Bad link. Also trigger warning: MINDKILL!
root
Karma: 22
Just dress as Voldemort and use a flashlight with a green LED. Works fantastically for trick or treating.
Is LW 1.0 dead?
Why not use something like.. werc? http://werc.cat-v.org/
Granted, if you’re using Windows, you’re out of luck.
Abstract question here, but does this paper prove we’re not living in a simulation, versus proving that at our current amount of knowledge, we can’t prove if we’re in one, or not?
The bigger question, of course, would be how many simulations deep we are at, and how long until we make our own.
Unfortunately, due to the shape of modern web development
I humbly request this to be unpacked.
(EDIT: Polls are broken or I did something incorrect. Lookat this:
[Which LessWrong had a better design?]{1.0}{2.0}{Results}
And help me fix this, please. Thanks!)
Do tell why your chosen design is better. I like the current design because
Familiarity
Doesn’t have a width limit? (Either it was fixed or firefox being firefox)
Neutral points:
Maybe taking time to get used to the new design because new != bad, but new != good either. My guess is that new systems can be intuitively bad at first but giving them a few tries isn’t unreasonable.
Good points/improvement suggestions
Removed the sidebar, but now a significant amount of whitespace is taken by the “recommended reading”, “top posts” etc. Move them to the top of the category, instead of the left.
Move the “recommended reading” part down—most of the time people will scroll down to get the new posts, might as well save that effort.
Currently, posts are in this format:
Post Title
X days ago / Author name / Total points / <<<<<<< number of comments at the end of the universe
Text
Combine the post title and the date, author name and w/e into a single line. Also, possibly add sort by comments. Handy picture; functionality is already in. Decrease the width of the window to see it
More later(?)
Small (but critical) complaint: the login button doesn’t work without javascript.
An rather disturbing thought crossed my mind when I was thinking of a good reply. You’re against the lone hero mindset—explained your reason for doing so—and yet once you’ve established groups, haven’t you introduced the lone group mindset? You have focused entirely on Hufflepuff, but asked no Ravenclaw what their thoughts on the matter are. No Slytherin was asked how to make your project crumble and the leader be exiled or better yet, usurped. No Gryffindor was asked what kind of bravery is needed for such a project, although I believe you’d get a cheerful smile at the very least for doing what you believe is right.
So do please tell me, what, exactly, are the reasons for not including others.
Possibly interesting: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality Bookshelves
… of LW: a while ago, a former boss and friend of mine said that rationality is irrational because you never have sufficient computational power to evaluate everything rationally. I thought he was missing the point—but after two posts on LW, I am inclined to agree with him.
He’s techinically correct on the first part, but what really bothers me is that while that statement is resource-aware, it totally disregards time. What can you do in 1, 2, 5, 10 minutes/hours/days/weeks/months/years (remind me to edit this to include decades/centuries/milleniums in some time) that will help you achieve your goals?
It’s kind of funny—every post gets broken down into its tiniest constituents, and these get overanalysed and then people go on tangents only marginally relevant to the intent of the original article.
Typical online discussions.. okay, no data to back it up..
This would be fine if the original questions of the post were answered; but when I asked for metrics to evaluate a presidency, few people actually provided any—most started debating the validity of metrics, and one subthread went off to discuss the appropriateness of the term “gender equality”.
You’ve just had a taste of why discussing politics can get difficult and annoying.
I am new here, and I don’t want to be overly critical of a culture I do not yet understand. But I just want to point out—rationality is a great tool to solve problems; if it becomes overly abstract, it kind of misses its point I think.
Not the first to bring it up. Just so you won’t feel lonely: https://lesswrong.com/lw/2po/selfimprovement_or_shiny_distraction_why_less/
Some more information about Hufflepuff:
Hufflepuff is the most inclusive among the four houses; valuing hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty, and fair play rather than a particular aptitude in its members.
Forgive me for the rudeness of “DO THE RESEARCH FOR ME”, but honestly, every time I read a similar post like this one, I NEVER see numbers. If you’ve ever heard of a far-away paradise or living hell, you might be amazed or scared at first, but one step later you wonder how good or bad it really is.
