nhaliday + search   185

What's the expected level of paper for top conferences in Computer Science - Academia Stack Exchange
Top. The top level.

My experience on program committees for STOC, FOCS, ITCS, SODA, SOCG, etc., is that there are FAR more submissions of publishable quality than can be accepted into the conference. By "publishable quality" I mean a well-written presentation of a novel, interesting, and non-trivial result within the scope of the conference.

...

There are several questions that come up over and over in the FOCS/STOC review cycle:

- How surprising / novel / elegant / interesting is the result?
- How surprising / novel / elegant / interesting / general are the techniques?
- How technically difficult is the result? Ironically, FOCS and STOC committees have a reputation for ignoring the distinction between trivial (easy to derive from scratch) and nondeterministically trivial (easy to understand after the fact).
- What is the expected impact of this result? Is this paper going to change the way people do theoretical computer science over the next five years?
- Is the result of general interest to the theoretical computer science community? Or is it only of interest to a narrow subcommunity? In particular, if the topic is outside the STOC/FOCS mainstream—say, for example, computational topology—does the paper do a good job of explaining and motivating the results to a typical STOC/FOCS audience?
nibble  q-n-a  overflow  academia  tcs  cs  meta:research  publishing  scholar  lens  properties  cost-benefit  analysis  impetus  increase-decrease  soft-question  motivation  proofs  search  complexity  analogy  problem-solving  elegance  synthesis  hi-order-bits  novelty  discovery 
16 days ago by nhaliday
How much would it cost to crawl 1 billion sites using rented AWS servers/bandwidth? - Quora
The best way IMHO to do such a crawl would be to recruit a group of say 100-1000 of your friends, and their friends, and write a simple distributed app running in background on their machines, when they sit idle or are lightly used. This way you will be amortizing their monthly broadband bills, with their monthly quotas (e.g. Comcast 250GB) largely unused anyway. I would think that you can get dozens of Mbps of cross bandwidth in such a network, which could do the job in a matter of months.

BTW, if you really meant 1 billion sites, as opposed to pages, multiply the above bills by 100x (average number of pages per site).

--

There is no need for you to crawl. Someone has already done the job for you. Common Crawl https://commoncrawl.org/ is a periodic crawl of the internet, and the results are stored in Amazon S3. You can directly use the results without any charge for any kink of analysis you want to do.
q-n-a  qra  quixotic  programming  engineering  search  minimum-viable  internet  web  huge-data-the-biggest  howto  init  advice  money  cost-benefit  strategy  scaling-tech  system-design 
7 weeks ago by nhaliday
Delta debugging - Wikipedia
good overview of with examples: https://www.csm.ornl.gov/~sheldon/bucket/Automated-Debugging.pdf

Not as useful for my usecases (mostly contest programming) as QuickCheck. Input is generally pretty structured and I don't have a long history of code in VCS. And when I do have the latter git-bisect is probably enough.

good book tho: http://www.whyprogramsfail.com/toc.php
WHY PROGRAMS FAIL: A Guide to Systematic Debugging\
wiki  reference  programming  systems  debugging  c(pp)  python  tools  devtools  links  hmm  formal-methods  divide-and-conquer  vcs  git  search  yak-shaving  pdf  white-paper  multi  examples  stories  books  unit  caltech  recommendations  advanced  correctness 
8 weeks ago by nhaliday
Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
That wikipedia alternative by the nerdy spurned co-founder of Jimmy Wales (Larry Sanger). Unfortunately looks rather empty.
wiki  reference  database  search  comparison  organization  duplication  socs-and-mops  the-devil  god-man-beast-victim  guilt-shame 
november 2018 by nhaliday
Theories of humor - Wikipedia
There are many theories of humor which attempt to explain what humor is, what social functions it serves, and what would be considered humorous. Among the prevailing types of theories that attempt to account for the existence of humor, there are psychological theories, the vast majority of which consider humor to be very healthy behavior; there are spiritual theories, which consider humor to be an inexplicable mystery, very much like a mystical experience.[1] Although various classical theories of humor and laughter may be found, in contemporary academic literature, three theories of humor appear repeatedly: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory.[2] Among current humor researchers, there is no consensus about which of these three theories of humor is most viable.[2] Proponents of each one originally claimed their theory to be capable of explaining all cases of humor.[2][3] However, they now acknowledge that although each theory generally covers its own area of focus, many instances of humor can be explained by more than one theory.[2][3][4][5] Incongruity and superiority theories, for instance, seem to describe complementary mechanisms which together create humor.[6]

...

Relief theory
Relief theory maintains that laughter is a homeostatic mechanism by which psychological tension is reduced.[2][3][7] Humor may thus for example serve to facilitate relief of the tension caused by one's fears.[8] Laughter and mirth, according to relief theory, result from this release of nervous energy.[2] Humor, according to relief theory, is used mainly to overcome sociocultural inhibitions and reveal suppressed desires. It is believed that this is the reason we laugh whilst being tickled, due to a buildup of tension as the tickler "strikes".[2][9] According to Herbert Spencer, laughter is an "economical phenomenon" whose function is to release "psychic energy" that had been wrongly mobilized by incorrect or false expectations. The latter point of view was supported also by Sigmund Freud.

Superiority theory
The superiority theory of humor traces back to Plato and Aristotle, and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. The general idea is that a person laughs about misfortunes of others (so called schadenfreude), because these misfortunes assert the person's superiority on the background of shortcomings of others.[10] Socrates was reported by Plato as saying that the ridiculous was characterized by a display of self-ignorance.[11] For Aristotle, we laugh at inferior or ugly individuals, because we feel a joy at feeling superior to them.[12]

Incongruous juxtaposition theory
The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept.[10]

Since the main point of the theory is not the incongruity per se, but its realization and resolution (i.e., putting the objects in question into the real relation), it is often called the incongruity-resolution theory.[10]

...

