I do this because there’s no way to request posts and comments sorted together chronologically with GraphQL. However, if you click the posts or comments tab, the pagination will work correctly for any number of pages.
saturn
Karma: 1,685
The two sites are based on quite different philosophies of web development, so it would be far from straightforward to do some of the things I’ve done within the existing LW 2.0 code. I’ve had fun creating GreaterWrong, and I don’t mind putting effort into it as long as LW 2.0 seems like a viable community. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to have two sites that do the same thing, if some people prefer one and other people prefer the other. (I agree with Error’s comment.)
No, I don’t have any special access to the database. If you log in to GreaterWrong, your password is briefly stored in my server’s memory, only as needed to forward it to LW 2.0 and receive an authentication token back. In the future I’d like to eliminate even that, but it will require some additional complexity and changes on the LW 2.0 side.
Do you have plans to implement a list of posts by user (without comments), a list of drafts, and an inbox? These are the only things I go to LW2.0 for, most of my time is now spent on GW.
Yes, definitely.
Parts of it, anyway.
It would be nice to have more than just a single page of ‘new’ content, since as is, it can even be hard to check out all recent posts from the past few days [...] more of a user’s posting and commenting history
Done :)
Hi, I’m the one who created Greater Wrong. I’m intending to announce it more widely once it doesn’t have so many conspicuously missing features, but it’s something I’m working on in my spare time so progress is somewhat gradual. You can, however, already log in and post comments. You can use your existing LW 2.0 username/password or create a new one. Let me know if you have any problems.
I always assumed it was by selling prediction securities for less than they will ultimately pay out.
Bs pbhefr, erirnyvat n unfu nsgre gur snpg cebirf abguvat, rira vs vg’f irevsvnoyl gvzrfgnzcrq. Nabgure cbffvoyr gevpx vf gb fraq n qvssrerag cerqvpgvba gb qvssrerag tebhcf bs crbcyr fb gung ng yrnfg bar tebhc jvyy frr lbhe cerqvpgvba pbzr gehr. V qba’g xabj bs na rnfl jnl nebhaq gung vs gur tebhcf qba’g pbzzhavpngr.
Unless you have a model that exactly describes how a given message was generated, its Shannon entropy is not known but estimated… and typically estimated based on the current state of the art in compression algorithms. So unless I misunderstood, this seems like a circular argument.
Any kind of tragedy of the commons type scenario would qualify.
Since the Shapley value of all players also has to sum to the value of the end result, I think the value of each A voter has to be just RB/n. I’m way out of my depth with the combinatorics here, but here’s a paper I found that gives a bit more information than the wikipedia page.
I don’t know how to apportion credit and blame to individual people for group actions (and almost all effective actions are group actions). I’m not sure it’s even a meaningful question.
Shapley value is one way to answer this question.
Does your rational advice differ from the common folk wisdom/cargo culting on this topic? And if so, what was your research process?
Longevity insurance is available from several insurance companies.
Asking why we privilege “no” over “yes” is . . . let’s just say problematic.
I can see that someone who has made it beyond childhood without learning this (perhaps by willfully ignoring the answer) has a problem. But does asking, in itself, create an additional problem?
You might be able to get the habit-forming effect without “wasting” $100 or $10 by deciding how much you would like to donate in terms of your income and debt, then creating a worksheet for yourself which you dutifully fill out every month, even when you know it will come out to $0.
I don’t have any special insight on this subject, only what I’ve picked up from reading LW and occasionally talking about it on IRC. Many sources are linked from the comments in this thread (the comments are much more informative than the original post). To sum up, it seems that both CI and Alcor are lamentably bad, but CI is considerably worse.
If using your computer in bright light gives you eyestrain, it might be possible that you need a brighter monitor to go with your brighter lights.
Randomization still eliminates some confounding factors even without blinding. For example, you might be more likely to decide to turn on your bright lights when you’re already feeling alert.
I’ve now added password reset capability to GreaterWrong.