Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# Kids Learn by Copying

How kids learn fascinates me. They don't do what you tell them to. Obeying orders is an abstract non-instinctual skill. Its simpler to just copy other people.

Plagiarism has advantages over obedience. First of all, it can be bootstrapped. Children are born without understanding language. Nobody can tell you how, in English, to speak English if you don't already understand English. More importantly, copying others is robust against deception. If everyone says you should obey the government while actually subverting it you should probably be a criminal too.

There is a teenage girl in my family who likes hanging out at my house while I work from home. She takes the initiative to do chores wherever she can be useful. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. She says she learns more per hour hanging out with me than going to school. (She complains high school doesn't teach how to do one's taxes. I should have her do my taxes.) It's more fun and useful too.

From what I know about primitive societies, they used little abstract verbal instruction. Most of the time spent learning to forage is spent foraging. Most of the time spent learning to cook is spent cooking. Elephants and chimpanzees spend no time on dialectic instructions at all.

What separates human pedagogy from other animals is our stories. Kids love stories, especially stories about people. Kids like stories about people so much the word "story" usually implies a story about people. I used to think the primary purpose of stories is to learn vicariously. But stories are often fantastical. I think the more important purpose is to provide examples of admirable behavior. It's no coincidence the most popular stories are all revolve around sympathetic capable hero protagonists.

Another fascinating attribute of kids is how immutable their preferences are. The kids in my family are all girls. They have little interest in how machines work[^1]. They have no interest in weapons or dominance. They care about animals, medicine and relationships. The teenage girl wants to be a marketer so much she took the initiative to volunteer to market my business for free. (A job all three of our male co-founders loathed.) I learned marketing reluctantly after I accepted it was mandatory to achieving my other ambitions.

[^1]: This isn't for lack of ability. One of them recovered a Linux system with a broken window manager on her own with no supervision…so she could log into Discord.

Your interests reflect your values. I frequently modify others' behavior by showing them how to manifest their desires better or easier. I have never successfully modified another person's values. Kids love me because I never try to shape them into something they don't want to be. My responsibility is to inspire, to lead and―occasionally―to explain.
# Bay Solstice looking for volunteers

It’s getting to be that time of year again! The 2021 Bay Area Winter Solstice will be held on Sunday, December 12 (in person, unless it becomes illegal) in the planetarium of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland. [Secular Solstice](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/secular-solstice) is an annual event where our community comes together to celebrate humanity and reflect on our place in the universe. 

This event couldn’t happen without community support, and we're now soliciting volunteers for all the different roles that Solstice will require! We’re looking for people to write and deliver speeches, lead singalongs, run A/V, and help with logistical tasks like program design and day-of coordination. If you’re interested in any of these roles, please consider applying, even if you’re new to the community or have never attended a solstice before. Solstice is a great way to meet people and get more involved, and we’re able to accommodate a wide range of commitment levels. If you have any questions, please contact the organizers at baysolstice2021@gmail.com. 

You can apply using [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Lbrf2xCB6FLcpRyjobrxl0l-W8MLAaixgVX6JpeRTy0/edit).
# How does your data backup solution setup work?

I'm currently not happy with how I'm backing up my data. I feel like doing proper databackup is a bit like flossing every day. It's clearly the "right thing to do" but thinking of it feels like a shore that I don't want to deal with. Does anybody have a personal databackup strategy that they are happy with and would recommend?

Criteria I'm thinking about are:

1.  Data privacy: Data is encrypted in a trustworthy manner so that think parties can't access it. Hopefully, changes in law can't break that trust because it's backed up by software.
2.  Reasonable price for maybe 1 Terrabyte of data.
3.  If my house floods and everything gets destroyed my data is healthy.
4.  If a ransom ware program encrypts all my data I can still access it.
5.  The neurons that are required to remember a specific password die
# What Motte and Baileys are rationalists most likely to engage in?

Motte and Bailey is a concept by Nicholas Shackel that Scott Alexander has [popularised](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/). He describes this as follows:

> The original Shackel paper is intended as a critique of post-modernism. Post-modernists sometimes say things like “reality is socially constructed”, and there’s an uncontroversially correct meaning there. We don’t experience the world directly, but through the categories and prejudices implicit to our society; for example, I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Okay.
> 
> Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly.
> 
> The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.
> 
> So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you retreat to an obvious, uncontroversial statement, and say that was what you meant all along, so you’re clearly right and they’re silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.

