This is really great! A couple of anachronisms: the Macbook inside the robot (!!!) the TI calculator (that one looks to me like it's from the 1990s) the moj

This is really great! A couple of anachronisms: the Macbook inside the robot (!!!) the TI calculator (that one looks to me like it's from the 1990s) the mojibake on the printouts (looks pretty Unicodeish to me) Can you spot any others? P.S. an explanation of the importance of doing this according to HPMOR: > Every time you spend money in order to save a life with some probability, you establish a lower bound on the monetary value of a life. Every time you refuse to spend money to save a life with some probability, you establish an upper bound on the monetary value of life. If your upper bounds and lower bounds are inconsistent, it means you could move money from one place to another, and save more lives at the same cost. So if you want to use a bounded amount of money to save as many lives as possible, your choices must be consistent with some monetary value assigned to a human life; if not then you could reshuffle the same money and do better. How very sad, how very hollow the indignation, of those who refuse to say that money and life can ever be compared, when all they're doing is forbidding the strategy that saves the most people, for the sake of pretentious moral grandstanding... https://www.hpmor.com/chapter/82 https://www.hpmor.com/chapter/82 The video seems to agree -- doing the calculation allowed OSHA to justify the regulation, in part because there are still other safety regulations that wouldn't be justified under the same method (it's not a blank check for OSHA to impose every safety regulation it can ever think of). (The cost-benefit robot saying that it now understands the value of human life might sound ironic, but it didn't understand how to account for them before the calculation and it did after the calculation, so, kinda?)