Are 3 ways to pick: FREE - person/orgs make own picks, VOTE - pick together (direct or via reps), & RULER - authorities pick, keep job for life, pick successors.
Next 8 polls show 4 types of choices. Pick type where it makes most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE.
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
For which choice type does it make most sense to pick via RULER, instead of FREE or VOTE?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The most popular explanation I see of UFOs/UAPs is that personal testimony just can't be trusted, and if you ignore that you always find a mundane way to explain all videos, etc. Yet we trust personal testimony in courts all the time; should we stop doing that?
Yes of course non-testimony evidence also matters a lot in courts, but the testimony often makes a big difference to the final verdict. But they why not let that also make a big difference re UFOs/UAPs?
Roughly one in a thousand people are murdered, and maybe a thousand people who might have done it. The prior in UFOs/UAPs cases can't be much less than in murder accusations.
In order to promote diversity, cut homogenization, & get better data, we could, some % of the time, randomly replace winners with losers or with random candidates. In the next 14 polls, say what random % of time to make such replacements in each case.
In elections, what % of the time should the candidate who got the fewest votes be the one who takes office?
When employers rank candidates for a job, what % of the time should they have to hire their worse ranked candidate?
Why don't old retired people do more drugs than young people? After all, the risks of physical harm and social unreliability or shame seems less for them. Are the potential gains from feeling good smaller by an even larger ratio?
“most popular functions for use were using to: relax (96.7%), become intoxicated (96.4%), keep awake at night while socializing (95.9%), enhance an activity (88.5%) and alleviate depressed mood (86.8%)” academic.oup.com/her/article/16…
After working in tech in Silicon Valley for 9 yrs (’84-’93), I went into academic econ. I figured that when tech folks sought out econ academics, my tech background would give me advantage. But it hasn’t turned out that way, & someone recently explained why to me.
Tech was once not that respected, & mostly full of nerds who were just way into tech. But then tech rose in status & income, & was invaded by top school kids seeking such things, who took over the top slots. These new kids didn’t much respect older tech folks from wrong schools.
They cared less about your tech experience than your status symbols. So these new young top school tech folks put a big premium on youth and top school status, of which I had neither. End of story.
"understanding the brain … little … to do with … computing power, because brain function doesn’t …resemble any form of … computation we know of. … we don’t even know what kind of computer the brain is yet, much less how to approach emulating it" au.rollingstone.com/culture/cultur…
Come on. We know that what brains do is take signals in, send signals out, based on cells sending signals to each other. So w/ detailed brain scans & models of cell-to-cell signaling, we can emulate a brain, without needing to understand higher level algorithms.
By "cell-to-cell signaling" I mean models of how each brain cell type takes signals in, changes internal state, and then sends signals out.
US govt is slated to issue a report on UFO stuff in about a month. What concretely could we bet on re that report? I expect it will add support to the idea that UFOs are real and weird, but how exactly could we bet on that?
This is to be a report on what has been seen, not on abstract theories to explain it. So there's no point in betting on what it will say on abstract explanations.
I take it as obvious that one can get much higher leverage from beliefs on an event by constructing specific bets tailored to it, rather than searching for existing financial assets that might correlated to some small degree.