Rochambeau

Karma: 66

Rochambeau 14 Nov 2025 15:50 UTC
3 points
2
on: Don’t let people buy credit with borrowed funds
It isn’t obvious to me that “credit worthiness for sale” is bad on net. There are the high publicity cases of people committing fraud by way of purchasing creditworthiness in some respect, but there are also (and I’d guess more wide-spread less exciting) legitimate purchases of creditworthiness.
For example, it might not optimal for very competent newer investors/inventors/organizations slowly get capital investment or other support. If you think of the marketing campaigns, sponsorships, etc. as a bond to show they believe in their performance, and believe their purchase will pay off from success, then it is somewhat less concerning and also valuable to do some amount of sponsorship/marketing.
Someone very close to me is a very competent real estate investor, who has had exceptional returns (and I believe exceptional risk adjusted returns) much higher than what most other real estate operators are making for their investments. It is not efficient for him to slowly get investors while others who have had longer to collect investors get more capital for lower returning projects, it makes sense for him to “buy creditworthiness” in a sense, selling some of his share of his investments to entice people to refer investors to him.
Buying creditworthiness allows competent new entrants to get investors/support grow quicker than they otherwise would. Scams will exist, but that is honestly part of the creative destruction of the market (not that they shouldn’t be rooted out). Those that don’t do their due diligence will have a smaller say in how capital is allocated.

Rochambeau 27 Feb 2025 14:13 UTC
9 points
−11
on: Market Capitalization is Semantically Invalid
I think it is much less bogus than you think. Yes, price would change if a large number sell or buy, perhaps that would be more of a statement on liquidity than bogusness.
At anytime, all shareholders are able to sell their shares at the market price, therefore anyone still owning believes the price is at or less than it’s true value, likewise anyone has the option to buy at the current price so (barring non-idealities) everyone else thinks the price is potentially higher than its true value, therefore market capitalization is much less bogus as it is the price where there is balance between people’s capital put towards buying and selling bets on the true value (of course lots of assumptions: low transaction costs, ignoring tax treatment, spherical cows, etc, etc).

Rochambeau 17 Jan 2025 18:38 UTC
13 points
0
on: Tax Price Gouging?
I agree this would certainly be better than an outright ban on price gouging, though I don’t understand the advantage over not treating disasters differently.
The larger the tax base, ceteris peribus, the less distortionary the tax, so if you want more money for the poor during disasters, just raise normal sales/income/or property tax rate an amount to equal the revenue needed to help poorer people in disasters, and then don’t have the more heavily distortionary high tax that only applies to disasters. As an added plus, doing it this way avoids a high tax when adherance is lower and may be more popular than an onerous tax when goods are at their most expensive.

Rochambeau 10 Oct 2024 17:39 UTC
1 point
0
on: Are there any naturally occurring heat pumps?
An example I encountered when trying to understand jet streams is the Ferrel Cells. Hadley Cells and Polar Cells in the atmosphere are simply heat engines driven by air being heated and rising and cool air falling.
The Ferrel Cell is driven by air dragged along by the Hadley and Polar Cells, this means air dragged downward at 30° Latitude by the Hadley Cell is compressed, warming surroundings and moving along the ground to 60° where the Polar Cell drags the air up, expanding it allowing it to absorb heat from cool air around it before returning to 30°. Apparently consuming ~275 terawatts with a COP of 12.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

Rochambeau 29 May 2022 22:32 UTC
6 points
0
in reply to: dkirmani’s comment on: How would you build Dath Ilan on earth?
This seems like the kind of thing that could be hosted in a place like Próspera. I believe the ZEDE law was very recently repealed, but I have yet to hear that the Próspera project is stopping and the constitutional amendment could be repealed next year. Próspera claims it will be proceeding and international law/treaties and it’s 50 year stability agreements protect it. https://prospera.hn/news/press-releases/built-to-last-legal-stability-in-the-zede-framework
It seems too early, but if Próspera survives this most recent political shift in Honduras, then it would prove to be protected from the political whims of Honduras (and its legal framwork already prevents changes in taxes or regulations even with a democratic majority. A betting market could thrive in such a stable environment, and possibly allow for longer term bets. Also the legal framework for businesses is very streamlined. https://prospera.hn/business
It might just be my wishful thinking and political biases showing, but if Próspera can prove to be resilient to changes in Honduras, I think it could become pretty close to Dath Ilan, or help other countries become closer to it. Positive signs are things like Minicircle, a reversible gene therapy company conducting trials in Próspera because they are easier to do there than the US. https://minicircle.clinic/

Rochambeau 27 May 2022 11:02 UTC
1 point
0
on: [$20K in Prizes] AI Safety Arguments Competition
Policymakers
A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, and the scorpion replies: “I am sorry, but I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s in my nature.”
-Fable
We are the frog, and the nature of our future AI scorpions must be figured out or we all may die, or worse.

