some of my metis on breaking down questions more explicit.
I will become better at teaching the technique of breaking down questions.
I learn techniques from you I couldn’t have learned on my own.
6. Draw ideas instead of writing them down in words, so there’s more time to think between ideas, a higher barrier to committing them to paper, and you’ll get bored with very similar ones faster.
Do you write in Roam using a phone?
Yes, but not as part of this workflow, because Roam doesn’t support offline yet and not being online is pretty critical. I will sometimes move things I write as part of this workflow into Roam after the fact.
Do you read literature sources on it as well?
Not sure what “it” refers to or what you mean by “literature sources”. If you mean “do I do the kind of research I frequently talk about elsewhere using this workflow?” the answer is no.
Wikipedia defines the dodo bird verdict as “the claim that all empirically validated psychotherapies, regardless of their specific components, produce equivalent outcomes”, which is noticeably different than “talking to a friend produces equivalent outcomes to therapy”. They can both be true, but I don’t think they’re the same thing.
Similar definitions from study.com, Scientific American, some journal
I got nervous when I heard people were applying for forgiveness, so I looked into it. Here’s what I found
Some banks are accepting forgiveness applications right now, my bank isn’t and is working on their own submission process. I discovered this my googling “[my bank] PPP loan forgiveness”.
The absolute drop dead deadline before you will be charged interest is 10 months after the period the loan covers (source)
Sample application and instructions here
I had fun for as long as I played it (to maybe 70%?), then found out
:: it went to 200% and the higher level puzzles were not the kind that appealed to me, so I stopped there.
I really loved The Swapper.[explanation due to fear of spoilers]
Space Chem is a work of art in the amount of gameplay it gets out of a ridiculously simple mechanic (it is also fun).
QUBE is a totally adequate member of the genre.
Additional factor: availability of compatible people who didn’t move there for this group. This is important for several reasons, including:
Inflow of new ideas
Ease of joining and leaving. If rationalists take over a small town, the only thing there for them is other rationalists. That makes joining and leaving into very binary decisions. It doesn’t let people slowly notice incompatibilities and amoeba into another social group.
Is there any policy for a refund if someone drops out sufficiently early?
A link can be both affiliate and smile, they stack.
There’s a plug in that will look for PDFs for you that match the page you’re on or the text you have highlighted.
This sure seems like it should work. My experience is that there’s either nothing, or whatever quality analyses exist are drowned out by pap reviews (it is possible I should tolerate reading more pap reviews in order to find the gems). However I think you’re right that for issues that have an academic presence, google scholar will return good results.
My experience is that readability doesn’t translate much to quality and might even be negatively correlated, because reality is messy and simplifications are easier to read. I do think works that make themselves easy to double check are probably higher quality on average, but haven’t rigorously tested this.
I originally named the types of knowledge “Type 1”, “Type 2″, and “Type 3”, but was encouraged by early reviewers to actually name them. In light of the conversation here, I think doing that was a mistake. Unless I was sure my names were out of the park correct (and maybe not even then), I should have left it generic so I could get input on more people for what the names, and for that matter definitions, should be.
A thing I really structured to capture was that “i did actual research and had actual models for why masks would help against covid, but it’s still not type-3”, which is why “know why” doesn’t feel right to me.
I tentatively think that some of what you’re calling engineering knowledge would fit into what I call scientific (which is a strike agains the names), and/or that I didn’t do a good enough job explaining why engineering knowledge is useful.
Ignoring the labels I put on them, do you feel like you have a good sense of what I mean by each kind of knowledge? if so, what would you label them?