Detection of mistaken reasoning
In 2011, three researchers, Hurley, Dennett and Adams, published a book that reviews previous theories of humor and many specific jokes. They propose the theory that humor evolved because it strengthens the ability of the brain to find mistakes in active belief structures, that is, to detect mistaken reasoning.[46] This is somewhat consistent with the sexual selection theory, because, as stated above, humor would be a reliable indicator of an important survival trait: the ability to detect mistaken reasoning. However, the three researchers argue that humor is fundamentally important because it is the very mechanism that allows the human brain to excel at practical problem solving. Thus, according to them, humor did have survival value even for early humans, because it enhanced the neural circuitry needed to survive.

Misattribution theory
Misattribution is one theory of humor that describes an audience's inability to identify exactly why they find a joke to be funny. The formal theory is attributed to Zillmann & Bryant (1980) in their article, "Misattribution Theory of Tendentious Humor", published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. They derived the critical concepts of the theory from Sigmund Freud's Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious (note: from a Freudian perspective, wit is separate from humor), originally published in 1905.

Benign violation theory
The benign violation theory (BVT) is developed by researchers A. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren.[47] The BVT integrates seemingly disparate theories of humor to predict that humor occurs when three conditions are satisfied: 1) something threatens one's sense of how the world "ought to be", 2) the threatening situation seems benign, and 3) a person sees both interpretations at the same time.

From an evolutionary perspective, humorous violations likely originated as apparent physical threats, like those present in play fighting and tickling. As humans evolved, the situations that elicit humor likely expanded from physical threats to other violations, including violations of personal dignity (e.g., slapstick, teasing), linguistic norms (e.g., puns, malapropisms), social norms (e.g., strange behaviors, risqué jokes), and even moral norms (e.g., disrespectful behaviors). The BVT suggests that anything that threatens one's sense of how the world "ought to be" will be humorous, so long as the threatening situation also seems benign.

...

Sense of humor, sense of seriousness
One must have a sense of humor and a sense of seriousness to distinguish what is supposed to be taken literally or not. An even more keen sense is needed when humor is used to make a serious point.[48][49] Psychologists have studied how humor is intended to be taken as having seriousness, as when court jesters used humor to convey serious information. Conversely, when humor is not intended to be taken seriously, bad taste in humor may cross a line after which it is taken seriously, though not intended.[50]

Philosophy of humor bleg: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/philosophy-humor-bleg.html

Inside Jokes: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/inside-jokes
humor as reward for discovering inconsistency in inferential chain

https://twitter.com/search?q=comedy%20OR%20humor%20OR%20humour%20from%3Asarahdoingthing&src=typd
https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/500000435529195520

https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/568346955811663872
https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/600792582453465088
https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/603215362033778688
https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/605051508472713216
https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/606197597699604481
https://twitter.com/sarahdoingthing/status/753514548787683328

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour
People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. Most people are able to experience humour—be amused, smile or laugh at something funny—and thus are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour inducing it to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational.

...

Ancient Greece
Western humour theory begins with Plato, who attributed to Socrates (as a semi-historical dialogue character) in the Philebus (p. 49b) the view that the essence of the ridiculous is an ignorance in the weak, who are thus unable to retaliate when ridiculed. Later, in Greek philosophy, Aristotle, in the Poetics (1449a, pp. 34–35), suggested that an ugliness that does not disgust is fundamental to humour.

...

China
Confucianist Neo-Confucian orthodoxy, with its emphasis on ritual and propriety, has traditionally looked down upon humour as subversive or unseemly. The Confucian "Analects" itself, however, depicts the Master as fond of humorous self-deprecation, once comparing his wanderings to the existence of a homeless dog.[10] Early Daoist philosophical texts such as "Zhuangzi" pointedly make fun of Confucian seriousness and make Confucius himself a slow-witted figure of fun.[11] Joke books containing a mix of wordplay, puns, situational humor, and play with taboo subjects like sex and scatology, remained popular over the centuries. Local performing arts, storytelling, vernacular fiction, and poetry offer a wide variety of humorous styles and sensibilities.

...

Physical attractiveness
90% of men and 81% of women, all college students, report having a sense of humour is a crucial characteristic looked for in a romantic partner.[21] Humour and honesty were ranked as the two most important attributes in a significant other.[22] It has since been recorded that humour becomes more evident and significantly more important as the level of commitment in a romantic relationship increases.[23] Recent research suggests expressions of humour in relation to physical attractiveness are two major factors in the desire for future interaction.[19] Women regard physical attractiveness less highly compared to men when it came to dating, a serious relationship, and sexual intercourse.[19] However, women rate humorous men more desirable than nonhumorous individuals for a serious relationship or marriage, but only when these men were physically attractive.[19]

Furthermore, humorous people are perceived by others to be more cheerful but less intellectual than nonhumorous people. Self-deprecating humour has been found to increase the desirability of physically attractive others for committed relationships.[19] The results of a study conducted by McMaster University suggest humour can positively affect one’s desirability for a specific relationship partner, but this effect is only most likely to occur when men use humour and are evaluated by women.[24] No evidence was found to suggest men prefer women with a sense of humour as partners, nor women preferring other women with a sense of humour as potential partners.[24] When women were given the forced-choice design in the study, they chose funny men as potential … [more]
article  list  wiki  reference  psychology  cog-psych  social-psych  emotion  things  phalanges  concept  neurons  instinct  👽  comedy  models  theory-of-mind  explanans  roots  evopsych  signaling  humanity  logic  sex  sexuality  cost-benefit  iq  intelligence  contradiction  homo-hetero  egalitarianism-hierarchy  humility  reinforcement  EEA  eden  play  telos-atelos  impetus  theos  mystic  philosophy  big-peeps  the-classics  literature  inequality  illusion  within-without  dennett  dignity  social-norms  paradox  parallax  analytical-holistic  multi  econotariat  marginal-rev  discussion  speculation  books  impro  carcinisation  postrat  cool  twitter  social  quotes  commentary  search  farmers-and-foragers  🦀  evolution  sapiens  metameta  insight  novelty  wire-guided  realness  chart  beauty  nietzschean  class  pop-diff  culture  alien-character  confucian  order-disorder  sociality  🐝  integrity  properties  gender  gender-diff  china  asia  sinosphere  long-short-run  trust  religion  ideology  elegance 
april 2018 by nhaliday
The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate - Machine Intelligence Research Institute
How Deviant Recent AI Progress Lumpiness?: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/how-deviant-recent-ai-progress-lumpiness.html
I seem to disagree with most people working on artificial intelligence (AI) risk. While with them I expect rapid change once AI is powerful enough to replace most all human workers, I expect this change to be spread across the world, not concentrated in one main localized AI system. The efforts of AI risk folks to design AI systems whose values won’t drift might stop global AI value drift if there is just one main AI system. But doing so in a world of many AI systems at similar abilities levels requires strong global governance of AI systems, which is a tall order anytime soon. Their continued focus on preventing single system drift suggests that they expect a single main AI system.

