Inspired by maia’s post:
“When life gives you lemons, don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!”
---Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I took the survey!
If you don’t want to bother using the glowfic downloader yourself, here’s the epub so far. My intention is to update it every day, but no guarantees.
The upvotes already indicate this, but I thought I should explicitly point out that transcribing videos like this is a massive service, and I for one think you’re awesome for doing it.
all currently described AI agents are Cartesian dualists
I don’t quite understand what you mean by that, can you elaborate?
I feel like there’s a distinction being made I don’t entirely understand. What’s the difference between something describing behavior perfectly and determining behavior? If one person says (x-1)(x-2) determines x^2-3x+2, and another person says (x-1)(x-2) perfectly describes x^2-3x+2, do they disagree? Similarly, is there a meaningful way in which “the laws of physics govern reality” is false if the laws of physics perfectly describe reality?
(Our current understanding of the laws of physics is, of course, not complete, and the above paragraph should be assumed to refer a hypothetical set of laws of physics that do describe every phenomenon with perfect accuracy).
I find it troubling how much I want to upvote you just beause you’re quoting SMAC.
This likely won’t work. Money is fungible, so unless the total donations so earmarked exceeds the planned SI funding for that cause, they won’t have to change anything. They’re under no obligation to not defund your favorite cause by exactly the amount you donated, thus laundering your donation into the general fund. (Unless I misunderstand the relevant laws?)
EDIT NOTE: The post used to say vast majority; this was changed, but is referenced below.
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’m the guy who posts the DC meetups. While I’m sympathetic to the problem, I’m not sure what I can do to help, aside from not posting meetups at all (not really an option). Pressuring me won’t help you if I can’t do anything.
Planecrash has 307 images at the time I made this comment, for context.
Yes, but if I’m reading this right, the payoff matrix is different from the PD. If two large vehicles collide, it’s about as bad as two small vehicles colliding. This means that if everyone drove a huge truck, safety would be improved overall (trees won’t get bigger to match, and no one cares about their safety). If all you care about is safety, the optimal situation is everyone in a large vehicle.
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).
Here’s my bay area hospital capacity model: https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/15278
That’s the only real question—utilitarian decision making takes care of the rest.
This doesn’t seem like a very charitable response, akin to replying “just do what you want”. He’s trying to figure out what he wants, and is asking for help in figuring this out.
Exponentially decaying functions are part of the general class of asymptotic functions; both versions are correct.
I think I understood the intended meaning of the sentence; something along the lines of “I consider it morally preferable for everyone to be happy”, and I suspect most people did as well. Is there some particular reason you object to this use of should, which appears fairly standard to me?
If you’re not willing to have a privileged reference frame, how do time turners know where to go?
(Especially thorny is that the surface of the earth accelerates upwards relative to inertial reference frames; if you stay in your inertial reference frame played backwards through time, you don’t lose the earth in space, but you do oscillate through it like a mass on a spring. I personally think this is a really cool way for time travel to work, but it’s clearly not how time turners do).
I took it!