trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Meetup : San Antonio Meetup
by Bryan-san — 2015-10-20T03:23:21.812Z

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup

WHEN:
25 October 2015 12:30:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
12651 Vance Jackson Rd #118, San Antonio, TX 78230

Bubble tea, frozen yogurt, and discussion at Yumi Berry! All are welcome!

New Meetup to discuss rationality and all things LessWrong and meet the local community. Look for the sign that says Less Wrong!

Discussion article for the meetup : San Antonio Meetup
[Link]: KIC 8462852, aka WTF star, "the most mysterious star in our galaxy", ETI candidate, etc.
by jacob_cannell — 2015-10-20T01:10:30.548Z

KIC 8462852, or the WTF (Where's the Flux?) star, is an F-type main sequence star about 1,480 ly away. It's a little larger and more massive than the sun, and a few times brighter. Age is uncertain, but probably older rather than younger.

Kepler observations over the last few years reveal very strange large and aperiodic flux variations (up to 20%) - of the general form predicted by some ETI megastructure models. However there doesn't appear to be any excess infrared.

The star's fluctuations were discovered by the PlanetHunters team. In the WTF paper they review a large number of unlikely natural explanations and settle on an unusual comet swarm as the most likely scenario.

Abstract of the WTF paper:

Over the duration of the Kepler mission, KIC 8462852 was observed to undergo irregularly shaped, aperiodic dips in flux down to below the 20% level. The dipping activity can last for between 5 and 80 days. We characterize the object with high-resolution spectroscopy, spectral energy distribution fitting, and Fourier analyses of the Kepler light curve. We determine that KIC 8462852 is a main-sequence F3 V/IV star, with a rotation period ~0.88 d, that exhibits no significant IR excess. In this paper, we describe various scenarios to explain the mysterious events in the Kepler light curve, most of which have problems explaining the data in hand. By considering the observational constraints on dust clumps orbiting a normal main-sequence star, we conclude that the scenario most consistent with the data is the passage of a family of exocomet fragments, all of which are associated with a single previous breakup event. We discuss the necessity of future observations to help interpret the system.

From "Comets or Aliens?", on the Planet Hunters blog: " However, so far over 100 professional scientists have had a look at the lightcurves and not managed to come up with a working solution."

In a another recent paper Jason Wright et al discusses the WTF star in more detail and critiques the comet theory.

The Search for Extraterrestial Civilizations with Large Energy Supplies. IV: the Signatures and Information Content of Transiting Megastructures:

Arnold (2005), Forgan (2013), and Korpela et al. (2015) noted that planet-sized artificial structures could be discovered with Kepler as they transit their host star. We present

...
The trouble with Bayes (draft)
by snarles — 2015-10-19T20:50:01.250Z

Prerequisites

This post requires some knowledge of Bayesian and Frequentist statistics, as well as probability. It is intended to explain one of the more advanced concepts in statistical theory--Bayesian non-consistency--to non-statisticians, and although the level required is much less than would be required to read some of the original papers on the topic[1], some considerable background is still required.

The Bayesian dream

Bayesian methods are enjoying a well-deserved growth of popularity in the sciences. However, most practitioners of Bayesian inference, including most statisticians, see it as a practical tool. Bayesian inference has many desirable properties for a data analysis procedure: it allows for intuitive treatment of complex statistical models, which include models with non-iid data, random effects, high-dimensional regularization, covariance estimation, outliers, and missing data. Problems which have been the subject of Ph. D. theses and entire careers in the Frequentist school, such as mixture models and the many-armed bandit problem, can be satisfactorily handled by introductory-level Bayesian statistics.

A more extreme point of view, the flavor of subjective Bayes best exemplified by Jaynes' famous book [2], and also by an sizable contingent of philosophers of science, elevates Bayesian reasoning to the methodology for probabilistic reasoning, in every domain, for every problem. One merely needs to encode one's beliefs as a prior distribution, and Bayesian inference will yield the optimal decision or inference.

To a philosophical Bayesian, the epistemological grounding of most statistics (including "pragmatic Bayes") is abysmal. The practice of data analysis is either dictated by arbitrary tradition and protocol on the one hand, or consists of users creatively employing a diverse "toolbox" of methods justified by a diverse mixture of incompatible theoretical principles like the minimax principle, invariance, asymptotics, maximum likelihood or *gasp* "Bayesian optimality." The result: a million possible methods exist for any given problem, and a million interpretations exist for any data set, all depending on how one frames the problem. Given one million different interpretations for the data, which one should *you* believe?