Sometimes Motte and Baileys arguments are the result of bad faith, but I suspect in many cases that those making them have no idea that they are engaging in such a strategy. In fact, it seems highly likely that one or more Motte and Baileys would be popular among rationalists. What are the most common such Motte and Baileys?
# Lots of Hooks

The entryway had gotten pretty messy, with a lot of things scattered on the horizontal surfaces. We decided to put up some hooks, to move things onto the vertical services. I used some trim that I'd saved from an [earlier project](https://www.jefftk.com/p/bathroom-construction-update), cut it to width, screwed it into studs, and attached hooks:

[![](https://www.jefftk.com/entryway-hooks.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/entryway-hooks-big.jpg)

[![](https://www.jefftk.com/entryway-skateboard-and-permits.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/entryway-skateboard-and-permits-big.jpg)

This also included a pair of [clothespins](https://www.jefftk.com/p/bag-drying-clips) on wall anchors for the parking permits.

Each skateboard is on a pair of standard coat hooks, 4" apart. Each pair is 6" from the next. At some point if we want to hang some thing else there, the hooks are general purpose.

[![](https://www.jefftk.com/skateboard-hooks-one-down.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/skateboard-hooks-one-down-big.jpg)

We also have two bike hooks on the wall. I put them in about four years ago, and they've worked well:

[![](https://www.jefftk.com/bike-hanging-on-wall.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/bike-hanging-on-wall-big.jpg)
# Wanted: Chief of Staff for The Roots of Progress

I’m hiring a Chief of Staff for [The Roots of Progress](https://rootsofprogress.org/), a “right hand” who will be deeply involved in and support everything I do.

This role needs no formal training or specific prior experience. It requires attention to detail, crisp communication, swift and efficient execution, meticulous followup, interpersonal savvy, and positive energy.

You will be the only other full-time employee of The Roots of Progress (for now), and my goal is to delegate anything and everything that doesn’t absolutely need me to do it, so that I can focus as much as possible on research, writing, and speaking. Your responsibilities will thus span the range from mailing donor swag and scheduling my podcast appearances to devising communications and media strategy—the more you demonstrate you can take on, the more responsibility I will give you.

Candidates at all levels of seniority are invited to apply—there’s room for this role to be either junior (associate level) or quite senior (director or VP level).

The role will grow and evolve along with the organization, but to start your focus will be:

*   Event planning, including workshops and other conferences and also community meetups
*   Other community-building, online and in-person
*   Fundraising, grant-seeking, and donor relations (everything from strategy to swag)
*   Media management, such as helping with the [@rootsofprogress](https://twitter.com/rootsofprogress) Twitter account, or expanding into new channels such as Instagram or YouTube
*   Getting exposure for The Roots of Progress by getting coverage and interviews in blogs, podcasts, and media
*   Generally managing a database of everyone I meet and talk to, and helping me keep in touch
*   Project management for other organizational goals, such as launching new online resources or other programs
*   Generally helping me stick to a schedule and not drop tasks

The ideal candidate will be familiar with my work and with the progress community, and will be able to point to something significant they have planned, organized, or executed.

This is a full-time role. You can do it from anywhere, but preference will be given to candidates closer to the US Pacific time zone. If you’re in the San Francisco Bay Area, we can meet in person periodically. Compensation will vary depending on your seniority, qualifications, and location, but will be competitive with market rates.

To apply, send me a resume (link to an online one is fine): [jason@rootsofprogress.org](mailto:jason@rootsofprogress.org). Optional but helpful: a pointer to projects you’ve managed or completed; a writing sample.

This is a rare chance to help me create the progress movement and establish [a new philosophy of progress for the twenty-first century](https://rootsofprogress.org/a-new-philosophy-of-progress). I look forward to working with you!
# Bay Area Winter Solstice 2021

Join us on Sunday, December 12th to celebrate humanity and reflect on our place in the universe. We'll sing songs, hear speeches, and appreciate the fact that we can gather together in person. 

**TICKETS:**  
Tickets are pay-what-you-want, and are available [on Eventbrite](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bay-area-secular-solstice-2021-tickets-206592362317).

**SCHEDULE:**  
– Doors open at 6 PM.  
– Dinner will be served from 6:00 to 7:15.  
– The performance starts at 7:30 and will last approximately two hours.  
– [Official afterparty](https://www.facebook.com/events/260239156004452/) at 1001 Winsor Ave, Oakland

**COVID POLICY:**  
We ask that attendees be fully vaccinated, and in accordance with county law, we will be requiring guests to wear masks when not eating. Fully vaccinated means that, by November 28th, you will have had 2 or more shots of \[any combination of\] Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, or AstraZeneca. Verified recovery from COVID counts as one dose.

Please submit your proof of vaccination using [this Google Form](https://forms.gle/RLNBvoA1mjni3JJ49). We'll also be accepting proof of vaccination at the door, but things will run much more smoothly if everyone fills out the form in advance.

