faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
No bio...
User ID: 884
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
14d ago
Why can't it be real? The Haber-Bosch process is at least as impactful of an "air + energy + water -> bulk useful material" process, and it's real and cost-effective.
Anyone who comes up with some process that
- Has low infrastructure costs
- Produces some industrially valuable product
- Spins up and down quickly, and tolerates long idle periods (i.e. starts producing the product as soon as you feed it power, stops when you stop feeding it power, and doesn't have issues if it doesn't start again for a long time)
has a license to print money when power costs dip to zero or below. Which they already do from time to time, and if solar power continues to be deployed more and more, that situation will happen more often.
Terraform's "power -> methane" thing certainly isn't efficient, compared to other forms of grid energy storage, but what it is is scalable. Basically it seems to be a bet on "power prices will be zero / negative some fraction of the time in some locations", which seems likely to happen if solar keeps being deployed at the current rate, or if any country anywhere in the world gets serious about fission power.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
14d ago
What is a hyperdunbarist? Googling the term literally shows only this comment.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
11d ago
$100k for the machinery seems plausible to me -- you can see details of their proposed setup here (relevant sections are "Carbon capture", "Electrolyzer", and "Chemical reactor", the rest of that post is fluff). "Low maintenance" remains to be seen, but there's no reason in principle that it couldn't be.
But again, the viability of the entire project rests on the idea that in some places the marginal cost of power will be close to zero or even negative a substantial fraction of the time, and yet those places are accessible enough to construct one of these plants. If that's not the way the future pans out, this project winds up not being so viable.
So the answer to
So how is this thing supposed to be competitive with natural gas in any reasonable place ?
Is "It's not. But not every place is reasonable".
I drove a corolla until it started giving me trouble (around 300,000 km), followed by a prius until that started giving me trouble (around 400,000 km), both were IMO quite good cars. I think you should be able to get a lightly used one that is <10 years old within your budget in Scotland, and that should have all the creature comforts you want.
That said, for bluetooth specifically, for $20, you can get a thing which plugs into the cigarette lighter of a car and does bluetooth pairing and then broadcasts to a radio frequency (choose a dead channel), which you can then tune your car radio to. In my experience they work well enough that you never think about them once you've done the initial 2 minutes of setup - your phone just automatically pairs when you get in the car, and the car speakers play what your phone is playing.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
14d ago
Also useful if your car has bluetooth but it's janky.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
15d ago
The topic of this thread isn't "the evidence we have about the history of World War II", it's "internal discussion and navel gazing about what norms we want to have in this community", which is a topic of endless interest on this site. A similar thing happens on any thread that mentions Aella.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
26d ago
This line of argument reminds me of the "to get people to ride public transit, you don’t have to fix the issues with public transit, you just have to make the experience of traveling by car much much worse" argument I see sometimes.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
10d ago
Yes, because the baseline for "randomly guessing" is 1/5612 ("twitter user @fluffyporcupine matches this specific one of the 5612 facebook users"), not 1/2 ("twitter user @fluffyporcupine is/is not the same user as facebook user Nancy Prickles").
Doesn't scare me for personal reasons -- I'm trivially identifiable, you don't need to resort to fancy ML techniques. But if you're actually trying to remain anonymous, and post under both your real name and a pseudonym, then perhaps it's worth paying attention to (e.g. spinning up separate throwaway accounts for anything you want to say that is likely to actually lead to significant damage to your real-world identity and doing the "translate to and from a foreign language to get changed phrasing without changed meaning" thing).
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
a backup plan to "go back to grinding at poker." ... Apparently it works
It "works" but:
- The pay is bad. You will be making something on the order of 10-20% of what an actual professional with similar skill levels makes, and on top of that you will experience massive swings in your net worth even if you do everything right. The rule of thumb is that you can calculate your maximum expected hourly earnings by considering the largest sustained loss where you would continue playing, and dividing that by 1000. So if you would keep playing through a $20,000 loss, that means you can expect to earn $20 / hour if your play is impeccable.
