Like, can I go to a doctor's office, and they'll set up a continuous blood draw or something, so that that I can see the adrenaline content of my blood graphed over time?
I would like to experiment with different breathing techniques, etc. and see if they have comparable impacts on adrenaline ratios.
I can do this with blood oxygen pretty easily, but not hormones, as far as I know.
So, is there going to be a better platform than twitter, filling basically twitter's niche ("a single global room, into which people post short-form content, with a one-way follower graph"), in the next 5-10 years?
It does seem like the thing twitter does is maybe pretty important, or at least valuable.
Also twitter is terrible. Mostly because of the humans populating twitter are terrible on twitter. But also because of more basic UX things like "navigating branching tweet conversations sucks."
Okay, so there's a thing that happened in the 20th centurry, which I'm not sure I understand economically. It seems a little broken window fallacy-ish.
Between 1900 and 1950, there's a big shift where a lot of lower class families move into the middle class. #EconQuestion
Accordingly, they have a lot more disposable income. And that boosts the economy.
This is a big boost for business who are able to absorb that disposable income.
This is the beginning of consumerism as we know it today.
Fair enough. More wealth means more wealth.
But there's an additional claim that is sometimes made, which is that a larger middle class, in particular, has a boosting effect on the economy, compared to the same amount of wealth distributed differently.
The way to learn history is to read a ton of history and to write about it.
The way to learn programming and computer science is to build things that you actually want to use.
The way to learn physics and economics is to read textbooks and do the exercises.
The way to learn math...
There's a fork in the way to learn math. One way to learn math is the applied route. Learn the math you need for other fields, in parallel to studying physics, economics, et cetera.
The other way is as pure, pure intellectual play, proving things for the fun of it.
I’ll publish my longer write up sometime. (The draft is mostly finished.)
To elucidate just a bit, the key-word in my sentence above is "TRAINING" not "RATIONALITY".
CFAR did lots of stuff that are legitimately related to rationality. What it did not do, in the time that I was there, is almost anything I would call "rationality training."
I worked for CFAR from 2016 to 2020, including designing and running the 2019 CFAR instructor training.
I only really came to really understand Bayes' rule in 2021 (by studying the Arbital guide, and inventing exercises to do).
Before that, I definitely could have given lip-service to the importance of Bayes, but could not have written the formula from memory, much less derived it from simple ideas of conjunctive probability and "zooming in on the worlds that are still consistent with an observation."
Most of the time that I was at CFAR, I think this was true of more than half of CFAR staff: I think my level of probability theory knowledge was about median.
(I assume that most of the staff before 2016-2017 knew and understood Bayes?)