Yeah, I can see how that is confusing. Will edit.
Added the following to original, mods please reimport or insert it directly at top of section: Pattern is that the percentages in the statements are Scott Alexander’s original predictions. When I say I bought, sold or held, that’s what I did in the linked-to post.
I don’t have that info regarding schools but also no one is systematically collecting data on anything and everything is confounded, including by control systems.
On HCQ, as I noted in the other comment on it, I’m mostly predicting/observing that the scientific community has decided it’s going to reject HCQ, preventing it from becoming a consensus treatment. This is partly for ‘good’ reasons, partly for not-so-good reasons that have nothing to do with science, partly because they no longer know how or are not allowed to study things in ways that would uncover the information.
This is different from the question of what you should do if you or someone you care about gets sick! To which I reply IANAD and for legal and other good reasons, I have no net useful advice for you here.
Happy to do a small wager at 25% odds if we have someone we both trust to hold the money, or you trust me to do so, up to $100 vs. $300, or we can do $1 vs. $3 symbolically with no trust issues. Judgment would be whatever Scott evaluates to in his prediction evaluation.
Note that I agree that it’s >10% that there is a worthwhile way to use HCQ as part of a treatment strategy. But that’s different from it being the scientific consensus!
For the disclaimer, I would be very, very wary updating from Scott Adams here. He can be insightful, but when he advocates for things that make the administration look good, he’d do that essentially irrespective of truth value. What you’re getting is “here’s the best case I could make given I already wrote the conclusion at the bottom of the page.” So if you do want to update off such things, you need to compare it to how good an argument you expected him to find!
OK, so if true we have one hard example, so presumably it is *possible*. But I also haven’t heard of a second one, and also asymptomatic transmission is a thing, etc etc.
It would be weird if we didn’t have one case somewhere that has a plausible surface vector even if they were completely safe.
The surface being a person seems important in that example. Reduces the number of steps, if nothing else.
Also worth noting that my gaming posts are only here because LW auto-imports all blog posts from Don’t Worry About The Vase (thezvi.wordpress.com). For such matters, doing the discussions there is encouraged.
Very briefly. I played a few games. At lower levels, game seems very close to “higher point total on your cards wins,” good cards crushed bad cards, and I didn’t get engaged. What am I missing? Do you just need to stick with it until the cards power up?
Emergents will be on Mobile (iPhone + Android) and PC to start. We’ll add others later if there is demand.
You get into the beta by joining the queue here: https://www.emergents.gg/ . First wave is already mostly picked, but shouldn’t take too long to get in once things get rolling.
Good feedback and information. Thanks!
I can definitely see the case that one can do ‘whatever one wants relatively quickly’ - once. As in, I can make *one* of those decks, but not all of them, so I need to choose wisely, cause it’ll be a while before I can do the second one, etc.
What’s your pick for the most interesting strategy that’s at least tier-2-ish?
Yeah, if you’re not making *any* decisions that’s definitely on you. If you think you’re not making that many interesting ones, that’s largely on the game, and you’re right.
I definitely see the case that ‘strategy’ involves knowing the common deck builds and playing around/against their exact cards. Don’t think the game justifies that level of cognitive load for me.
I heartily endorse this service or product.
Been meaning to write a version of this for a while, but more detailed.