Why the ambiguity? Take the textbook problem of determining whether a coin is fair or weighted, based on the data obtained f...
Open thread, Oct. 19 - Oct. 25, 2015
by MrMind — 2015-10-19T06:59:09.766Z

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Have no excuses
by So8res — 2015-10-19T02:00:00.000Z
Link: https://mindingourway.com/have-no-excuses/

Except in a very few [tennis] matches, usually with world-class performers, there is a point in every match (and in some cases it's right at the beginning) when the loser decides he's going to lose. And after that, everything he does will be aimed at providing an explanation of why he will have lost. He may throw himself at the ball (so he will be able to say he's done his best against a superior opponent). He may dispute calls (so he will be able to say he's been robbed). He may swear at himself and throw his racket (so he can say it was apparent all along he wasn't in top form). His energies go not into winning but into producing an explanation, an excuse, a justification for losing.

― C. Terry Warner, Bonds That Make Us Free

Throughout high school and college, I noticed that many of my peers seemed like they were trying hard, but they weren't trying hard to learn content or pass classes — they were trying hard to make sure that they had good excuses and cover stories prepared for when they failed. Seeing this, I resolved that I would never excuse my own failures to myself — not even if I had a very good excuse. If you have an excuse prepared, you will be tempted to fall back on it. An excuse makes failure more acceptable, in some way. It's a license to fail.

If you really need to succeed on a task, then I suggest that you resolve to refuse to excuse your failure, in the event that you do fail. Even if the failure was understandable. Even if you failed for unfair reasons, due to things you couldn't have foreseen. Simply refuse to speak the excuse. Understand your errors, and learn from them, but if people demand to know why you failed, say only, "I'm sorry. I wasn't good enough." You may add "and I think I know what I did wrong, and I'll work to fix it, and I'll do better next time," but only if that's true.

Don't add anything else: if you want to play to win, you have to refuse to acknowledge excuses. If you were excused then you were helpless, and you couldn't have done better, and you can't learn to do better next time. Thus, I suggest that you become incapable of believing an excuse, lest you automatically slip into the game of making sure your failure will be explainable, rather than making sure you succeed.

"But sometimes bad luck just happens!" the one protests. We can imagine a person who took a bet that pays out $1,000,000 nine times out of ten a...
Life Advice Repository
by Gunnar_Zarncke — 2015-10-18T12:08:04.730Z

Looking thru the Repository Repository I can't find a nice category for a lot of real life or self help advice that has been posted here over time. Sure some belongs to the Boring Advice Repository but the following you surely wouldn't expect there:

Lets start with lukeprog's all-time favorite

How to Be Happy

What I Tell You Three Times Is True

Rational Romantic Relationships: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics

Lifestyle interventions to increase longevity

Optimal Exercise

A Map of Currently Available Life Extension Methods

How do I become a more interesting person?

What other real life advice would you like to see here?

There are also very good posts that might be relevant to a rationalists life but could also go into some Rationality Advice Repository - but then all of LW falls kind of into that category. Some examples:

AnnaSalamon's Checklist of Rationality Habits

Val's Proper posture for mental arts

Rationalist Judo, or Using the Availability Heuristic to Win

I see that I'm unable to draw a clear line on what falls into this category and thus suggest that specific rationality advice of 'this kind' be left out.
Survey Articles: A justification
by casebash — 2015-10-18T10:06:05.297Z

There seems to be a growing consensus among the community that while Less Wrong is great at improving epistemic rationality, it is rather lacking when it comes to resources for instrumental rationality. I've been thinking about how to address this. This can be very hard because many of the questions most important to instrumental rationality lack an objective answer and depend heavily on individual circumstance. Consider for example the question, "How do I become a more interesting person?", that is the first survey article I've published. One person might easily have the resources to go travelling and gain new experiences, while another person might be prevented by their financial situation. One person may enjoy the process of broadening their experience by reading, while another may simply detest books. Ignoring these individual circumstances will lead to much of the advice being unsuitable

It therefore seems that in a general resource, that is forced by its very nature to ignore individual circumstances, that the best response would be to gather together as many ideas as possible. It is hoped that each rationalist has the capacity to critically examine each suggestion that is proposed and reject those that would be counterproductive. This differs from a standard list article as, instead of limiting itself to an arbitrary number of ideas, or only using ideas thought of by the author, I have made a comprehensive list and taken ideas from different sources. Taking ideas from different sources is extremely important - a single person can only possess so much creativity. It also decreases the influence of the author's subjective point of view - I might never have said something myself, but I might be willing to include it in a list of ideas. Another problem with lists is that if they are wordy, they take a long time to read through, while if they are concise, they may be misunderstood. Summarising whilst linking to a source means that extra detail is available for those who need it.

