Good historical summary, but would be better without the political dialogue.
I’m in Australia and I mostly agree with Zvi here. 200+ days of lockdown is close enough to a year (especially if you include technically-not-lockdown but still heavily restricted) and while I’m also introverted, I’d give it more of a 0.7-0.8 at this point. Doesn’t help that I don’t enjoy video call socialisation, and even my WoW guild seems a bit subdued lately.
Just guessing, but I wonder if this has something to do with the physics of heating something from the inside vs the outside—perhaps to get to a high enough deep internal temperature in a heat bath either takes too long or requires such a high temperature as to hurt the skin and outer body.
If two groups come up with different estimates, that’s one thing—if they come up with different estimates with wildly non-overlapping error bars (as in some of these examples) that suggests that there’s a problem of overconfidence. Perhaps the reported error bars should be much bigger for this kind of research—though I wouldn’t know how to quantify that.
An alternative measure might be looking at the curve of Elo vs amount of computation. Deeper games presumably have greater rewards for thinking, so the curve will level off more slowly. This is measurable for computer players—at least after controlling for architecture (neural network vs traditional).
If you’re a physics teacher, the content is physics, but the topic is (I assume) some combination of grading papers
“Content” and “topic” appear to be reversed in this sentence.
The post overall seems mostly correct. This also applies to subjects you might study in university—how cool something sounds bears little relation to what you’ll actually be doing.
I feel like comparative advantage is a bit hard to understand and the concept often seems to be used incorrectly (as far as I can tell). For example, people giving career advice talk about “finding your comparative advantage” when this amounts to “do what pays the most” which seems obvious and uninteresting. (The following example that it can be better to hire someone than do everything yourself is slightly less obvious, though has caveats in the real world due to principal-agent/search costs/etc).
Eg see also the bronze age collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse?wprov=sfla1
I think the advantage of reading a book over having a conversation is that you’re less concerned with saving face or “winning”, so can focus more on the actual argument.
Being a “personal blog” seems like a bit of a technicality when I come to the site and it shows up on my front page like any other post.
There’s a lot of partisan sneering against Trump supporters on that Twitter account which IMO calls his objectivity on the odds issue into question.
The main factors were Nate Silver’s record of good calibration, and (alleged) “smart money” successful bettors (including local Zvi) being onto it. I’m still uncertain why the market could be so inefficient in this case, so I’m not betting a lot of money, but it’s possible that institutional factors prevent large amounts of smart capital coming in—perhaps directly betting on the election is still too weird for a large investment firm.
In general I’m more inclined the trust the market value than any particular prognosticator. Why shouldn’t I be?
edit: The arguments here have convinced me to bet some money on Biden (on Betfair), but today the odds are still moving against him (down to just under 60% on electionbettingodds.com). This does leave me rather confused—surely the “dumb money” can’t outweigh the “smart money” so heavily? Especially not on Betfair which doesn’t have PredictIt’s limitations.
Thanks. I was recently worrying a bit about this specific issue, and this is reassuring.
(Even if cloud brightening is the ultimate solution to warming, we still need to address ocean acidification and carbon sequestration, and I’m not aware of any ideal solution to those problems yet, but two weeks ago I wasn’t aware of cloud brightening, so for all I know the problem isn’t a lack of investment, might just be a lack of policy discussion.)
There is also http://projectvesta.org which claims that it is possible to remove CO2 from the ocean and atmosphere via olivine weathering reasonably cheaply.
The winningest rationalist I know of is Dominic Cummings, who was the lead strategist behind the Brexit pro-leave movement. While the majority of LWers may not agree with his goals, he did seem to be effective, and he frequently makes references to rationalist concepts (including IIRC some references to the work of Eliezer Yudkowsky) on his blog: https://dominiccummings.com/
NZ is such a cliche for nuclear escape by now that I wonder if it might be targeted in a full-on nuclear war just to get the escaping rich westerners.
> I’ve never heard of anyone doing this directly. Has anyone else?
There’ s a Brazilian job website that requires users to pay, though I think it’s on a subscription basis.