I think you can do almost anything on a subreddit on normal reddit with some CSS.
rocurley
Karma: 700
This is an old comment, but dark matter has made predictions that were verified: see the Bullet Cluster
You know the fact “the content of the halachah is _” (I don’t know what the halachah says). However, you do not know “the content of the halachah is true”, because that is a falsehood. If it were costless, I would choose to know the former, but not the latter.
Avoiding the evidence would be irrational. Focusing on more important evidence is not.
I disagree. In the least convenient world where the STD test imposes no costs on Alex, he would still be instrumentally rational to not take it. This is because Alex knows the plausibility of his claims that he does not have an STD will be sabotaged if the test comes out positive, because he is not a perfect liar.
(I don’t think this situation is even particularly implausible. Some situation at a college where they’ll give you a cookie if you take an STD test seems quite likely, along the same lines as free condoms.)
I’m pretty sure it is possible to escape Earth’s light cone at sublight speeds. You can go arbitrarily far from earth (if you’re patient). Eventually, you will get to a point where your distance from Earth*the Hubble constant is greater than the speed of light (you are now a Hubble length from Earth). At this point, a photon you shoot straight towards Earth will not approach Earth, because the distance in between is expanding at the speed of light.
This still seems like a net win, however. The couple may not be any safer, but they get to ride in parallel. Presumably reckless driving involves something like texting or speeding, both of which are beneficial if you don’t crash or get caught.
(If people are acting less safely in ways that don’t have any benefits, then this argument fails, of course. I’d be surprised if that was the case.)
Qurrell subconsciously assumes that everyone is acting like a perfectly rational agent that attempts to maximize its own expected utility by enhancing its power to manipulate external reality
He definitely doesn’t think so consciously; one of his more memorable quotes is something along the lines of “The main thing ordinary people do, Mr. Potter, is nothing”.
If you want this to happen whenever you buy off amazon, follow these instructions.
In particular, the DK Science Encyclopedia was my most prized possession when I was about that age. I strongly recommend it.
Lbh’er abg nyybjrq gb znxr hc sbe lbhe npgvbaf; V nffhzrq gung nyfb zrnag vaqverpgyl ivn qbangvat gb fbzr punevgl.
I assumed they meant you can’t spend it on anything but yourself.
Young children really expect to see a dragon in their garage.
I’m not sure this will work well when being read aloud, and if you haven’t already read the dragon post.
I sometimes run into a situation where I see a comment I’m ambivalent about about, that I would normally not vote on. However, this comment also has an extreme vote total, either very high or very low. I would prefer this comment to be more like 0, but I’m not sure it’s acceptable to vote according to what I want the total to be, as opposed to what I think about the post, because it gives me more voting power than I would otherwise have. What do you do in this situation?
I meant that the intrinsic value of the comment does not justify its vote count.
Do so in whatever manner seems most desirable to you.
This is my attempt to figure out what is most desirable to me. At the moment, I want to do whatever would be the best overall policy if everyone followed it, with “best” here being defined as “resulting in the best lesswrong possible” (with a very complicated definition of best that I don’t think I can specify well).
Given that that’s what I want, how best to achieve it? The karma system is valuable because it makes more visible posts that are highly upvoted, so it’s valuable to the extent that the highest upvoted comments are the best.
It should be noted that only relative karma matters (for sorting within an article), and the karma of other posts will tend to be rising (most posts wind up with positive karma). There is some number between 0 and 1 (call it x)that represents the expected vote of someone who votes.
Because karma is relative, if you’ve decide you care enough to vote, you should subtract x from your vote to determine if it counts as evidence that the post is good or bad. Do you want to vote 1-x, -x, or −1-x? Note 1-x>0, and the other two (not voting and down voting) are less than 0, downvoting by quite a bit. Which of these best corresponds to the sentiment “I liked this but think it’s overrated”?
Gender ratios at the DC meetup tend to hover around 20% female, based on just thinking back to the last few meetups. Of them, most are there with their SO; we have three couples who show up together pretty regularly.
Occam’s razor is in your favor here, although there are more compelling arguments than the one your friend is making (see paper-machine’s comment).
Does he not accept Occam’s Razor at all, or just in this context?
If at all, there’s the nice example of: “The sun rose every day of my life”---> “The sun rises every day” vs “The sun rose every day before now, and won’t in the future”
If he doesn’t like Occam in this particular case, do you have any idea why?
It looks like there are two definitions of controlled environment here. Maybe taboo it?