adamisom

11 ms·

121.
by adamisom 5y ago
Huh—I did this program (I didn’t know the founder posted here, just browsing) and I had no idea weekly check-ins were mandatory. For serious (but not fanatic) participants it is, of course, a no-brainer to check in at least that often. Just
122.
by adamisom 5y ago
A two-sigma effect is mind blowing. You can say that makes it more suspect but the magnitude of the claim must be emphasized, that’s just so frickin high of an effect size. (Personally I assume the claim is at least mostly true: how could f
123.
by adamisom 5y ago
Sorry for misstating you. It does seem bad if only some have the tech. Maybe in the worst case, rich nations lock others out? That just seems implausible to me, I think any such medicine tech would be shared without delay. With general AI,
124.
by adamisom 5y ago
I’ve always suspected this sentiment to exist somewhere— essentially “death is the great equalizer (and thus good)”—but don’t think I’ve seen it until now. It’s always been obvious to me that the problem with singular focus on inequality is
125.
by adamisom 5y ago
Yes. I expect some variation of “society needs death” to be 100x more common than more careful considerations of whether aging research has questionable models
126.
by adamisom 5y ago
Beware selective reductionism! If you want to be reductionist, you can do that about anything. Humans are ultimately quarks, there’s no free will, and we have imperatives and rules governing our behavior on every scale. There’s more nuanced
127.
by adamisom 5y ago
Good point yet the appropriate discount rate has gone over time with better medicine and technology. So it comes down to: do you believe medicine and tech will keep advancing and if so, doesn’t that mean the discount rate will get ever sma
128.
by adamisom 5y ago
The substantive criticism is clear: discounting is questionable when it comes to human lives.
129.
by adamisom 5y ago
Welcome to the news cycle! The world improves, but one thing remains constant (stubbornly disconnected from whether or not, and how much, things are improving): amount of outrage
130.
by adamisom 5y ago
They’ve amassed 4K courses, how many have they finished? You could alternatively amass 4K always-free courses, it’s be equally pointless.
131.
by adamisom 5y ago
60% of the time, it's all-green 100% of the time
132.
by adamisom 5y ago
Full-stack, backend-leaning web developer looking for a platform role. Platform meaning backend/infra split, but open to backend/fullstack roles. In the past I've co-created Haven, an open-source developer tool for small team
133.
by adamisom 5y ago
Indeed that could be evidence depending on the strength of the beliefs underlying the disagreement. Imagine the parent commenter simply sought out expert consensus and that the consensus was unmistakable; surely you’d agree that if some pra
134.
by adamisom 5y ago
That’s a good point. Yet, if you’re an overweight male, you can probably both lose weight and get adequate nutrition on 2000 cals/day. For females the balance may be harder.
135.
by adamisom 5y ago
Or perhaps they leveraged their success to reduce the amount of “busy” they have so as to make time to amplify the mindset or practices that helped them, because they think that can be their biggest gift to the world.
136.
by adamisom 5y ago
Another point overlooked in the implicit “why be 10% more efficient instead of 10x” is that we can’t all be Newtons. There is no advice to turn you into Newton, but that doesn’t make advice useless. It’s reason to get what you can out of
137.
by adamisom 5y ago
Funny you mention placebo effect. It actually is probably far less of a thing than popularly believed see https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/31/powerless-placebos/ From one point of view that just proves
138.
by adamisom 5y ago
That is a poor comparison. The 52k is taxed. But even beyond that, your expenses can be way lower if you don't have to work - to earn good money you might need to live in a more expensive place than you would if you had total freedom;
139.
by adamisom 5y ago
Yeah if every harmful thing constituted the "true character" of someone, we'd all be sinners. Granted, if a lot of harm is done, then it might be fair. (Cue the knee-jerk "isn't dragging a hero's name through t
140.
by adamisom 5y ago
You spun a lot out of uninteresting fact that an institution had trainings for two almost boringly-mundane civilization threats. Next you’ll breathlessly tell me how crazy it is that they have a 2022 event centered around climate change.
141.
by adamisom 5y ago
Well less energy does have downsides, see: all the things we use energy for. We probably don’t want to tax that except to prevent terrible harm. So I can imagine an argument being along the lines “alternative energy production isn’t ready t
142.
by adamisom 6y ago
I perceive your parent comment to be straightforward and not sinister in the least. Why not Bezos (the billionaire who most easily comes to mind), why not HN (the website we're on )? Seriously, what's with the weird angry ins
143.
by adamisom 6y ago
This doesn't necessarily mean you're invalid, but if BTC increased 100x, they'd exceed the world's GDP. So... yeah, though maybe you can't say that's impossible , if by some miracle BTC became the dominant cur
144.
by adamisom 6y ago
It only takes one. If you assume that the real hurdle is there being any aliens, such that many advanced alien species are almost as likely to exist as one, then indeed the majority may not want to study us 'ants'... but it only t
145.
by adamisom 6y ago
I guess depends on what valuable means. I imagine most comp scientists are less replaceable than most software engineers, so point for compsci.
146.
by adamisom 6y ago
Funny you mention chores because that's exactly what I've always thought of as the prime example of where 80/20 thinking brings benefits. I think a big reason to focus on higher-ROI (80/20) is to reduce friction; I'
147.
by adamisom 6y ago
Pardon my potential ignorance here, but it seems to me a valid argument to simply say "if the GUI lets you search , that alone will probably make it more 'discoverable' than a CLI".
148.
by adamisom 6y ago
In the past, when a construct like 'intelligence' has been hard to pin down, science moves on--leaves it to 'philosophy' and works with formal definitions. Would you say that's one part of your point? Just to clarif
149.
by adamisom 6y ago
Are you saying that because (JavaScript!) functions have a "length" property representing number of arguments, they are all O(N) (or greater)? (btw I don't see how "this" fits in here.) The only way I can see it mak
150.
by adamisom 6y ago
Sounds like different definitions, not not-even-wrongness. Parent commenter even mentioned it's akin to an accelerator.

More ›