The main reason that I understand to expect relatively local AI progress is if AI progress is unusually lumpy, i.e., arriving in unusually fewer larger packages rather than in the usual many smaller packages. If one AI team finds a big lump, it might jump way ahead of the other teams.

However, we have a vast literature on the lumpiness of research and innovation more generally, which clearly says that usually most of the value in innovation is found in many small innovations. We have also so far seen this in computer science (CS) and AI. Even if there have been historical examples where much value was found in particular big innovations, such as nuclear weapons or the origin of humans.

Apparently many people associated with AI risk, including the star machine learning (ML) researchers that they often idolize, find it intuitively plausible that AI and ML progress is exceptionally lumpy. Such researchers often say, “My project is ‘huge’, and will soon do it all!” A decade ago my ex-co-blogger Eliezer Yudkowsky and I argued here on this blog about our differing estimates of AI progress lumpiness. He recently offered Alpha Go Zero as evidence of AI lumpiness:

...

In this post, let me give another example (beyond two big lumps in a row) of what could change my mind. I offer a clear observable indicator, for which data should have available now: deviant citation lumpiness in recent ML research. One standard measure of research impact is citations; bigger lumpier developments gain more citations that smaller ones. And it turns out that the lumpiness of citations is remarkably constant across research fields! See this March 3 paper in Science:

I Still Don’t Get Foom: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/07/30855.html
All of which makes it look like I’m the one with the problem; everyone else gets it. Even so, I’m gonna try to explain my problem again, in the hope that someone can explain where I’m going wrong. Here goes.

“Intelligence” just means an ability to do mental/calculation tasks, averaged over many tasks. I’ve always found it plausible that machines will continue to do more kinds of mental tasks better, and eventually be better at pretty much all of them. But what I’ve found it hard to accept is a “local explosion.” This is where a single machine, built by a single project using only a tiny fraction of world resources, goes in a short time (e.g., weeks) from being so weak that it is usually beat by a single human with the usual tools, to so powerful that it easily takes over the entire world. Yes, smarter machines may greatly increase overall economic growth rates, and yes such growth may be uneven. But this degree of unevenness seems implausibly extreme. Let me explain.

If we count by economic value, humans now do most of the mental tasks worth doing. Evolution has given us a brain chock-full of useful well-honed modules. And the fact that most mental tasks require the use of many modules is enough to explain why some of us are smarter than others. (There’d be a common “g” factor in task performance even with independent module variation.) Our modules aren’t that different from those of other primates, but because ours are different enough to allow lots of cultural transmission of innovation, we’ve out-competed other primates handily.

We’ve had computers for over seventy years, and have slowly build up libraries of software modules for them. Like brains, computers do mental tasks by combining modules. An important mental task is software innovation: improving these modules, adding new ones, and finding new ways to combine them. Ideas for new modules are sometimes inspired by the modules we see in our brains. When an innovation team finds an improvement, they usually sell access to it, which gives them resources for new projects, and lets others take advantage of their innovation.

...

In Bostrom’s graph above the line for an initially small project and system has a much higher slope, which means that it becomes in a short time vastly better at software innovation. Better than the entire rest of the world put together. And my key question is: how could it plausibly do that? Since the rest of the world is already trying the best it can to usefully innovate, and to abstract to promote such innovation, what exactly gives one small project such a huge advantage to let it innovate so much faster?

...

In fact, most software innovation seems to be driven by hardware advances, instead of innovator creativity. Apparently, good ideas are available but must usually wait until hardware is cheap enough to support them.

Yes, sometimes architectural choices have wider impacts. But I was an artificial intelligence researcher for nine years, ending twenty years ago, and I never saw an architecture choice make a huge difference, relative to other reasonable architecture choices. For most big systems, overall architecture matters a lot less than getting lots of detail right. Researchers have long wandered the space of architectures, mostly rediscovering variations on what others found before.

Some hope that a small project could be much better at innovation because it specializes in that topic, and much better understands new theoretical insights into the basic nature of innovation or intelligence. But I don’t think those are actually topics where one can usefully specialize much, or where we’ll find much useful new theory. To be much better at learning, the project would instead have to be much better at hundreds of specific kinds of learning. Which is very hard to do in a small project.

What does Bostrom say? Alas, not much. He distinguishes several advantages of digital over human minds, but all software shares those advantages. Bostrom also distinguishes five paths: better software, brain emulation (i.e., ems), biological enhancement of humans, brain-computer interfaces, and better human organizations. He doesn’t think interfaces would work, and sees organizations and better biology as only playing supporting roles.

...

Similarly, while you might imagine someday standing in awe in front of a super intelligence that embodies all the power of a new age, superintelligence just isn’t the sort of thing that one project could invent. As “intelligence” is just the name we give to being better at many mental tasks by using many good mental modules, there’s no one place to improve it. So I can’t see a plausible way one project could increase its intelligence vastly faster than could the rest of the world.