One flaw is that the production of this lists will always be greatly subjective. I really like Mark Manson and am probably going to quote him a lot in these lists, but another person might love The Secret and quote it everywhere instead. Regardless of this subjectivity, if you think that a particular source lacks value, then you can choose to just ignore that source and just read the...
Survey Article: How do I become a more interesting person?
by casebash — 2015-10-18T10:04:29.135Z

This post surveys a number of different sources and opinions on how to be a more interesting person. This isn’t merely about improving yourself socially or making your interactions more enjoyable, but also about achieving your full potential as a human being. In this post, I mention specific activities, but it is important to choose activities that align with your personal interests as otherwise, you are much less likely to invest the time and effort required to master them.

Please read this article which explains the need that these survey articles fill.

Quora:

How do I become a more interesting person?

Moses Namkung argues being interesting is about being curious, “restlessly seeking out knowledge” and accumulating new experiences. He claims that they have “merged their personal interests with their work/main purpose in life” and pursue productive activities instead of just vegetating.

Kat Li suggests travelling, learning a language and experiencing foreign cultures. These will help you develop a new way of seeing the world. She notes that although it is good to have a wide variety of experiences, it is generally worthwhile to have at least one area in which you are a true expert, so that you have something that is unique.

Scott Danzig defines interesting as knowing something others don’t, being able to do something others can’t or something that is different. He further suggests that creating a sense of mystery by not revealing certain information can make you more interesting too.

How can you live an interesting life?

Leo Polovets suggests three rules. Firstly, to be willing to do things by yourself, instead of needing someone to come with you. Secondly, saying yes to as many opportunities as possible. Thirdly, to stop caring about what is normal or expected.

Emmet Meehan says that you should be different, but not different just for the sake of being different. He says that if you wear neon green shoe laces it should be because you want neon green shoe laces. He also suggests that something as simple as reading a new book or listening to a new radio station will make you more interesting.

Bud Hennekes explains that some of his best experiences have come from talking about strangers. He notes that if you surround yourself with interesting people you are more likely to end up being int...
Improving the Effectiveness of Effective Altruism Outreach
by Gleb_Tsipursky — 2015-10-18T03:38:19.549Z

Disclaimer: This post is mainly relevant to those who are interested in Effective Altruism

Introduction

As a Less Wronger and Effective Altruist who is skilled at marketing, education, and outreach, I think we can do a lot of good if we improve the effectiveness of Effective Altruism outreach. I am not talking about EA pitches in particular, although these are of course valuable in the right time and place, but more broadly issues of strategy. I am talking about making Effective Altruism outreach effective through relying on research-based strategies of effective outreach.

To be clear, I should say that I have been putting my money/efforts where my mouth is, and devoting a lot of my time and energy to a project, Intentional Insights, of spreading rationality and effective altruism to a broad audience, as I think I can do the most good through convincing others to do the most good, through their giving and through rational thinking. Over the last year, I devoted approximately 2400 hours and $33000 to this project. Here's what I found helpful in my own outreach efforts to non-EAs, and lots of these ideas also apply to my outreach regarding rationality more broadly.

Telling Stories

I found it quite helpful to focus much more on speaking to people's emotions rather than their cognition. Now, this was not intuitive to me. I'm much more motivated by data than the typical person, and I bet you are too. But I think we need to remember that we suffer from a typical mind fallacy, in that most EAs are much more data-driven than the typical person. Moreover, after we got into the EA movement, we forget how weird it looks from the outside - we suffer from the curse of knowledge.

Non-EAs usually give because of the pull of their heartstrings, not because of raw data on QALYs. Telling people emotional stories is a research-based strategy to pull at heartstrings. So I practice doing so, about the children saved from malaria, of the benefits people gained from GiveDirectly, and other benefits. Then, the non-analytically inclined people become open to the numbers and metrics. However, the story is what opens people up to the numbers and metrics. This story helps address the drowning child problem and similar challenges.

However, this is not sufficient if we want to get people into EA. Once they are open to the numbers and metrics through the story about a concrete and

...
Meetup : Washington, D.C.: Utilitarianism
by RobinZ — 2015-10-17T16:08:18.885Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Utilitarianism

WHEN:
18 October 2015 03:00:00PM (-0400)

WHERE:
National Portrait Gallery

Cross-posted from the mailing list. Meeting as always in the courtyard, gathering from 3:00 to 3:30 for hard start at 3:30.

We'll be meeting to talk about utilitarianism and ideas related to utilitarianism.

Side conversations are, as always, allowed and encouraged.

Upcoming meetups:

Oct. 25: Wise Sayings

Nov. 1: Fun & Games

Nov. 8: Book Swap

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington, D.C.: Utilitarianism
Meetup : San Francisco Meetup: Short Talks
by rocurley — 2015-10-17T04:19:54.556Z

Discussion article for the meetup : San Francisco Meetup: Short Talks

WHEN:
19 October 2015 06:15:00PM (-0700)

WHERE:
1597 Howard St. San Francisco, CA

We'll be meeting to give/listen to short talks. Planning isn't necessary: these are not expected to be polished.