So in this case, how much meat is ACTUALLY eaten? Can we get numbers?
The second group feels like the most punchable people I’ve seen for December 2016. I don’t see why the insults were necessary. I’d imagine a proper response would be something like “What was so bad about last month?”. In fact, NONE of them helped, because I can totally see something like one of your characters posting how they’d like to get into Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxbridge, and then they get responses like “lol man who you kidding, you’re a moron, do you even have a high school diploma?”
(Maybe my first paragraph was missing the point, but really, it felt like such an outlandish and outright silly scenario that I actually laughed when one of those people said they’re “updating”. Updated my journal..)
Anyway, as far as goals go, less buzzwords (SMART) and more observations. Say you have X goal. Can you build in small increments to achieve a larger goal? Can you name a few things that could prevent you, decrease your chance or even completely disallow you to achieve that goal? What’s the opportunity cost of following all those steps for the goal?
Nitpick:
Given that in scenario 2 asking for help yielded an exercise partner
Scenario 2 didn’t mention an exercise partner, there was that guy that said he did run in the mornings..
Fun fact: I can generally imagine a person described by the word asshole, but I can’t really imagine a person defined by the word ‘bigot’. It’s such a liberally used word that.. it suffers from lingual inflation.
I wanted to have a bigger bite but there’s this funny part of the article which is a miniature black hole of irony:
“We have an obligation and a responsibility to create a campus climate that is empowering, rewarding and welcoming for all students,” Leonard said.
The letter cited the erection of the Trump wall and acts of harassment since the election but he said it is not about politics.
Feels like somebody here is trying to build their own wall..
“We’re relatively (politically) powerless,” Rud said, “except (we can) try to influence people through how we teach and how we write and what we stand for.”
Influencing is a nice alternative to indoctrinating..
Overall this is a 0⁄10 article and I assume the writer doesn’t know what he’s talking about or.. he knows exactly what he’s talking about.
POSSIBLY POLITICAL (MINDKILLING) WARNING: WEED, also I can’t get the asterisks at the bottom to work correctly, what the hell happened to WYSIWYG?
So recently I’ve been acquainted with a few smokers. It’s not really about the smoking itself but rather it’s my overall disposition toward it.
Maybe it’s some sort of blind spot on my hand, I’d appreciate if maybe the nootropics guys can help me with this. But I can’t seem to wrap my head around what are the:
Benefits*
Drawbacks**
Placebo
Obligatory warning that I’m not really knowledgeable nor experienced with any mind-altering substance.
** Most of the benefits I found are usually related to diseases, like cancer and Parkinson’s but anxiety is also commonly mentioned. The diseases part seems interesting, but it’s interesting in the same way that learning that there’s gold under your house. It becomes a question of “How much?”. As for anxiety, it’s part of life and learning to deal with it on your own is better than turning it down. Maybe “What are the benefits random dude #0 could gain from smoking weed?” is a better question.
** Addiction? General brain harm? Money spent? Opportunity cost? I really want to rule addiction out but sometimes it feels like they NEED it in their system, which fits the criteria. Obvious anecdote, but a honest one. Not really sure about brain damage, and damage is a much more powerful description than “long term effects”. As for money, it feels like it already correlates with opportunity cost here, not like they aren’t correlated anyway. My imperfect reasoning system says that after X amount of days I would rather have M amount of money with me than without me but I imagine it also discards the effects in those moments. (Being hungry and buying a small snack, versus staying hungry and keeping the money, the hunger could be annoying at the time but long-term insight suggests that I’m quite likely to find myself a satisfying meal, so should I bear with the hunger?)
Do we really need to take the whole package in? If we have (n) beliefs, some number of them might be useful, some of them would be less effective than advertised, and some could be useless if not harmful.
Why can’t we have both?
I made this simply because I’m curious about what your programming setup looks like. More specifically, eye ergonomics.
This page https://ergonomics.ucla.edu/injuries-and-prevention/eye-strain.html looks useful, but I’m curious if there’s much to add.