Takeoff speeds: https://sideways-view.com/2018/02/24/takeoff-speeds/
Futurists have argued for years about whether the development of AGI will look more like a breakthrough within a small group (“fast takeoff”), or a continuous acceleration distributed across the broader economy or a large firm (“slow takeoff”).

I currently think a slow takeoff is significantly more likely. This post explains some of my reasoning and why I think it matters. Mostly the post lists arguments I often hear for a fast takeoff and explains why I don’t find them compelling.

(Note: this is not a post about whether an intelligence explosion will occur. That seems very likely to me. Quantitatively I expect it to go along these lines. So e.g. while I disagree with many of the claims and assumptions in Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics, I don’t disagree with the central thesis or with most of the arguments.)
ratty  lesswrong  subculture  miri-cfar  ai  risk  ai-control  futurism  books  debate  hanson  big-yud  prediction  contrarianism  singularity  local-global  speed  speedometer  time  frontier  distribution  smoothness  shift  pdf  economics  track-record  abstraction  analogy  links  wiki  list  evolution  mutation  selection  optimization  search  iteration-recursion  intelligence  metameta  chart  analysis  number  ems  coordination  cooperate-defect  death  values  formal-values  flux-stasis  philosophy  farmers-and-foragers  malthus  scale  studying  innovation  insight  conceptual-vocab  growth-econ  egalitarianism-hierarchy  inequality  authoritarianism  wealth  near-far  rationality  epistemic  biases  cycles  competition  arms  zero-positive-sum  deterrence  war  peace-violence  winner-take-all  technology  moloch  multi  plots  research  science  publishing  humanity  labor  marginal  urban-rural  structure  composition-decomposition  complex-systems  gregory-clark  decentralized  heavy-industry  magnitude  multiplicative  endogenous-exogenous  models  uncertainty  decision-theory  time-prefer 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Forgotten Books
"read old books"

they have a copy of G.M. Cookson's Aeschylus translations
books  publishing  store  brands  todo  literature  history  early-modern  pre-ww2  britain  aristos  tip-of-tongue  classic  old-anglo  letters  anglosphere  the-classics  big-peeps  canon  database  search  wisdom 
november 2017 by nhaliday
Peer review is younger than you think - Marginal REVOLUTION
I’d like to see a detailed look at actual journal practices, but my personal sense is that editorial review was the norm until fairly recently, not review by a team of outside referees.  In 1956, for instance, the American Historical Review asked for only one submission copy, and it seems the same was true as late as 1970.  I doubt they made the photocopies themselves. Schmidt seems to suggest that the practices of government funders nudged the academic professions into more formal peer review with multiple referee reports.
econotariat  marginal-rev  commentary  data  gbooks  trends  anglo  language  zeitgeist  search  history  mostly-modern  science  meta:science  institutions  academia  publishing  trivia  cocktail  links 
september 2017 by nhaliday
ipad - Is it possible to search for text in iBooks or the Kindle app? - Ask Different
If you wanted to know whether you can enter a search term at the top-level of these apps and have them search across all books stored in the app: No, currently neither iBooks nor the Kindle app have such a feature.

However, I have seen this capability on the Kindle device itself – I own a Kindle keyboard model and there is a "search my items" option available that will search all books on the device for a given term.
q-n-a  stackex  workflow  info-foraging  desktop  osx  howto  search  sleuthin  studying 
july 2017 by nhaliday
Living with Inequality - Reason.com
That's why I propose the creation of the Tenth Commandment Club. The tenth commandment—"You shall not covet"—is a foundation of social peace. The Nobel Laureate economist Vernon Smith noted the tenth commandment along with the eighth (you shall not steal) in his Nobel toast, saying that they "provide the property right foundations for markets, and warned that petty distributional jealousy must not be allowed to destroy" those foundations. If academics, pundits, and columnists would avowedly reject covetousness, would openly reject comparisons between the average (extremely fortunate) American and the average billionaire, would mock people who claimed that frugal billionaires are a systematic threat to modern life, then soon our time could be spent discussing policy issues that really matter.

Enlightenment -> social justice: https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/866448789825105920
US reconquista: https://twitter.com/AngloRemnant/status/865980569397731329
envy and psychology textbooks: https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/887115182257917952

various Twitter threads: https://twitter.com/search?q=GarettJones+inequality

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/09/13/542261863/cash-aid-changed-this-family-s-life-so-why-is-their-government-skeptical

Civilization means saying no to the poor: https://bonald.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/civilization-means-saying-no-to-the-poor/
Although I instinctively dislike him, I do agree with Professor Scott on one point: “exploitation” really is the essence of civilization, whether by exploitation one simply means authority as described by those insensible to its moral force or more simply the refusal of elites to divulge their resources to the poor.

In fact, no human creation of lasting worth could ever be made without a willingness to tell the poor to *** off. If we really listened to the demands of social justice, if we really let compassion be our guide, we could have no art, no music, no science, no religion, no philosophy, no architecture beyond the crudest shelters. The poor are before us, their need perpetually urgent. It is inexcusable for us ever to build a sculpture, a cathedral, a particle accelerator. And the poor, we have it on two good authorities (the other being common sense), will be with us always. What we give for their needs today will have disappeared tomorrow, and they will be hungry again. Imagine if some Savonarola had come to Florence a century or two earlier and convinced the Florentine elite to open their hearts and their wallets to the poor in preference for worldly vanities. All that wealth would have been squandered on the poor and would have disappeared without a trace. Instead, we got the Renaissance.

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/904169207293730816
https://archive.is/tYZAi
Reward the lawless; punish the law abiding. Complete inversion which will eventually drive us back to the 3rd world darkness whence we came.