If the seven-day rolling average of daily new cases in Alameda County is over 200 any day this week, we will require all attendees to test themselves the day of the event. It was 130 on 12/5 and 103 on 12/4.

**FOOD:**

Catering will be provided by Best Coast Burritos. There will be vegan, vegetarian, lactose-free, and gluten-free options. We will **NOT** be accommodating keto, low-FODMAP, low-sodium, allergies, or any other restrictions not listed above. If you have any of these restrictions, or if you don't like Mexican food, please plan to eat beforehand or bring your own food!

**KIDS ROOM:**

Parents with children who are too young to sit through a two-hour performance without being disruptive are welcome to leave their children in the kids room during the performance. Childcare will be provided for free. The performance will also be livestreamed to the kids room, if you prefer to stay with your child.

See [the Facebook event](https://www.facebook.com/events/275290031114907) to RSVP or for more info
# Conflict in Kriorus becomes hot today, updated, update 2

For a long time, Russian cryocompany Kriorus suffered from a conflict between two groups of owners. One is led by Danila Medvedev and the other is led by his former wife Valeria Pride. Long story short, Valeria took neuropatients (including my mother's brain) 1.5 years ago and moved them to an undisclosed location and built a new building for the company. Large full-body patients remained in a building controlled by Danila.   
 

Today people controlled by Valeria arrived at the full-body-patients building and took large containers with liquid nitrogen and full-bodies. However, the other side called the police (or, by other accounts, police was naturally attracted to a strange track with smoke and dead bodies), and the track was stopped not far away from the initial location. By latest information, the vacuum containers have been returned to their original place but could suffer some damage.

  
I also remind you that both sides have two different narratives about who is the villain and who has legal rights.

  
You could see photos from the event in Telegram messenger (please remind me how to embed them here): https://t.me/transhumanisminheart/6261 

  
I will update this post when I will have more information.

UPDATE: September, 8: No arrests so far, containers are back and will be refilled with nitrogen today, but 3 bodies were separated and taken by Valeria. No data about possible damage. Both sides agree that the bodies remained at cryogenic temperatures inside containers during the ordeal.   
 

Update 2: bodies remain in original location, vacuum duars are leaking. No information about nitrogen refill.   Danila told media that bodies could explode during the transportation. Police is working on the spot. Given recent gas explosion in nearby town and police envolvment I expect that bodies will be warm in two days.  But most neuropatients are intact in other location I hope.
# Assigning probabilities to metaphysical ideas

Take all the metaphysical models of the universe that any human ever considers.  
  
Say there are n number of mutually-incompatible ones.  I don't have a good definition of this, so our estimates will vary by orders of magnitude.

Start with 1:1 odds, or a 50% chance that one of them is correct, and a 50% chance that none were correct.

0.5/n is the prior for a given individual metaphysical model.

You might have opinions about "50%".  Maybe you think humans are actually way less likely than that to ever think of the "right" one.  Maybe you think we're almost guaranteed to, for some reason.  I started with a very general, unimposing prior of 1:1 odds.  We can generalize this to p/n, for whatever you think p is.

How big is n? I don't know but I ran a [Twitter poll](https://twitter.com/Jotto999/status/1434056655734464514) asking people to pick a rough order of magnitude.  I would like a number.  It's easy to lie with numbers, but it's even easier to lie without them.

Updates away from the base rate can be made based on the complexity of the idea.  This mechanism is very general, and it should apply even in this domain to some extent.  Some religions are crazy complicated, so probability mass should be gouged from those.  Though, estimating "complexity" is going to be very hard.  The lady down the road is [a witch](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/f4txACqDWithRi7hs/occam-s-razor), she made the universe.  Still, do we have *zero* information about such complexity comparisons? I doubt that.

I have seen smart people say there is no way to assign probabilities to metaphysical ideas.  They then express opinions about many worlds interpretation, the simulation argument, and others.  They'll do it with even less informative, more nebulous terms than a probability.  Such as "I am skeptical", or "seems really likely".  As a forecaster I have also seen some wildly overconfident claims made by some smart people.  Many orders of magnitude above a cloud of reasonable base rate estimates.  I know they don't have that much information and aren't calibrated.

I thought it would help to give a simple base rate template.  So here is one.
# Sam Altman Q&A Notes - Aftermath

To me it was quite painful when I found out after the first one of Sam Altman's Q&As that there was no recording and no way for me to find out what had been said. Which is why this time around I took notes and shared them here to help out people in the same situation.

This was initially very well received, although in the first 24+ hours a discussion arose, whether the notes were accurately representing what Sam Altman had said. I clarified some of the notes after feedback from other participants, and while not everybody was happy, I think that they were accurate within the limits of a very short summary. This was corroborated by other participants of the meetup.

