XFrequentist

9 ms·

31.
by XFrequentist 9y ago
I'm pretty sure wolbachia prevents viral replication, not reproduction of the mosquito. The article confuses this too, talking about elimination of the mosquito from the area (or I'm just missing something).
32.
by XFrequentist 9y ago
Wonderful video, thanks!
33.
by XFrequentist 9y ago
meredydd's specifically voicing concern with decision markets, not prediction markets. Hanson's Futarchy paper outlines the difference (alas, wikipedia unhelpfully treats them as synonyms). Hanson's "Adventure 1&quot
34.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
I wasn't objecting to the teleological language (as you say, it's a convenient shorthand for an unconscious process). Rather, the idea that "species survival" is a relevant variable for selection to target is thoroughly
35.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
Sure: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110130/full/news.2011.59.htm...
36.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
Nature cares not a whit about "species".
37.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
https://complice.co Complice is aimed at exactly this problem. Integrates a bunch of other productivity hacks as well, I love it. The founder was interviewed on indie hackers recently: https://www.indiehackers.com&#x2
38.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
That's not a fair summary of the comment.
39.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
He was awarded the doctorate for one of the papers (the photovoltaic one, if memory serves), after extending it one sentence to meet the minimum length requirement.
40.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
Alternate title: Government agency produces many times more value than its miniscule 32 million USD cost.
41.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
For an utterly different take on Nkunda,see here: http://exiledonline.com/nkunda-is-nkool/all/1
42.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
More generally, this is why there's (still) a mild obsession with "conjugate" prior/likelihood distribution pairs - i.e. combinations of prior and likelihood that give analytically tractable posteriors[1] - despite the a
43.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
GP certainly did, but "logic regression" is a real thing: http://kooperberg.fhcrc.org/logic/
44.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
Just about, yeah.
45.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
>You're comparing individual species with an entire family. The GP may well have done so, but most extreme proposals are to eliminate parts of the genuses Aedes , Anopholes , and Culex - together about 2% of the genetic diversit
46.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
Agree completely with your first point. To your second point: eliminating all blood-feeding mosquitoes is the most radical proposal I've ever encountered, and this is a small subset of all mosquitoes (itself a small subset of Culicid
47.
by XFrequentist 10y ago
Aedes mosquitoes are indeed "invasive" in much (arguably, most) of the world.
48.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
"Anti-woman"? On what is that based? (Agree that the other antis listed are indeed self-evident, btw.)
49.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
The more precise version of "friendliness" is value alignment - Stuart Russell describes the problem well here[1], if you're interested. 1: http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015
50.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
>Mosquitoes fill an important niche in a great many ecologies. I think people just repeat this dogmatically, it doesn't appear to be true.
51.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
>Important food source for fish and birds for quite a few species. This is not true, and it's irresponsible to repeat it as fact.
52.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
The definition of microcephaly is actually head circumference less than 32cm (not 42cm - that's like the 99th percentile). Brazil changed their definition from 33cm during this event, so their case count includes some borderline babies
53.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
Whoops, seems you are correct. I'd misunderstood this, my apologies.
54.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
I think your premises are mistaken on several fronts, I'm annoyed by your (mis)characterizations of LW and Eliezer, and I disagree strongly with your conclusion... but your comment helped me actually understand this position for the fi
55.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
No - the precondition is that agents share common knowledge of each others' priors ( not that they have the same priors).
56.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
This made me chuckle.
57.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
Huh? You mean the Kolmogorov axioms? In what sense are these 'frequentist'?
58.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
Yes and yes and yes! ETA - caveat to the 2nd question: ... unless you've restricted your prior to exclude the truth.
59.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
Yes - Laplace originally proposed this, it's a good approach (and incidentally the basis for Bayesian meta-analysis). Google "skeptical prior" for more.
60.
by XFrequentist 11y ago
FWIW, it seems to me that a major benefit of the Bayesian approach is to make bad reasoning (in the form of, say, an unreasonable prior) transparent and obvious. I've never heard it claimed that the Bayesian approach was robust to soph

More ›