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/917492530308112384
https://archive.is/AeXEs
This idea that a group is only honorable in virtue of their victimization is such a pernicious one.
for efficiency, just have "Victims of WASPs Day." A kind of All Victims' Day. Otherwise U.S. calendar will be nothing but days of grievance.
Bonald had a good bit on this (of course).
https://bonald.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/catholics-must-resist-cosmopolitan-universalism/
Steve King is supposedly stupid for claiming that Western Civilization is second to none. One might have supposed that Catholics would take some pride as Catholics in Western civilization, a thing that was in no small part our creation. Instead, the only history American Catholics are to remember is being poor and poorly regarded recent immigrants in America.

https://twitter.com/AngloRemnant/status/917612415243706368
https://archive.is/NDjwK
Don't even bother with the rat race if you value big family. I won the race, & would've been better off as a dentist in Peoria.
.. College prof in Athens, OH. Anesthesiologist in Knoxville. State govt bureaucrat in Helena.
.. This is the formula: Middle America + regulatory capture white-collar job. anyone attempting real work in 2017 america is a RETARD.
.. Also unclear is why anyone in the US would get married. knock your girl up and put that litter on Welfare.
You: keep 50% of your earnings after taxes. 25% is eaten by cost of living. save the last 25%, hope our bankrupt gov doesn't expropriate l8r
The main difference in this country between welfare and 7-figure income is the quality of your kitchen cabinets.

wtf: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/dentists.htm
$159,770 per year
$76.81 per hour

18% (Much faster than average)

http://study.com/how_long_does_it_take_to_be_a_dentist.html
Admission into dental school is highly competitive. Along with undergraduate performance, students are evaluated for their Dental Admissions Test (DAT) scores. Students have the opportunity to take this test before graduating college. After gaining admission into dental school, students can go on to complete four years of full-time study to earn the Doctor of Dental Surgery or Doctor of Dental Medicine. Students typically spend the first two years learning general and dental science in classroom and laboratory settings. They may take courses like oral anatomy, histology and pathology. In the final years, dental students participate in clinical practicums, gaining supervised, hands-on experience in dental clinics.

https://twitter.com/AngloRemnant/status/985935089250062337
https://archive.is/yIXfk
https://archive.is/Qscq7
https://archive.is/IQQhU
Career ideas for the minimally ambitious dissident who wants to coast, shitpost, & live well:
- econ phd -> business school prof
- dentistry
- 2 years of banking/consulting -> F500 corp dev or strategy
- gov't bureaucrat in a state capital
--
Bad career ideas, for contrast:
- law
- humanities prof
- IT
- anything 'creative'

[ed.: Personally, I'd also throw in 'actuary' (though keep in mind ~20% risk of automation).]
news  org:mag  rhetoric  contrarianism  econotariat  garett-jones  economics  growth-econ  piketty  inequality  winner-take-all  morality  values  critique  capital  capitalism  class  envy  property-rights  justice  religion  christianity  theos  aphorism  egalitarianism-hierarchy  randy-ayndy  aristos  farmers-and-foragers  redistribution  right-wing  peace-violence  🎩  multi  twitter  social  discussion  reflection  ideology  democracy  civil-liberty  welfare-state  history  early-modern  mostly-modern  politics  polisci  government  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  counter-revolution  unaffiliated  gnon  modernity  commentary  psychology  cog-psych  social-psych  academia  westminster  social-science  biases  bootstraps  search  left-wing  discrimination  order-disorder  civilization  current-events  race  identity-politics  incentives  law  leviathan  social-norms  rot  fertility  strategy  planning  hmm  long-term  career  s-factor  regulation  managerial-state  dental  supply-demand  progression  org:gov 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Logic | West Hunter
All the time I hear some public figure saying that if we ban or allow X, then logically we have to ban or allow Y, even though there are obvious practical reasons for X and obvious practical reasons against Y.

No, we don’t.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002053.html

compare: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:190b299cf04a

Small Change Good, Big Change Bad?: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/02/small-change-good-big-change-bad.html
And on reflection it occurs to me that this is actually THE standard debate about change: some see small changes and either like them or aren’t bothered enough to advocate what it would take to reverse them, while others imagine such trends continuing long enough to result in very large and disturbing changes, and then suggest stronger responses.

For example, on increased immigration some point to the many concrete benefits immigrants now provide. Others imagine that large cumulative immigration eventually results in big changes in culture and political equilibria. On fertility, some wonder if civilization can survive in the long run with declining population, while others point out that population should rise for many decades, and few endorse the policies needed to greatly increase fertility. On genetic modification of humans, some ask why not let doctors correct obvious defects, while others imagine parents eventually editing kid genes mainly to max kid career potential. On oil some say that we should start preparing for the fact that we will eventually run out, while others say that we keep finding new reserves to replace the ones we use.

...

If we consider any parameter, such as typical degree of mind wandering, we are unlikely to see the current value as exactly optimal. So if we give people the benefit of the doubt to make local changes in their interest, we may accept that this may result in a recent net total change we don’t like. We may figure this is the price we pay to get other things we value more, and we we know that it can be very expensive to limit choices severely.

But even though we don’t see the current value as optimal, we also usually see the optimal value as not terribly far from the current value. So if we can imagine current changes as part of a long term trend that eventually produces very large changes, we can become more alarmed and willing to restrict current changes. The key question is: when is that a reasonable response?

First, big concerns about big long term changes only make sense if one actually cares a lot about the long run. Given the usual high rates of return on investment, it is cheap to buy influence on the long term, compared to influence on the short term. Yet few actually devote much of their income to long term investments. This raises doubts about the sincerity of expressed long term concerns.

Second, in our simplest models of the world good local choices also produce good long term choices. So if we presume good local choices, bad long term outcomes require non-simple elements, such as coordination, commitment, or myopia problems. Of course many such problems do exist. Even so, someone who claims to see a long term problem should be expected to identify specifically which such complexities they see at play. It shouldn’t be sufficient to just point to the possibility of such problems.

...

Fourth, many more processes and factors limit big changes, compared to small changes. For example, in software small changes are often trivial, while larger changes are nearly impossible, at least without starting again from scratch. Similarly, modest changes in mind wandering can be accomplished with minor attitude and habit changes, while extreme changes may require big brain restructuring, which is much harder because brains are complex and opaque. Recent changes in market structure may reduce the number of firms in each industry, but that doesn’t make it remotely plausible that one firm will eventually take over the entire economy. Projections of small changes into large changes need to consider the possibility of many such factors limiting large changes.