Significantly later a different discussion started, about whether publishing these notes was some kind of breach of trust, because Sam Altman had requested for the meeting not to be recorded. 

To me avoiding a recording was about staying out of the mainstream media and not getting pinned down on concrete statements about sensitive topics. (One of his answers started with "Oh, this is a dangerous question ...", I did not include this in the notes.)

To my mind it was about being able "to speak more freely" as opposed to being able to speak at all. I did not believe that on the one hand he wanted to provide this information publicly, but on the other hand did not want to see it discussed.

I did not see this meetup as clandestine meeting of the alignment elite that is allowed to know about these matters, but possibly, I was wrong. (Ah, allow me this bit of sarcasm. Just this little bit. I already cut all? the bitterness.)

Some people argued that this was obviously a "defection" or at least a "misunderstanding of the rules" on my part. To which I can only point to the [invitation](https://www.lesswrong.com/events/NvSJe9eRQu7iQ37mw/sam-altman-at-the-astralcodexten-online-meetup-1) which mentions neither recording, nor transcript, nor notes. In the meetup itself there was no mention of any prohibition to publicly discuss the provided information in writing or otherwise.

More sensibly, to my mind, some people argued that we shouldn't risk not having any more meetups with Sam Altman in the future. In the end moderators decided to take down the post until feedback by Sam Altman. A decision that I very much support. 

UPDATE: 

Sam Altman has now replied (see comments) that he likes to be able to interact with this community in an "off the record-ish way", so my notes will stay down. 

To me this sounds like he also doesn't have an exact clearance level in mind, but prefers to keep it low key. His feedback seems to have been really positive so hopefully there will be further Q&As in the future. 

There are probably many who couldn't attend the meetup due to real life interference, unfortunate timezones, because they missed the anouncement, or due to the fact that capacity was limited to 250 attendees.

So if you want me to contribute to a private Google doc, for instance, just send me a message or write a comment (though it might take longer for me to notice the comment).
# Gradient descent is not just more efficient genetic algorithms

I think one common intuition when thinking about gradient descent (GD) is to think about it as more efficient genetic algorithms (GAs). I certainly used to think this way—after all, taking a bunch of random mutations and keeping the ones that work well sounds basically just like a slower version of finding the steepest direction in the first place. GAs are also much more intuitive than GD, so it's tempting to think about GD in terms of them. Unfortunately, there are some instances where they behave completely differently, which is really relevant for thinking about things like gradient hacking. This post provides one such example.

Redundancy and Submodule Protection
-----------------------------------

Imagine you're given a network that has two identical submodules, and some kind of combining function where if it detects the outputs from both submodules are the same it passes the value through but if they're different it explodes and outputs zero or something totally random, or whatever. This is a natural idea to come up with if your goal is to ensure the optimizer doesn't mess with these modules, for example, if you're trying to protect the mesaobjective encoding for gradient hacking. 

It's easy to convince yourself that this is effective against GAs: since mutations are inserted at random, the probability that both modules are mutated the same way is very small, and so any model that changes either of these modules will do very poorly since the output will be totally useless. 

GD on the other hand will happily change both modules at the same time, since the direction of steepest descent is the one where both submodules change at the same time. This is even despite the fact that partial derivatives are taken assuming all other parameters stay the same, because partial derivatives don't care about the cliff just epsilon away but only the slope at the exact point where both modules are the same. Another way of thinking about it is the gradient necessarily points in the direction of steepest ascent, even if that direction isn't axis-aligned. If you're still not convinced, see [this comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KfX7Ld7BeCMQn5gbz/obstacles-to-gradient-hacking?commentId=zhrA4hEj4yPpjHmdm) for a proof that there exists no combining function (under modest constraints) that can protect submodules this way.

Takeaways
---------

The main takeaway from this is that gradient descent is really unintuitive sometimes. When in doubt, it's probably a good idea to work out the gradient by hand.
# Jonathan Blow at the AstralCodexTen Online Meetup


Jonathan Blow will be joining us for Q&A on Sunday September 19 at 10:30 Pacific Daylight Time, 20:30 Israel Daylight Time, 17:30 UTC.

Designer of acclaimed games including *Braid* and *The Witness*, Jonathan Blow is currently working on the programming language Jai (currently in closed beta) designed to compete with C++ in games programming, as well as designing and implementing an upcoming game (written in Jai) with his colleagues at his games studio, Thekla Inc.

Please [signup here](https://forms.gle/8mtzDTisMMJVr8kr5) and we’ll send you an invitation.
# Thinking About College Funding

A few years ago [I wrote](https://www.jefftk.com/p/college-and-earning-to-give) about how, if you're trying to decide between direct work and earning to give, the college price discrimination system of financial aid can push towards direct work. It's a bit of a niche thing, since it really only applies if:

*   Your children are likely enough to be admitted to the kind of institution that commits to meeting 100% of demonstrated financial need, or otherwise has a similar "100% effective tax rate".
    