- The competition is brutal. Poker serves as sort of a "job of last resort" to people who, for whatever reason, cannot function in a "real job". This may be because they lack executive function, or because they don't do well in situations where the rules are ambiguous, or because they can't stand the idea of working for someone else but also can't or won't start their own business. The things that all these groups have in common, though, is that they're generally frighteningly intelligent, that they're functional enough to do deliberate practice (those who don't lose their bankroll and stop playing), and that they've generally been at this for years. At 1/2 you can expect to make about $10 / hour, and it goes up from there in a way that is slower than linear as the stakes increase, because the players get better. At 50/100, an amazing player with a $500k bankroll might make about $50 / hour. I do hear that this stops being true at extremely high stakes, like $4000/$8000, where compulsive gamblers become more frequent again (relative to 50/100, the players are still far better than you'd see at a 1/2 or even a 10/20 table). But if you want to play 4000/8000 games you need a bankroll in the ballpark of $10-20M, and also there aren't that many such games. For reference, I capped out playing 2/5 NL, where I made an average of about $12 / hour. Every time I tried to move up to 5/10 I got eaten alive.
- The hours are weird. Say goodbye to leisure time on your evening, weekends, and holidays. Expect pretty regular all-nighters, because most of your profit will come from those times when you manage to find a good table and just extract money from it for 16 hours straight.
- It's bad for your mental health. When I was getting started, I imagined that it would be a lifestyle of pitting my mind against others, of earning money by being objectively better at poker than the other professional players. It is in fact nothing like that at all. Your money does not come from other professional players, and in fact if there are more than about 3 professional players at a table of 10, you should leave and find another table, because even if you are quite good, the professional players just don't make frequent enough or large enough mistakes that exploiting their mistakes will make you much money. No, you make your money by identifying which tables contain (in the best case) drunk tourists or (in a more typical case) compulsive gamblers pissing away money that they managed to beg, borrow, or steal in a desperate attempt to "make back their losses". It is absolutely soul sucking to realize that your lifestyle is funded by exploiting gambling addicts, and that if you find yourself at a table without any people destroying their lives it means you're at the wrong table.
In summary, -2/10 do not recommend.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
15d ago
The constant debates between the Napoleon deniers and their opponents are sucking all the air out of the room. What do you do?
Containment thread? It worked pretty well for covid, when covid stuff was sucking all the air out of the room.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
14d ago
I think the guideline should be "the topic keeps coming up over and over again in the threads for separate weeks, and the conversation in the new week tends to reference the conversation in older weeks". Covid, when it was a thing, absolutely qualified as that. Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine were somewhat less of this, since each week's thread tended to be about current events more than about continuing to hash out an ongoing disagreement. Trans stuff, I think, qualifies for this, as it does seem to be the same people having the same discussion over and over. Can't think of too many other examples.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
14d ago
Don't pin it and I think it's fine. The people who want to have that discussion can subscribe to the thread. A second such containment thread for rationalist inner-circle social drama would also be nice. Maybe a third for trans stuff.
I think "topics that tend to suck all the air out of the room when they get brought up go to their own containment thread, anyone who cares to discuss that topic can subscribe to the thread, containment threads only get pinned if there's at least a quarter as much past-activity in them as in the typical CW thread" would probably be an improvement.
TBH if someone is put off by the fact that holocaust denial stuff gets put in a dedicated thread rather than banned I think they would probably be put off by the speech norms here anyway, best that they discover that early. I personally find the discussion tiresome and poorly argued, but I don't think there's a low-time-investment way to moderate on that basis, at least not yet. Maybe check back in 3 years and LLMs will be at that point, but for the time being.
All that said, I am not a mod, nor am I volunteering to spend the amount of time it would take to be a mod, so ultimately the decision should be made by the people who are putting in that time and effort.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
10d ago
Key search terms "stylometry" and "social media":
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
15d ago
Congratulations!
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
15d ago
In terms of why I'm not so active it's mostly the "had a kid 2 months ago" thing, not anything to do with Motte quality.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
15d ago
I challenge the premise "somewhat optimized", we are currently living in dysgenic age.
The optimization happened in the ancestral environment, not the last couple hundred years. Current environment is probably mildly dysgenic but the effect is going to be tiny because the current environment just hasn't been around for very long.
Alternatively, we could just skip detection on which alleles have low IQ and just eliminate very rare alleles, which are much more likely to be deleterious (e.g. replace allele with frequency below given threshold with its most similar allele with frequency above threshold) without studying any IQ.
I expect this would help a bit, just would be surprised if the effect size was actually anywhere near +1SD.
In your hypothetical bet, how would result "IQ as intended, but baby brain too large for pregnancy to be delivered naturally" count?
If the baby is healthy otherwise, that counts just fine.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1mo ago
If you have a bunch of physical resources you could use to build infrastructure which will provide a moderate amount of value per year over the coming decades, or in goods which will provide a large amount of value now but no further value in the future, that gives you the options of "invest in the future" vs "consume now". If the default action is "invest in the future", and you make the decision to consume now instead, I think that reasonably counts as "borrowing against the future".
On the object level of this thread, it's debatable whether allowing more immigration is borrowing against the future or investing in the future, and it probably depends to some extent on how generous you expect future entitlements to be, but "is our current policy borrowing against the future" is a real and meaningful question.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
For each of the following, I think there's a nontrivial chance (call it 10% or more) that that crackpot theory is true.
- The NSA has known about using language models to generate text embeddings (or some similarly powerful form of search based on semantic meaning rather than text patterns) for at least 15 years. This is why they needed absolutely massive amounts of compute, and not just data storage, for their Saratoga Springs data center way back when.
- The Omicron variant of covid was intentionally developed (by serial passaging through lab mice) as a much more contagious, much less deadly variant that could quickly provide cross immunity against the more deadly variants.
- Unelected leaders of some US agencies sometimes lie under oath to Congess.
- Israel has at least one satellite with undisclosed purpose and capabilities that uses free space point-to-point optical communication. If true, that means that the Jews have secret space lasers.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
[Omicron]
<1%? My vague memory is that there were a lot of variants, and that in general 'virus mutates to spread more and be less harmful' is fairly common, so imo there's not that much reason to believe this.
For a random variant I'd agree. But omicron was really weird in a lot of ways though, and I'd actually put this one at more like 30% (and 80% that something weird and mouse-shaped happened).
- Omicron was really really far (as measured by mutation distance) from any other sars-cov-2 variant. Like seriously look at this phylogenetic tree (figure 1 in this paper)
- The most recent common ancestor of B.1.1.529 (omicron) and B.1.617.2 (delta, the predominant variant at the time) dates back to approximately February 2020. It is not descended from any variant that was common at the time it started spreading.
- The omicron variant spike protein exhibited unusually high binding affinity for the mouse cell entry receptor (source)
- Demand for humanized mice was absurdly high during the pandemic - researchers were definitely attempting to study coronavirus disease and spread dynamics in mouse models.
The astute reader will object "hey that just sounds like a researcher who couldn't get enough humanized mice decided to induce sars-cov-2 to jump to normal mice, and then study it there. Why do you assume they intentionally induced a jump back to humans rather than accidentally getting sick from their research mice". To which I say "the timing was suspicious, the level of infectiousness was enormously higher in humans which I don’t think I'd expect in the absence of passaging back through humanized mice, and also hey look over there a distraction from my weak arguments".
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
• The poker player. This is the hardest to explain, they they seem to be able to read people, manipulate people and navigate around smart people in a manner that no one can. They aren't immediately obvious as the smartest in any room, but they somehow always get their way. Often end up CEOs or millionaires somehow.
As someone who has actually played poker at a reasonably competitive level, I think this type of intelligence should be broken into two almost orthogonal components.
- The edge-seeker: Is always tracking many possibilities, always tracking prices, and always looking for small exploitable ways that others are doing things wrong such that this person can eke out some small benefit from taking advantage of that weakness. Think "theory-heavy poker player" or "Jane Street employee" - not necessarily great at textbook math (though probably at least "pretty good"), but excellent at quickly building up very detailed models and ruthless at discarding models that don't provide an edge.
- The politician: Always tracking the expected mental states of others, viewing things from their perspective in order to figure out what signals to send to maximize the chance that that person acts in a way beneficial to the politician. Think "used car salesman", "politician", or "con artist" (but I repeat myself)
As a note, in actual poker games we call the second type "fish", and the key to making money at poker is to ensure you're sitting at a table with a lot of people like that.
Anyway, in terms of the question at hand I'd add a couple of more feminine-coded types of this kind of thing where excellence really does make a notable difference.
- The teacher: Like the politician, tracks the probable internal mental models of many people at once. However, instead of using this knowledge to exploit weaknesses, instead seeks to refine their mental models to be more useful to them.
- The diplomat/organizer: Tracks the motivations of multiple possibly conflicting parties, tries to mediate communication between them to come to a mutually agreeable solution
- The gossip: Tracks the goings and doings of a significant number of people, and also the interests and biases of those people, in order to share the juiciest news and secrets with the people who will react the most strongly to them (hey, I didn't say all of the female-coded types were going to be prosocial)
Of course instead of calling them "male-oriented" and "female-oriented" it might be more accurate to call them "systems-oriented" and "people-oriented". Systems-oriented thinking does scale much better than people-oriented thinking in the best case, although I think if you look at the median case instead of the outliers that's probably flipped.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
Analysis, Context, Hook, Own Opinion.
ACHOO.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
Concrete note on this:
accusations that they promised another, "Chloe", compensation around $75,000 and stiffed her on it in various ways turned into "She had a written contract to be paid $1000/monthly with all expenses covered, which we estimated would add up to around $70,000."
The "all expenses" they're talking about are work-related travel expenses. I, too, would be extremely mad if an employer promised me $75k / year in compensation, $10k of which would be cash-based, and then tried to say that costs incurred by me doing my job were considered to be my "compensation".
Honestly most of what I take away from this is that nobody involved seems to have much of an idea of how things are done in professional settings, and also there seems to be an attitude of "the precautions that normal businesses take are costly and unnecessary since we are all smart people who want to help the world". Which, if that's the way they want to swing, then fine, but I think it is worth setting those expectations upfront. And also I'd strongly recommend that anyone fresh out of college who has never had a normal job should avoid working for an EA organization like nonlinear until they've seen how things work in purely transactional jobs.
Also it seems to me based on how much interest there was in that infighting that effective altruists are starved for drama.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
4mo ago
There's probably even a few people doing that! But it's not the bulk of what we're seeing.
What you're seeing is driven largely by what is most outrageous to see, and thus most likely to be shared and appear on your feeds and in the news. The people saying "damn this sucks, I don't even know what a good solution looks like but murdering innocent civilians in their homes for offenses committed by their countrymen doesn't seem like a good solution" are not having their opinions amplified to the whole world.
Maybe I just have an unusually levelheaded community, but most of the takes I've heard from people I actually know in real life look more like "damn this sucks, I hope it doesn't get too much worse" than for cheering for the deaths of Israeli or Palestinian civilians.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
6mo ago
provide vouchers to homeless people and to require hotels to report vacancies daily and accept vouchers if they have room
New startup idea: uber for staying in hotel rooms, where hotels pay background-checked people to stay in hotel rooms to prevent them from being vacant.
Such as the famously-modern program
vim.More options
Context Copy link