Rochambeau 1 Jan 2022 15:32 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: jaspax’s comment on: COVID Skepticism Isn’t About Science
Also there is a lot of confirmation bias. I don’t remember hearing any friends telling me someone they know died of Covid, but I have heard one say someone they know died right after getting the vaccine and another complaining about what they think are symptoms of vaccination and say their PCP has not been treating them seriously.

I bet there have been covid deaths of a friend of a friend, but that is a lot less notable to them or me compared to a potential death due to the vaccine. I wish I had recorded every covid/vax death/problem so I wasn’t just relying on my faulty memory.

Rochambeau 1 Jan 2022 15:16 UTC
11 points
0
in reply to: NoSignalNoNoise’s comment on: COVID Skepticism Isn’t About Science
Similarly what I have seen from by my friends and acquaintances is.
1. Disease breaks out.
2. Public health authorities/pharmaceutical companies push a new vaccine and claim it is X% effective/prevents the spread.
3. Later it is found to be less effective than initially promised/new variants make it less effective and boosters are now announced as needed.
4. People feel lied to, believing they were originally told vaccine was more effective than evidence shows it is/the fact that restrictions are still in place with the vaccine makes reduces its credibility in their eyes.

Rochambeau 22 Nov 2021 12:16 UTC
5 points
0
in reply to: Dave Orr’s comment on: The Meta-Puzzle
“I’m a rationalist.”

JKJK

Rochambeau 25 Sep 2021 0:18 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: aphyer’s comment on: The 2021 Less Wrong Darwin Game
Thanks for the explanation.

Rochambeau 24 Sep 2021 23:34 UTC
1 point
0
on: The 2021 Less Wrong Darwin Game
Someone please correct me if my interpretation of food and reproduction are incorrect as my programing experience is limited.
I see the energy being reduced by 20%, but what is the threshold for death?
The number of offspring is determined by rolling a number between 0 and 1 rolled 10 * creature energy times, and for each random number less than 1 / (body size x 10), a baby is created with the same energy as the original creature and no impact on the original creature?
I think I am missing where predator efficiency is accounted for.
In line 163/164:
(reproduce (. [organism-0 organism-1] [fight-flight-result]
(energy-of (. [organism-1 organism-1] [fight-flight-result])
does this mean reproduction of organism-1 and organism-0 is only dependent on the body size of organism-1? no impact of stored energy?

Rochambeau 20 May 2021 16:49 UTC
6 points
0
in reply to: Charlie Steiner’s comment on: What will 2040 probably look like assuming no singularity?
I have always wondered how high we can push the voltage on transmission lines. Maybe carbon nanotubes being as conductive as copper but lighter and stronger than aluminum could allow significant transmission of electricity across time zones, stretching out the load and allowing solar to power dark areas for some time without increasing storage. Transmission towers would need to get obscenely large, but the lighter lines would a allow for fewer of them.

Rochambeau 17 May 2021 10:42 UTC
10 points
0
on: What will 2040 probably look like assuming no singularity?
In terms of electricity, transmission and distribution make up 13% and 31% of costs respectively. Even if solar panels were free, I am not confident that reliable electricity would become 10x cheaper as unless each house as quite a few days of storage cheaply, they would still need distribution. Industrial electricity might approach that cheap, but I think it would depend on location and space availability otherwise at least some of the transmission and distribution costs would still exist.

Rochambeau 21 Nov 2020 12:38 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: Multicore’s comment on: The Darwin Game—Rounds 21-500
See my other comment for BeauBot’s code. Below round 10 BeauBot starts 2, then from 10 to 29 it alternates 2 and 3 as starting bid, and 30 and beyond it always starts with 3.
I tried to make my bot never be outscored past round 29 but I believe if my opponent bids three when BeauBot bids 3 in the first round, Beaubot will bid 2 in attempts to cooperate making it possible for opponents to outscore it.