*   You're not be very interested in saving money for your own future use. The CSS Profile suggesting 5%/y for parental assets means that with three kids at 4y each you might be asked for 60% of assets.
    
*   Your earnings need to be low enough just before and during college, either because your career has never been highly lucrative or because you are willing to change your line of work for that time period.
    

Now that we have a third child I'm thinking about this again, and in our particular case I now think we are pretty unlikely to take the direct-work-minimize-income approach:

*   Nora is unlikely to be in college at the same time as her older siblings, since she's five years younger. This would mean a much longer period of applying that approach, ~10y instead of ~5y.
    
*   The CSS Profile is very comprehensive in identifying assets, and likely to continue to get more so. If we chose that approach the value of our house and retirement assets would be unusually high for our income. This could raise flags, and many places do consider them to some extent.
    
*   I've been lucky in how well compensated I am, and if this continues then paying sticker prices for college would not impact our ability to donate.
    
*   I continue to enjoy working as a programmer, and think it's pretty likely I'll want to be doing something similar in ten years.
    

This also means that a [529 college savings plan](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/529_plan) probably makes sense for us. This is an investment option where gains are not taxed as long as funds are limited to educational expenses. It's a lower priority than donations or retirement savings, but if we have additional money left over the lack of capital gains tax is nice.

*Comment via: [facebook](https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100228811606542)*
# You can get feedback on ideas and external drafts too

Due to some editor bugs that only affect admins, a few crucial edits were missing from the recent announcement that [LessWrong is providing feedback and proofreading on drafts as a service.](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nsCwdYJEpmW5Hw5Xm/lesswrong-is-providing-feedback-and-proofreading-on-drafts)

Crucially, **you do not need to have a LW draft to get feedback. Feel free to use Intercom (bottom right) to ask for feedback on a post idea (no draft) or on an external draft, e.g. Google Doc.**

The Intercom button looks like this:  
 

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/0d7b445c7ee4ce7c7559f714a651a7d65a06134b398854e6.png)

If you ever disabled Intercom in your [user settings](/account), you'll need to re-enable it. Alternatively you can reach us via email (team@lesswrong.com).
# The Best Software For Every Need

When I first started programming, I didn't use a terminal multiplexer and finding tmux was a sort of revelation. I joked once on discord that "life before tmux was not life". It strikes me there are probably many other programs that I am not aware of that would be useful to know about. 

I've occasionally found Luke's *The Best Textbooks on Every Subject* thread useful, so I thought a similar thread about software may be interesting. 

Here are **the rules**:

1.  Post the name of a program for a given need.
2.  You must have tried at least 2 other programs designed for the same/similar class of problems.
3.  You must briefly name the other programs you have tried and why you think your chosen program is superior to them.
# How do you decide when to change N95/FFP-2 masks?

I lack a gears model of how N95/FFP-2 masks works that tells me when it makes sense to change to a new mask. The same goes into how to interact with the mask to maximize it's Does someone have a gears model and a got idea when it makes sense to change masks to a new one?
# Handling Identical USB Sound Cards

My [Pi Sound Box](https://www.jefftk.com/p/pi-sound-box) has two output channels, each on a [USB sound card](https://smile.amazon.com/Sabrent-External-Adapter-Windows-AU-MMSA/dp/B00IRVQ0F8/). One has a mic input and runs my [whistle synth](https://github.com/jeffkaufman/whistle-synth), the other has no audio input and runs [fluidsynth](https://www.fluidsynth.org/). This worked fine, up until my first gig out (busking in the park) where it decided to swap the devices: my whistle card moved from `hw:0,0` to `hw:1,0`, and vice-versa.

Here's someone else with [the same problem in 2011](https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2011/05/msg00867.html).

Cheap USB devices don't have a serial number, and these two sound cards present identically. On the other hand, it's possible to identify them by their location in the USB tree:

$ for x in /sys/bus/usb/devices/*/product; do
    echo $x $(cat $x)
  done
/sys/bus/usb/devices/1-1.2.1.3/product USB Audio Device
/sys/bus/usb/devices/1-1.2.1/product 4-Port USB 2.0 Hub
/sys/bus/usb/devices/1-1.2.2/product HP Elite USB Keyboard
/sys/bus/usb/devices/1-1.2.4/product AXIS-49 2A
/sys/bus/usb/devices/1-1.2/product 4-Port USB 2.0 Hub
/sys/bus/usb/devices/1-1.3/product USB Audio Device
/sys/bus/usb/devices/usb1/product DWC OTG Controller

(`lsusb --tree` can do this too, but it's harder to read)

Since this is based on physical ports, it will be consistent across reboots.