Fifth, while it can be reasonably safe to identify short term changes empirically, the longer term a forecast the more one needs to rely on theory, and the more different areas of expertise one must consider when constructing a relevant model of the situation. Beware a mere empirical projection into the long run, or a theory-based projection that relies on theories in only one area.

We should very much be open to the possibility of big bad long term changes, even in areas where we are okay with short term changes, or at least reluctant to sufficiently resist them. But we should also try to hold those who argue for the existence of such problems to relatively high standards. Their analysis should be about future times that we actually care about, and can at least roughly foresee. It should be based on our best theories of relevant subjects, and it should consider the possibility of factors that limit larger changes.

And instead of suggesting big ways to counter short term changes that might lead to long term problems, it is often better to identify markers to warn of larger problems. Then instead of acting in big ways now, we can make sure to track these warning markers, and ready ourselves to act more strongly if they appear.

Growth Is Change. So Is Death.: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html
I see the same pattern when people consider long term futures. People can be quite philosophical about the extinction of humanity, as long as this is due to natural causes. Every species dies; why should humans be different? And few get bothered by humans making modest small-scale short-term modifications to their own lives or environment. We are mostly okay with people using umbrellas when it rains, moving to new towns to take new jobs, etc., digging a flood ditch after our yard floods, and so on. And the net social effect of many small changes is technological progress, economic growth, new fashions, and new social attitudes, all of which we tend to endorse in the short run.

Even regarding big human-caused changes, most don’t worry if changes happen far enough in the future. Few actually care much about the future past the lives of people they’ll meet in their own life. But for changes that happen within someone’s time horizon of caring, the bigger that changes get, and the longer they are expected to last, the more that people worry. And when we get to huge changes, such as taking apart the sun, a population of trillions, lifetimes of millennia, massive genetic modification of humans, robots replacing people, a complete loss of privacy, or revolutions in social attitudes, few are blasé, and most are quite wary.

This differing attitude regarding small local changes versus large global changes makes sense for parameters that tend to revert back to a mean. Extreme values then do justify extra caution, while changes within the usual range don’t merit much notice, and can be safely left to local choice. But many parameters of our world do not mostly revert back to a mean. They drift long distances over long times, in hard to predict ways that can be reasonably modeled as a basic trend plus a random walk.

This different attitude can also make sense for parameters that have two or more very different causes of change, one which creates frequent small changes, and another which creates rare huge changes. (Or perhaps a continuum between such extremes.) If larger sudden changes tend to cause more problems, it can make sense to be more wary of them. However, for most parameters most change results from many small changes, and even then many are quite wary of this accumulating into big change.

For people with a sharp time horizon of caring, they should be more wary of long-drifting parameters the larger the changes that would happen within their horizon time. This perspective predicts that the people who are most wary of big future changes are those with the longest time horizons, and who more expect lumpier change processes. This prediction doesn’t seem to fit well with my experience, however.

Those who most worry about big long term changes usually seem okay with small short term changes. Even when they accept that most change is small and that it accumulates into big change. This seems incoherent to me. It seems like many other near versus far incoherences, like expecting things to be simpler when you are far away from them, and more complex when you are closer. You should either become more wary of short term changes, knowing that this is how big longer term change happens, or you should be more okay with big long term change, seeing that as the legitimate result of the small short term changes you accept.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html#comment-3794966996
The point here is the gradual shifts of in-group beliefs are both natural and no big deal. Humans are built to readily do this, and forget they do this. But ultimately it is not a worry or concern.

But radical shifts that are big, whether near or far, portend strife and conflict. Either between groups or within them. If the shift is big enough, our intuition tells us our in-group will be in a fight. Alarms go off.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  rant  thinking  rationality  metabuch  critique  systematic-ad-hoc  analytical-holistic  metameta  ideology  philosophy  info-dynamics  aphorism  darwinian  prudence  pragmatic  insight  tradition  s:*  2016  multi  gnon  right-wing  formal-values  values  slippery-slope  axioms  alt-inst  heuristic  anglosphere  optimate  flux-stasis  flexibility  paleocon  polisci  universalism-particularism  ratty  hanson  list  examples  migration  fertility  intervention  demographics  population  biotech  enhancement  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  nature  military  inequality  age-generation  time  ideas  debate  meta:rhetoric  local-global  long-short-run  gnosis-logos  gavisti  stochastic-processes  eden-heaven  politics  equilibrium  hive-mind  genetics  defense  competition  arms  peace-violence  walter-scheidel  speed  marginal  optimization  search  time-preference  patience  futurism  meta:prediction  accuracy  institutions  tetlock  theory-practice  wire-guided  priors-posteriors  distribution  moments  biases  epistemic  nea 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Is soy good or bad for me? | Examine.com
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3076650/
The estimated per capita consumption of soybean oil increased >1000-fold from 1909 to 1999.
https://twitter.com/evolutionarypsy/status/892489043446988800 (increase started during 60s)

Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224
No significant effects of soy protein or isoflavone intake on T, SHBG, free T, or FAI were detected regardless of statistical model.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=soy+phytoestrogen+men
some good ones:
pros and cons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/
reproductive consequences: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443604/
visuospatial memory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC64558/
reject (in humans)t: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224