Rochambeau 21 Nov 2020 12:34 UTC

7 points

on: The Darwin Game—Rounds 21-500

I am flattered you called my bot sophisticated. I think its is partly a function of my circuitous and inexperienced coding more so than needed complexity. The code is below:

class BeauBot():
    # bot attempts to cooperate and will even risk three points here and there in early rounds
    # if other bot defects in later rounds, BeauBot will bid 4's until other bot bids 1
    def __init__(self, round=0):
        self.round = round
        self.turn = 0
        self.myPrevious = None
        self.theirPrevious = None
        self.strategy = None

    
    def move(self, previous=None):
        # sets starting bid to be 2 in before round 10,
        # alternating 2 and 3 between rounds 10 and 30, and 3 in later rounds
        self.turn += 1
        self.theirPrevious = previous
        if self.theirPrevious == None:
            if self.round < 10:
                self.myPrevious = 2
                return self.myPrevious
            elif self.round < 30:
                self.myPrevious = self.round % 2 + 2
                return self.myPrevious
            else:
                self.myPrevious = 3
                return self.myPrevious
        else:
            self.myPrevious = self.strategyPicker()
            return self.myPrevious
        

    def strategyPicker(self):
        # chooses between 3 simple strategies to use based on current strategy and previous bids
        if self.theirPrevious == 1 or self.theirPrevious == 2 and self.strategy != 'hard':  # will always cooperate if other bot bids low if not using hard strategy
            return self.titForTat()
        elif self.theirPrevious == 3 or self.strategy == 'titForTat':                       # if in tit for tat strategy, will allow higher numbers to be alternated
            if self.strategy == 'titForTat' or (self.myPrevious == 3 and self.round < 11):  # will only cooperate with 3 bids if self.myPrevious was 3
                return self.titForTat()
            else:
                if self.round < 5:                                                          # bot will be try to get points from aggressors in early rounds
                    self.strategy = 'soft'
                    return self.soft()
                else:
                    self.strategy = None
                    return 3
        else:
            if self.round < 5:
                self.strategy = 'soft'
                return self.soft()
            else:
                self.strategy = 'hard'
                return self.hard()
                

    def titForTat(self):
        #will copy opponent move if self.theirPrevious sum = 5, will try to fix if bids not adding to 5,
        #will switch out of tit for tat  if opponent continues high bids
        if self.theirPrevious + self.myPrevious == 5:                                        # could allow for 4-1 alternating bids only if opponent bids 1 when bot was bidding 4 (from hard strategy)
            self.strategy = 'titForTat'
            return self.theirPrevious
        elif self.theirPrevious + self.myPrevious < 5:
            self.strategy = 'titForTat'
            return self.theirPrevious + self.turn % 2                                        # only tries to correct every other round in case other bot is also correcting for underbiding in cooperation
        elif self.theirPrevious + self.myPrevious > 5:                                       # will not cooperate will not continue tit for tat if a 3 bid is made after failing to cooperate in the self.theirPrevious round
            self.strategy = None
            if self.myPrevious > 2:
                return 2
            else:
                if self.round < 5:
                    self.strategy = 'soft'
                    return self.soft()
                else:
                    self.strategy = 'hard'
                    return self.hard()

    def soft(self):
        #will bid 1 or 2 if opponent bids 4 or 3 respectively, only to be used in early rounds
        #intended to get early growth by feeding bullies and attackers early
        # will switch to titFortat if other bot bids low
        if self.theirPrevious > 2 and self.theirPrevious < 5:
            return 5 - self.theirPrevious
        elif self.theirPrevious < 3:
            self.strategy = 'titForTat'
            return self.theirPrevious
        return 1


    def hard(self):
        # will return 4 as long as opponent does not return 1
        # if opponent returns 1, the extra 4 points should be enough buffer to attempt cooperation again
        if self.theirPrevious == 1:
            self.strategy = 'titForTat'
            return 2
        else:
            self.strategy == 'hard'
            return 4

Rochambeau 16 Oct 2020 0:01 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: The Darwin Game
Wouldn’t three-bot only get a few points against tit-for-tat bots? I agree it can’t do worse than its opponent (meaning it would at worst tie if it is one of the last two bots), but bots that can cooperate or even two-bot could be raking in a lot more points as long as the population of bots isn’t dominated by three-bot.
For example, in a given round if three-bot is versing tit for tat, it might get a few points right away and then no more, but in that same round, two tit for tat bots or a tit for tat and a two-bot are getting a comparatively large amount of points meaning they will dominate later rounds so I think two-bot is a better simple strategy than three-bot (granted it will not win).

Rochambeau 29 Jun 2019 14:35 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: noggin-scratcher’s comment on: Writing children’s picture books
Along with ice melting, the other main cause of sea level rise is the thermal expansion of ocean water. Until more recently, the two effects were about equal in magnitude.