It looks like you can write `udev` rules to tell the system how to map `1-1.2.1.3` to `hw:*,0` ([docs](https://alsa.opensrc.org/Udev)). Unfortunately, this was getting well beyond what I considered fun, so I gave up. I added a key combination to swap the outputs ([commit](https://github.com/jeffkaufman/whistle-synth/commit/a63e48945033cab83503e3cd3fdbc581376206b2)), so if I notice it's wrong while setting up at a gig I can fix it. Possibly at some point I'll come back and deal with `udev`?
# Prefer the British Style of Quotation Mark Punctuation over the American

There are different ways of combining quotation and punctuation marks. In the **American style**, you almost always put periods and commas inside the quotation marks:

> Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded, "I refute it _thus_."[^1]
> 
> It is only an accident of evolution, as it were, that the senses we are born with are not adapted to feel such things "directly."[^2]

In the **British style**, however, you put periods and commas outside the quotation marks, unless they are part of a complete sentence that is fully contained between the quotation marks:

> Dr Johnson kicked a large rock and said, as his foot rebounded, "I refute it _thus_."[^3]
> 
> It is only an accident of evolution, as it were, that the senses we are born with are not adapted to feel such things "directly".[^4]

When faced with this contrast, the proper reaction is to recoil in horror at the first approach, and to look approvingly on the second. In the sentence beginning with _It is only ..._, the quotation is a part of the sentence, and the sentence contains the quoted word.

	It is only an accident of evolution ... "directly".
	[--------------------sentence---------------------]
	                                        [--quote-]

Since a period marks the end of a sentence, it should not be placed before marking the end of the quotation. You can compare this with nested or hierarchical structures, or with stacks, or even with last in, first out methods of computing, inventory accounting or redundancy management. Under any comparison, the British style will seem preferable to the American. You resolve the nested item first, before resolving the parent. I do not know but suspect that this is why the British style is also called **logical quotation**.

In the sentence beginning with _Dr Johnson ..._, we do place the period within the quotation marks, because what is being quoted is a full sentence. We are placing the period to mark the end of the inner, quoted sentence.[^5]

	Dr Johnson kicked a large rock ... "I refute it thus."
	[----------------------sentence----------------------]
	                                   [------quote------]
	                                    [----sentence---]

There is no reason that there should be two different approaches to punctuation in the English language. The British approach makes more sense, so use that one.

[^1]:	Deutsch, D. (1998). _The fabric of reality_. Penguin UK.

[^2]:	ibid.

[^3]:	ibid.

[^4]:	ibid.

[^5]:	More logical still would be to have two periods, one marking the end of the quoted sentence and the other the end of the top-level sentence. But that would be redundant and also look ugly.
# Is MIRI's reading list up to date?

Question especially for MIRI folks:

The [MIRI reading list](https://intelligence.org/research-guide/) has not changed very much in several years. But MIRI-associated researchers have been producing what appears to be a significant number of new research directions - for example, [Cartesian Frames](https://www.alignmentforum.org/s/2A7rrZ4ySx6R8mfoT), [Finite Factored Sets](https://www.alignmentforum.org/s/kxs3eeEti9ouwWFzr), [Infra-Bayesianism](https://www.alignmentforum.org/s/CmrW8fCmSLK7E25sa), and a lot of Stuart Armstrong's research.

Is the research guide up to date and sufficient for contributing to all the different research directions that MIRI is pursuing?
# Pack a travel bathroom bag

About a year ago, I realized that packing all my bathroom stuff was one of the more difficult and annoying and error-prone parts of packing for travel. So, without planning on going anywhere, I packed my travel bathroom bag.

This bag had all the things I was previously likely to forget – toothbrush and toothpaste, floss, comb, hair product, deodorant, nail clippers, travel-sized face wash and moisturizer. That’s a lot of stuff, and most of it I could do without. But why risk it? I’d rather be able to grab a bag and know I have everything.

Put together, the bag probably cost around $50. The time savings while packing probably make it worthwhile by itself, but also I will never forget any of those things ever again on any trip. Overall, it seems like a win!

An ancillary benefit of this bag is always having backups of everything. If I run out of toothpaste, or floss, or hair product, I have a small backup supply of everything that I consider useful enough to go in the travel bag.
# EA Forum Creative Writing Contest: $10,000 in prizes for good stories

We just launched a [creative writing contest](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JFiHewypFB2niuy2G/ea-forum-creative-writing-contest-usd10-000-in-prizes-for) on the Effective Altruism Forum. Stories like HPMOR and The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant have been massively impactful, and we'd like to see more work in that vein — please consider submitting something!

