4 ms·

So anything > 3 requires a bunch of "hard science". That does a great job of highlighting the fact that almost all of the readers of HN will be incapable of pro

• Eliezer 14y ago
  3 is pretty decent. I can respect somebody trying for 3.
• lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  No, just vote for better funding of science research. It only takes one genius to change the world, but it turns out that one genius tends to produce many changes (cf Einstein // Lord kelvin // Faraday)
  • mej10 14y ago
    That doesn't really seem like a great attitude to have. It is far too hands-off and unreliable. I just can't imagine thinking "Well, I voted. That's the best I can do."
    • faul_sname 14y ago
      Then become rich and fund the researchers yourself.
    • lifeisstillgood 14y ago
      Perhaps it would be more accurate to say - you could try to change career, become a renowned research scientist and invent number 3-8 on the Yudkowsky Ambition scale, but ... You are just one person, probably without the right inclinations to be a world class researcher (or frankly you would have become one, it would have been an irristable calling) So a more worthwhile use of your time and effort would be as part of a co-ordinated effort to select, support and reward a world wide network of inter-dependant researchers, and then layers of secondary innovators and implementors who in totality will bring the benefits of scientific progress to all humanity. They also serve who stand and insist politicians use empirical based testing to validate their spending on our behalf As it were