I can be reached at 301-458-0764 if you need help getting in. As always, feel free to show up late.

Discussion article for the meetup : San Francisco Meetup: Short Talks
A Map of Currently Available Life Extension Methods 
by turchin — 2015-10-17T00:10:32.966Z

Extremely large payoff from life extension

We live in special period of time when radical life extension is not far. We just need to survive until the moment when all the necessary technologies will be created.

The positive scenario suggests it could happen by 2050 (plus or minus 20 years), when humanity will create an advanced and powerful AI, highly developed nanotechnologies and a cure for aging.

Many young people could reach the year 2050 without even doing anything special.

But for many other people an opportunity to extend their life for just 10-20 years is the key to achieving radical life extension (at least for a thousand of years, perhaps even more), because they will be able to survive until the creation of strong life extension technologies.

That is why even a slight life extension today means a potentially eternal prize. This map of the currently available life extension methods could help in it. The map contains a description of the initial stage of plan A from the “Personal Immortality Roadmap” (where plan B is cryonics, plan C – digital immortality and plan D – quantum immortality).

Brain is most important for life extension

The main idea of this map is that all efforts towards life extension must start from our brain, and in fact, they must finish there too.

First of all, you must have the will to conquer aging and death, and do it using scientific methods.

This is probably the most difficult part of the life extension journey. The vast majority of people simply don't think about life extension, while those who do care about it (usually when it's too late) use weak and non-scientific ways and methods; they simply don't understand that the prize of this game is not ten of healthy latter years, but almost eternal life.

Secondly, you need to develop or mobilize the qualities inside yourself which are necessary for simple, daily procedures, which can almost guarantee life extension by an average of 10-20 years. e.g. avoiding smoking and alcohol consumption, daily mobility, daily intake of medicines and dietary supplements.

Most people find it incredibly difficult to perform simple actions on a permanent basis, for example even taking one pill every day for a year would be too much for most people. Not to mention quitting smoking or regular health check-ups.

A human who has the motivation to extend his l...
New LW Meetup: Turku
by FrankAdamek — 2015-10-16T16:11:47.215Z

This summary was posted to LW Main on October 9th. The following week's summary is here.

New meetups (or meetups with a hiatus of more than a year) are happening in:

Lund: 19 October 2015 06:00PM
Stockholm: 15 October 2015 03:00PM
Suzhou Meet-up: 28 October 2015 07:35PM
Turku Meetup - Critique towards Less Wrong and MIRI: 10 October 2015 04:00PM

Irregularly scheduled Less Wrong meetups are taking place in:

Hamburg 2015 Q4: 16 October 2015 07:00PM
San Antonio Meetup - Discussion: 11 October 2015 12:30PM
Sao Paulo: 10 October 2015 02:00PM
Scotland October Meetup: 11 October 2015 02:00PM

The remaining meetups take place in cities with regular scheduling, but involve a change in time or location, special meeting content, or simply a helpful reminder about the meetup:

NH Meet-up: 13 October 2015 07:00PM
Tel Aviv: Hardware Verification and FAI: 28 October 2015 12:59AM
Tel Aviv: Black Holes after Jacob Bekenstein: 24 November 2015 08:00AM
Vienna: 17 October 2015 03:00PM
Vienna: 21 November 2015 04:00PM
[Vienna] Five Worlds Collide - Vienna: 04 December 2015 08:00PM
Washington, D.C.: Fun & Games: 11 October 2015 03:00PM

Locations with regularly scheduled meetups: Austin, Berkeley, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Buffalo, Cambridge UK, Canberra, Columbus, Denver, London, Madison WI, Melbourne, Moscow, Mountain View, New Hampshire, New York, Philadelphia, Research Triangle NC, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, Vienna, Washington DC, and West Los Angeles. There's also a 24/7 online study hall for coworking LWers and a Slack channel for daily discussion and online meetups on Sunday night US time.

If you'd like to talk with other LW-ers face to face, and there is no meetup in your area, consider starting your own meetup; it's easy (more resources here). Check one out, stretch your rationality skills, build community, and have fun!

In addition to the handy sidebar of upcoming meetups, a meetup overview is posted on the front page every Friday. These are an attempt to collect information on all the meetups happening in upcoming weeks. The best way to get your meetup featured is still to use the Add New Meetup feature, but you'll also have the benefit of having your meetup mentioned in a weekly overview. These overview posts are moved to the discussion section when the new post goes up.

Please note that for you...