Note that you can also submit past work that seems like a good fit. The criteria are:

*   Someone can reasonably finish the work in one sitting
*   The work might inspire someone to become interested in EA, or in some part of EA. You don't have to shill for anything too specific — we'd be really happy to see work that just reflects rational/EA modes of thinking, applied in altruistic ways, without being directly about animal suffering or AI or whatnot.

I'm running the contest. Please let me know, here or on the Forum, if you have any questions!
# [linkpost] The Psychological Economy of Inaction by William Gillis

William Gillis is an excellent essayist, LessWrong amongst their influences, who doesn't post on LessWrong.

I wanted to open up a dialogue about their new essay to see what commenters here have to say, it's just under 2k words.

Gillis is a compelling philosopher of agency, in this they argue that consciousness is insufficient for agency.
> All of which is to underline: just because you’re conscious doesn’t mean you’re agential. Agency is – perhaps unfortunately – habituated.

Speaking for myself, I feel like Gillis' take on "what actually is freedom?" is closest to [my own](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/c4B45PGxCgY7CEMXr/what-am-i-fighting-for#Higher_order_Freedoms), yet I think they go farther than I've gone with this idea of processes that habituate less or more agency (rather than simply agency as a metric on scenarios, as if evaluated on a snapshot )
> But taking away choice isn’t a path to happiness, it’s a path to depression. Freedom _from_ stress or fatigue, perhaps, but certainly not a freedom to influence the wider universe. This is not to praise the shallow causal depth that a choice over mere toothpaste has, but to emphasize the often overlooked degree to which even small situations of immediate choice in our lives help habituate our capacity to act.

Toward the bottom, the comment about projects that don't pay out for a long time vs. projects with immediate payout seems like one way to operationalize the [utilons-fuzzies distinction](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF/purchase-fuzzies-and-utilons-separately)

The general idea of tipping the scale in favor of action over inaction is tricky, it calls to mind the Catch 22 of Advice that I think Kelsey TUOC used to write about-- that you can't determine if the people who need to hear it will hear it more than the people who need to hear the exact opposite. Can we do better than the Catch 22? 

There's a comment in [methods](https://www.lesswrong.com/hpmor) chapter 93, actually,  (don't click if you haven't read it before, spoilers) where Harry takes the side of action
> "because Neville tried to do something, even if it wasn't the right thing, doing what's right is the second lesson, you can start practicing that after you learn to do anything at all -"
# Is there a beeminder without the punishment?


I used Beeminder for a few months and found it extremely effective. However, a huge pain point of mine was forgetting to manually log the datapoints since a lot of my goals couldn't be logged automatically. This involved having to message their support e-mail each time. Eventually, this became such a huge friction point that I quit Beeminder.

Since then, I noticed that I haven't maintained my goals as much as I did on Beeminder. I believe that recording that I did X goal made Beeminder so effective for me, rather than the avoiding the punishment that comes when you don't do X goal. It was satisfying that I did X goal and seeing the graph change.

That being said, I want to find another solution like Beeminder without the punishment. Any ideas?
# Austin Petrov Day and Potluck

**Time**: Doors open 6pm, ceremony tentatively starting at 7pm  
**Location**: Private Austin residence; contact an [Austin organizer](https://www.lesswrong.com/groups/syf4gEbaNQ8btKCbb) with bio for address.  
  
Every year the Austin LW/SSC group holds a Petrov Day ceremony. (Last year we [adapted](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jPSJTh5ctffyzFNB8/socially-distanced-outdoor-petrov-day-ceremonial-manual).)  
  
Please also consider contributing to the potluck; you can commit [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eg4rC_Zr-xyiDeWV9UjmVDigVeNg2uC-GIPKmSMTddI/edit#gid=1916234659). (Bonus points if the dish has a Petrov Day theme!)  
  
If you need a ride, or can help give others a ride, please post on [this spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eg4rC_Zr-xyiDeWV9UjmVDigVeNg2uC-GIPKmSMTddI/edit#gid=0).  
  
Also please be vaccinated before coming.
# History of counting to three?

Counting to three is a common way to indicate to kids that you're being serious and they need to do what you're saying, and I find it helpful [with my kids](https://www.jefftk.com/p/how-to-parent-more-predictably). It's associated with Thomas Phelan's [1995](https://www.google.com/books/edition/1_2_3_Magic/dhtFAAAAYAAJ) book [123 Magic](https://www.123magic.com/), but it's older than that:

*   Tom Chapin's 1988 song [Nick Of Time](http://www.tomchapin.com/docs/lnot.html) includes a variant.
    
*   My parents used it with me, probably also around 1988.
    
*   My dad says he learned it from my aunt, who says she used it with her kids in the mid 1970s. She doesn't remember where she learned it.
    

