The first experimental results are in, and ‘asking for what you want’ soundly defeats the null hypothesis. Yay!
This is awesome. My one full attempt at an apprentice went quite well in the past, in a completely different field, albeit with a stronger selection filter, and the person in question ended up world-class and now is running a successful start-up for which I’m a small angel.
There was an aborted attempt to take on a rationalist at one point, alas that did not work out as at the time the thing I was doing didn’t go well and the operation ended before they could get good, as the opportunity costs to continuing were too high. It did look promising in terms of the apprentice developing good skills, and if I’d had more capital at the time I think it would have gone well.
I also hired someone who will start Monday who will kind of be an apprentice, but they are rather uniquely high human capital in many related ways, so it doesn’t count.
Matches like this seem highly valuable, and I think it would be good to provide some resources to make this easier.
Fixed in original for clarity along with several other minor things, mods can reimport.
I don’t think this is unclear to anyone who reads the posts (to the extent that I’m not going to clarify within this comment), but in isolation it is indeed unclear.
I think that if you are attempting to model the physical world, the hypothesis ‘covering your face is not helpful unless you do it exactly right, and backfires often enough we shouldn’t tell people to do it’ simply does not make any sense, as your MIL correctly figured out. I don’t get how someone who knows how viruses spread could think this wasn’t true. In particular, the idea that masks were actively dangerous strikes me as completely absurd. And it’s not like we didn’t have the example of a billion Asian people in several countries wearing masks on a regular basis already.
I do think it’s reasonable to think surfaces are far more important than they are, or make several other mistakes, or to think the big lie was net positive at the time.
The alternative hypothesis is something like ‘these people are so twisted by Science(TM) and No Evidence and a general complete contempt for people’s ability to do anything or think anything’ that they are incapable of modeling the physical world at all. At which point, it’s a philosophy question whether this is a genuine mistake.
I’ve always understood it to mean something stronger than that, at least in the 75% range, which is thy I worded the quiz the way I did; if I was doing it over again category one would be 50% or less—it indicates (in my internal language anyway) broad agreement, and that when one encounters disagreement one should be surprised.
I encourage others who are interested to look into the biology, I have chosen not to do so myself due to limited time budget and lack of comparative advantage. I do know that the people I talked to who are better at biology/immunology than I am don’t think the biological facts are conclusive about the origin.
Yep, that message means it’s not broken, it got deleted.
I don’t put the ‘from the perspective of the USA’ caveat on my statements as much as I likely should, and I agree that the question of how the endgame plays out elsewhere is something I haven’t paid enough attention to. I’ve noted the links here and will incorporate the question into next week.
(Note that my time this week was highly limited, which was also why I pushed to next week all leak-related issues, especially the question of Gain of Function research)
This is my confident understanding as well. All who say ‘long term effects’ are purely basing this on the ‘we don’t know there aren’t such effects’ style of argument and nothing more, when there’s every reason to believe that if there were such effects we would see signs of them by now and no plausible mechanism for long term effects.
Whereas Covid-19 definitely does have substantial long term negative effects reasonably often for those who don’t die—as OP notes, the estimates are loose, but Long Covid is definitely a thing.
I would rate ‘possibility of unknown long term side effects we have no reason to expect whatsoever’ to be much less of a reason to not get vaccinated than ‘you might feel bad for a day after getting it’ even with a long term orientation. It’s that small.
Confirmed that I misunderstood this. I didn’t think they wanted to ban that stuff or anything, but the EU heavily regulates cinnamon, so I honestly don’t know what to expect anymore. Still, this week was hectic and I didn’t give this the time it needed, got it wrong, and screwed up, so sorry about that. It’s been edited to reflect that.
I don’t think people do the thing you’re describing, where a team watches a match together and analyzes—either in public or in private. Closest thing would be some coverage teams doing it, but it’s just not a thing and never was.
The good streamers explain what they’re thinking and how to a large extent (Jorbs is very good at this) but tag teams are rare, as are people doing explicit thinking practice.
Sam Black is doing something along related lines at least some of the time.
There’s definitely room for big improvements in these ways, dunno if it would be popular. I’d be curious to try but the startup costs of streaming, and the need for a full commitment, make it prohibitive unless an existing streamer wanted to experiment with me. I’d be down for that.
Individuals do train in the open now reasonably often via streaming, the issue is that it is ephemeral. A few small teams did it in the MPL era at times, but it wasn’t something one could properly follow reasonably.
Paulo is great but his approach isn’t that unique. A reasonable number of people (myself included) include large amounts of content about thinking and process. The problem is that such content typically doesn’t get as many hits as other content, and also it’s much harder to do well.
Fixed in original, will be fixed on reimport.
Please reimport; the section on India was missing and has now been put in, along with some minor other edits.
PS5 scalpers are good for net welfare and selling PS5s below market rate is bad, but if you are unwilling to pay the premium then (1) you are worse off because your cost in time to find one goes up and finding one is like winning a lottery, or means you can bid with time instead of money which you clearly prefer, and (2) you were unwilling to pay the market price so you shouldn’t have one yet.