We should have a "greatest hits" collection on the main page for new readers to look at, so they don't have to filter through a year or so of archived posts to find the best stuff. Any suggestions for such a list?
I've seen plenty of people disagree with plenty of other people (including, e.g., Robin and Eliezer) and not have their posts deleted. If yours have been, perhaps there's some other reason besides disagreement?
(For what it's worth, I don't think anything should be deleted other than spam and potentially illegal material; if someone's comments are useless enough that deleting them might be worth while, better to warn them and then ban them, rather than actually falsifying the record, as it were. Also for what it's worth, I don't recall your comments being such as to merit either treatment.)
Tom, it is rude, if not more, to publish private emails. You say that your concerns cannot be expressed in game theoretic terms, and I say this suggests you don't understand what information means. As Eliezer notes, I have devoted as much time to you seems affordable. Note that you offer no other signals of competence in related areas which might tempt me to devote more time to you. Your resume, for example, lists no education or employment whatsoever.
Unless other market traders believe Alice possesses a magic wand they will simply bid down her encrypted proposals, confident that, if whatever-it-is is implemented, it will not increase national welfare.
If lots of people submit encrypted proposals that actually increase national welfare, other market traders will stop betting against them, and the encrypted proposals will be implemented, and national welfare will go up.
Bear in mind that not everyone has time to explain everything. Such is life.
Followup to the futarchy post: Robin and I exchanged a few emails infollowup. This was a frustrating conversation, and I had thoughtbetter of Robin. For the curious, a summary and transcript of theemails may be found here.
One thing I just thought of that I'm not sure exists or has been handled here, or is worth handling: do you think it might be useful to have a sort of table of statistics that reflect how confident an average person should be of certain common experiences. For example, "On average, a person telling you something is true is likely to be right 60 percent of the time," et c. Something along these lines might be a great practical tool for overcoming bias. I can imagine having a little card with some of the particularly useful stats in my pocket.
Hi , i have some questions about you desing maybe you can give designer contacts?
Randomize the list using a quantum source. A few worlds are bound to come up with an optimal selection & reading order... =)
We should have a "greatest hits" collection on the main page for new readers to look at, so they don't have to filter through a year or so of archived posts to find the best stuff. Any suggestions for such a list?
One post in a 71-post thread (Pascal's Mugging) is over-posting? As you wish, not that big a deal.
My impression from outside this blog is Eliezer actually feels more comfortable with reasonably polite disagreement than agreement.
Er, that's "then ban them if they don't improve or stop", of course.
I've seen plenty of people disagree with plenty of other people (including, e.g., Robin and Eliezer) and not have their posts deleted. If yours have been, perhaps there's some other reason besides disagreement?
(For what it's worth, I don't think anything should be deleted other than spam and potentially illegal material; if someone's comments are useless enough that deleting them might be worth while, better to warn them and then ban them, rather than actually falsifying the record, as it were. Also for what it's worth, I don't recall your comments being such as to merit either treatment.)
It is extraordinary that people who even slightly disagree with you have their posts deleted. Have never seen anything like this.
Anders: When we are suggesting additions, maybe a search function in the bar would also be useful?
Done.
Tom, it is rude, if not more, to publish private emails. You say that your concerns cannot be expressed in game theoretic terms, and I say this suggests you don't understand what information means. As Eliezer notes, I have devoted as much time to you seems affordable. Note that you offer no other signals of competence in related areas which might tempt me to devote more time to you. Your resume, for example, lists no education or employment whatsoever.
Tom,
Unless other market traders believe Alice possesses a magic wand they will simply bid down her encrypted proposals, confident that, if whatever-it-is is implemented, it will not increase national welfare.
If lots of people submit encrypted proposals that actually increase national welfare, other market traders will stop betting against them, and the encrypted proposals will be implemented, and national welfare will go up.
Bear in mind that not everyone has time to explain everything. Such is life.
Followup to the futarchy post: Robin and I exchanged a few emails infollowup. This was a frustrating conversation, and I had thoughtbetter of Robin. For the curious, a summary and transcript of theemails may be found here.
We already know many-worlds is true
Even if no credible Technical interpretation of QM currently exists other than MWI, that doesn't prove MWI.
How about "The Proper Use of Arrogance", to follow up on "The Proper Use of Humility"?
One thing I just thought of that I'm not sure exists or has been handled here, or is worth handling: do you think it might be useful to have a sort of table of statistics that reflect how confident an average person should be of certain common experiences. For example, "On average, a person telling you something is true is likely to be right 60 percent of the time," et c. Something along these lines might be a great practical tool for overcoming bias. I can imagine having a little card with some of the particularly useful stats in my pocket.
"MWI is the only credible Technical interpretation of QM."
These sorts of statements are dangerous if you are interested in what's actually the case since you leave yourself open to failure of imagination.