There's something about it that feels reasonably recent to me, where it would feel out of place in a book from 100 years ago? But does anyone know more about its history?

(It's hard to search for uses, since it is often just called "counting" or "counting to three." I wrote to Phelan and Chapin without a response.)
# What should one's policy regarding dental xrays be?

[A small Kuwaiti study](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/02841861003705778) used a conditional regression to found that x-rays are an increased risk factor for thyroid cancer (n=313, odds ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 3.1) using a case-matched methodology.   

X-rays being a carcinogen isn't surprising. Every time I've gone into my dentist they've tried to image my head. I've never had a cavity, and I generally decline the imaging; their recommended cadence of every two years has seemed too aggressive to me, in the past. 

I've got my first dental appointment in more than 18 months next week, and.. I'm inclined to let them image. How should one think about this sort of risk/benefit trade off? Presumably catching a cavity or other issue early is [much?] better. But that itself assumes that the dentists who'd be treating you don't do more harm than good.
# Kids Moving Pictures

When I went back to work after my leave with Lily I wanted to be able to show people pictures, so I set up a site that would show [moving ones](https://www.lilywise.com/moving-photos). As she got older, I added new sets, and I've since made pages for [Anna](https://www.annakaufmanwise.com/moving-photos) and [Nora](https://www.norawise.com):

[![](https://www.jefftk.com/kids-individual-moving-pictures.jpg)](https://www.jefftk.com/kids-individual-moving-pictures-big.jpg)

I thought it would be neat to make another site, though, that aligns these pictures by age:

[![](https://www.jefftk.com/three-up-moving-photos.png)](https://www.jefftk.com/three-up-moving-photos-big.png)

[Give it a try!](https://www.jefftk.com/kids) There's a slider so you can select which age. Currently it's just 0m through 3m, but as Nora gets older I expect to keep updating it.
# What is the evidence on the Church-Turing Thesis?

Why do you believe that everything "effectively computable" can be computed by a Turing machine? In the same vein: How would you recognize this to be false?

I don't particularly doubt that this is true. But I want to get a better gears level understanding for why this might be true. When this came up during my "fundamentals of computer science" class, my professor was communicating high confidence that this was essentially correct (joking he could speed up the graduation of the student who would show this is false), but gave very little info on why he believed this in the first place. 

I got a bit more out of the respective [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#cite_ref-48). I get that people have come up with different formalisms for "effectively computable" and they all seem to be weaker or equivalent to Turing machines, and that does seem like compelling evidence. But, I want to understand whether there is more to it. There seem to be points in favor, like this quote from Gödel that I pulled from the Wikipedia article:
>  It may also be shown that a function which is computable ['reckonable'] in one of the systems Si, or even in a system of transfinite type, is already computable [reckonable] in S1. Thus the concept 'computable' ['reckonable'] is in a certain definite sense 'absolute', while practically all other familiar metamathematical concepts (e.g. provable, definable, etc.) depend quite essentially on the system to which they are defined ...

Does this mean: The act of showing that something would be computable in a System $S_i$ would effectively show how to do it with a System $S_1$ (e. g. a Turing machine?). To me this seems kind of circular and to rely on the fact that there is no "stronger" formal system that would itself be stronger as a Turing machine that we would use to show the existence of such a system $S_i$ (this is probably a confused thought, so help in understanding this would be welcome)?

Another thought: What if our brains just happen to be Turing machines (but other things in the world are "stronger") and there is just no way to formally describe these higher level Algorithms with our limited brains (analogy: Could our brains come up with Turing machines if they were finite automatons?). Could there be ways for us to notice if this was the case?

So to sum up, I still find this quite confusing and thought this might be the right place to get good answers or to clarify these points.
# Sigmoids behaving badly: arXiv paper

Building on a [previous post on the unpredictability of sigmoid curves](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6tErqpd2tDcpiBrX9/why-sigmoids-are-so-hard-to-predict), we have a [paper on the arXiv](https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08065) explaining why it is so hard to predict their inflection/turning points until after it has happened.

Abstract:

>Sigmoids (AKA s-curves or logistic curves) are commonly used in a diverse spectrum of disciplines as models for time-varying phenomena showing initial acceleration followed by slowing: technology diffusion, cumulative cases of an epidemic, population growth towards a carrying capacity, etc. Existing work demonstrates that retrospective fit of data is often impressive. We show that in time series data, the future fit tends to be poor unless the data covers the entire range from before to after the inflection point. We discuss the theoretical reasons for this: the growth data provides little information about the damping term (and vice-versa). As a consequence, forecasting with sigmoids tends to be very unreliable. We suggest some practical approaches to improving the viability of forecasting sigmoid models.