https://discourse.soylent.com/t/soy-in-soylent-2-0/22826/

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/ask-well-is-it-safe-to-eat-soy/
A: yes
org:health  q-n-a  explanation  summary  endocrine  science-anxiety  regularizer  nutrition  health  fitsci  metabolic  study  medicine  food  hypochondria  🐸  mena4  public-health  links  search  list  database  multi  meta-analysis  model-organism  human-study  developmental  discussion  poast  gnon  org:rec  data  trivia  scale  pro-rata  trends  rot  visuo  spatial  retention  null-result  twitter  social  commentary  pic  time-series 
may 2017 by nhaliday
Reconstruction | West Hunter
Since power descended through the male line, you don’t expect to see the same thing happen with autosomal genes. Genghis accounts for about 25% of Mongolia’s Y-chromosomes, but the general ancestry fraction attributable to him must be a lot lower. Still, what if the average Mongol today is 0.5% Genghis? Upon sequencing lots of typical contemporary Mongols, you would notice certain chromosomal segments showing up again and again: not just in one family but in the whole country, and in other parts of inner Asia as well. If you started keeping track of those segments, you would eventually be able to make a partial reconstruction of Genghis’s genome. It would be incomplete, since any given region of the genome might have missed being transmitted to any of his four legitimate sons (Jochi, Chagatai, Ogedei, and Tolui). They certainly didn’t carry his X-chromosome. You might be able to distinguish the autosomal genes of Genghis and his wife Borte by looking at descendants of his by-blows, if you could find them. Still, even if you managed to retrieve 75% of his genome, that’s not enough to make a clone. It would however, allow sure identification if we found his tomb.

And since he’s likely buried in permafrost, his DNA could be in good shape. Then we could clone him (assuming reasonable continuing progress in genetics) and of course some damn fool would. Will.
west-hunter  scitariat  speculation  discussion  proposal  genetics  genomics  sapiens  asia  aDNA  wild-ideas  history  medieval  ideas  archaeology  conquest-empire  search  duplication  gavisti  traces 
april 2017 by nhaliday
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

bundles : meta

related tags

2016-election  80000-hours  aaronson  absolute-relative  abstraction  academia  accretion  accuracy  acm  acmtariat  additive  aDNA  advanced  advice  africa  age-generation  age-of-discovery  aggregator  aging  agriculture  ai  ai-control  albion  algorithms  alien-character  alignment  allodium  alt-inst  amazon  analogy  analysis  analytical-holistic  anarcho-tyranny  anglo  anglosphere  anomie  antidemos  antiquity  aphorism  api  apollonian-dionysian  apple  applicability-prereqs  applications  arbitrage  archaeology  aristos  arms  art  article  asia  atmosphere  atoms  audio  authoritarianism  automation  autor  axioms  backup  bare-hands  barons  bayesian  beauty  behavioral-gen  being-becoming  ben-recht  benchmarks  benevolence  better-explained  biases  big-peeps  big-picture  big-surf  big-yud  bio  biodet  bioinformatics  biophysical-econ  biotech  bitcoin  bits  blog  books  bootstraps  bostrom  brands  britain  broad-econ  browser  build-packaging  business  business-models  c(pp)  c:*  calculation  calculator  california  caltech  cancer  canon  capital  capitalism  carcinisation  career  cartoons  censorship  chan  charity  chart  cheatsheet  checklists  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  clarity  class  class-warfare  classic  clever-rats  climate-change  clown-world  coalitions  coarse-fine  cochrane  cocktail  code-dive  cog-psych  cohesion  cold-war  collaboration  comedy  coming-apart  commentary  communication  community  comparison  compensation  competition  complement-substitute  complex-systems  complexity  composition-decomposition  compressed-sensing  computation  computer-vision  concept  conceptual-vocab  concrete  conference  confluence  confucian  conquest-empire  consumerism  contracts  contradiction  contrarianism  convexity-curvature  cool  cooperate-defect  coordination  corporation  correctness  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  coupling-cohesion  courage  course  cracker-econ  creative  crime  criminal-justice  CRISPR  critique  crooked  crosstab  crux  crypto  cryptocurrency  cs  culture  culture-war  current-events  cybernetics  cycles  cynicism-idealism  dark-arts  darwinian  data  data-science  database  dataset  death  debate  debt  debugging  decentralized  decision-making  decision-theory  deep-learning  deep-materialism  deepgoog  defense  definite-planning  definition  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographics  dennett  density  dental  dependence-independence  descriptive  desktop  detail-architecture  deterrence  developing-world  developmental  devtools  dignity  dimensionality  direct-indirect  direction  dirty-hands  discipline  discovery  discrimination  discussion  distribution  divide-and-conquer  documentation  draft  drama  drugs  duplication  duty  dynamic  early-modern  econ-metrics  economics  econotariat  eden  eden-heaven  education  EEA  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  EGT  einstein  elegance  elite  embeddings  embodied  embodied-street-fighting  emotion  empirical  ems  encyclopedic  endocrine  endogenous-exogenous  energy-resources  engineering  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entrepreneurialism  environment  envy  epistemic  equilibrium  essay  essence-existence  estimate  ethics  europe  evidence-based  evolution  evopsych  examples  exegesis-hermeneutics  existence  exocortex  expansionism  expert-experience  explanans  explanation  exploratory  exposition  extra-introversion  facebook  fall-2016  farmers-and-foragers  fashun  FDA  fermi  fertility  feudal  fiction  film  finance  fitsci  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  focus  food  foreign-lang  formal-methods  formal-values  forum  free  frontier  futurism  gallic  games  garett-jones  gavisti  gbooks  gedanken  gender  gender-diff  gene-flow  generalization  genetics  genomics  geoengineering  geography  germanic  giants  gibbon  git  github  gnon  gnosis-logos  god-man-beast-victim  google  government  grad-school  gradient-descent  gregory-clark  growth  growth-econ  guide  guilt-shame  GWAS  gwern  h2o  hacker  hanson  hard-tech  hardware  harvard  health  heavy-industry  heterodox  heuristic  hi-order-bits  hidden-motives  high-dimension  high-variance  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  hn  homo-hetero  honor  housing  howto  hsu  huge-data-the-biggest  human-bean  human-ml  human-study  humanity  humility  hypochondria  hypocrisy  hypothesis-testing  ideas  identity-politics  ideology  idk  iidness  illusion  impetus  impro  incentives  increase-decrease  individualism-collectivism  industrial-org  inequality  info-dynamics  info-foraging  information-theory  init  innovation  insight  instinct  institutions  insurance  integration-extension  integrity  intel  intelligence  interdisciplinary  interests  interface  internet  intervention  interview  intricacy  intuition  investing  ios  iq  iraq-syria  iron-age  isteveish  iteration-recursion  janus  japan  jargon  javascript  jobs  journos-pundits  judgement  justice  knowledge  labor  language  large-factor  latent-variables  latex  latin-america  law  leadership  leaks  learning  lecture-notes  left-wing  legacy  lens  lesswrong  let-me-see  letters  levers  leviathan  lexical  libraries  lifehack  limits  linear-algebra  linear-models  linearity  liner-notes  linguistics  links  list  literature  lived-experience  local-global  logic  long-short-run  long-term  longevity  longform  love-hate  machine-learning  macro  madisonian  magnitude  malaise  malthus  management  managerial-state  maps  marginal  marginal-rev  market-power  marketing  markets  markov  martial  math  math.CA  math.DS  matrix-factorization  measure  measurement  media  medicine  medieval  mediterranean  MENA  mena4  meta-analysis  meta:medicine  meta:prediction  meta:research  meta:rhetoric  meta:science  metabolic  metabuch  metameta  methodology  microsoft  migration  military  minimum-viable  miri-cfar  mobile  model-class  model-organism  models  modernity  moloch  moments  monetary-fiscal  money  morality  mostly-modern  motivation  multi  multiplicative  music  music-theory  musk  mutation  mystic  myth  n-factor  narrative  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  nature  navigation  near-far  negotiation  neocons  network-structure  neuro  neuro-nitgrit  neurons  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  nlp  noble-lie  noblesse-oblige  nonlinearity  nootropics  nordic  norms  northeast  notation  notetaking  novelty  nuclear  null-result  number  nutrition  nyc  obama  objektbuch  occam  occident  oceans  old-anglo  open-closed  open-problems  openai  opsec  optimate  optimism  optimization  order-disorder  ORFE  org:anglo  org:biz  org:bleg  org:data  org:davos  org:edu  org:euro  org:fin  org:gov  org:health  org:junk  org:lite  org:mag  org:mat  org:nat  org:ngo  org:popup  org:rec  org:sci  org:theos  organization  organizing  orient  orwellian  oss  osx  outcome-risk  outdoors  outliers  overflow  paleocon  papers  paradox  parallax  parenting  parsimony  patho-altruism  patience  pdf  peace-violence  pennsylvania  people  personal-finance  personality  pessimism  phalanges  pharma  phase-transition  philosophy  physics  pic  piketty  pinboard  piracy  planning  play  plots  pls  poast  poetry  polanyi-marx  polarization  policy  polisci  politics  pop-diff  population  postrat  power  power-law  pragmatic  pre-ww2  prediction  prepping  preprint  presentation  primitivism  princeton  priors-posteriors  privacy  pro-rata  probability  problem-solving  profile  programming  progression  project  proofs  propaganda  properties  property-rights  proposal  protestant-catholic  protocol  prudence  psych-architecture  psychology  psychometrics  public-health  publishing  python  q-n-a  qra  quantum  questions  quixotic  quotes  race  random  random-matrices  randy-ayndy  ranking  rant  rationality  ratty  reading  realness  reason  recommendations  recruiting  reddit  redistribution  reference  reflection  regression  regularization  regularizer  regulation  reinforcement  religion  rent-seeking  replication  repo  research  responsibility  retention  review  revolution  rhetoric  rhythm  right-wing  rigor  risk  ritual  robotics  roots  rot  ruby  rust  s-factor  s:*  saas  sales  sapiens  scale  scaling-tech  scaling-up  scaruffi  schelling  scholar  scholar-pack  science  science-anxiety  scifi-fantasy  scitariat  search  securities  selection  self-control  sequential  sex  sexuality  shakespeare  shift  SIGGRAPH  signal-noise  signaling  similarity  singularity  sinosphere  skeleton  skunkworks  sky  sleuthin  slippery-slope  smart-contracts  smoothness  social  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  social-science  sociality  society  sociology  socs-and-mops  soft-question  software  space  space-complexity  spanish  sparsity  spatial  speaking  speculation  speed  speedometer  spock  spotify  ssc  stackex  stagnation  stanford  startups  state-of-art  statesmen  stats  status  stereotypes  stochastic-processes  stock-flow  store  stories  strategy  stream  street-fighting  strings  structure  study  studying  stylized-facts  subculture  success  summary  supply-demand  survey  sv  symbols  synchrony  syntax  synthesis  system-design  systematic-ad-hoc  systems  szabo  tactics  tails  talks  taxes  tcs  tcstariat  teaching  tech  technocracy  technology  techtariat  telos-atelos  temperance  terminal  tetlock  the-bones  the-classics  the-devil  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-self  the-south  the-trenches  the-watchers  the-west  the-world-is-just-atoms  theory-of-mind  theory-practice  theos  thick-thin  thiel  things  thinking  threat-modeling  time  time-preference  time-series  tip-of-tongue  todo  tools  top-n  toys  traces  track-record  tracker  trade  tradecraft  tradeoffs  tradition  transitions  transportation  travel  trends  tribalism  trivia  trump  trust  truth  tumblr  turing  tutorial  tv  twitter  unaffiliated  uncertainty  unintended-consequences  unit  universalism-particularism  unix  unsupervised  urban  urban-rural  us-them  usa  utopia-dystopia  ux  values  vampire-squid  vcs  venture  video  virginia-DC  virtu  visual-understanding  visualization  visuo  vitality  volo-avolo  vulgar  walter-scheidel  war  wealth  web  webapp  weird  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  white-paper  wiki  wild-ideas  winner-take-all  wire-guided  wisdom  within-group  within-without  wkfly  wonkish  workflow  working-stiff  world  world-war  worrydream  writing  X-not-about-Y  yak-shaving  yc  yoga  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  zooming  🌞  🎓  🎩  🐝  🐸  👳  👽  🔬  🖥  🦀 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: