Change: "Which is to say: if X started in state X7" To: " Which is to say: if X started in state X7"
Hello readthesequences.com Team,
I hope this message finds you well. My name is Nick, and I am reaching out from ACR Solutions For Almost Anything At ACR Solutions, we specialize in providing top-tier telecommunications services. We are excited to introduce Net2Phone, a robust VoIP solution designed to enhance your business communication efficiency while reducing costs. Here’s why Net2Phone stands out: - Cost-effective international calling - High-quality, reliable connections - Easy integration with your existing systems - 24/7 customer support We would love the opportunity to discuss how Net2Phone can benefit your company. Please visit our website acrsolution.online to learn more, or book a free consultation with us.
Looking forward to connecting with you soon.
Best regards, Nick Owner ACR Solutions For Almost Anything acrsolution.online If you have any questions or need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me via contact form on website.
1108 rock ave apt 7 waupun wi 53963 to unsubscribe to future marketing please respond stop with you rdomain and any other domain for other buisnesses you may own...example (jamesfishtackle.com)
123
TestTag sus chungus amongus
There is a missed space before comma: "Avoiding cached thoughts, which will rush in using standard words,so you can block them by tabooing standard words;"
"And “winning” here need not come at the expense of others."
Then "winning" was the wrong choice of word.
It is good
Other ideas for entries: A: affect heuristic, akrasia, anthropics, artificial general intelligence, artificial intelligence, Aumann’s Agreement Theorem, availability heuristic, average utilitarianism, axon B: backward chaining, base rate, base rate neglect, Bayes net, Bayes’s Theorem, Bayes-structure, Bayesian, Bayesian probability, Bayesian reasoner, Bayesian reasoning, Bayesian statistics, Bayesianism, bit, black swan, Blue, Born rule C: calibration, capitalization, causal decision theory, cognitive bias, cognitive heuristic, cognitive science, collapse, complement, complex number, complexity, computation, conditional independence, confidence interval, configuration space, confirmation bias, consequentialism, conspiracy, cooperation, Copenhagen Interpretation, cosmological horizon, counterfactual, Cox’s Theorem, cryonics D: D-separation, dan, de novo, decibel, decoherence, deduction, Deep Blue, defection, deontology, dimension, directed acyclic graph, doublethink, dukkha, Dutch Book, dynamic, dysrationalia E: economies of scale, Egan’s Law, emergence, empiricism, epistemic rationality, epistemology, epsilon, eudaimonia, EURISKO, Everett branch, evidential decision theory, existential angst, existential risk, exponentiation F: factorization, falsificationism, Fermi Paradox, frequentism, Friendly AI, fun theory, fungibility, futurism, fuzzy G: g-factor, game theory, gene, General Relativity, gensym, Go, Green, grey goo, Gricean implication, group selection H: hindsight bias, holodeck, humility, hyper-real number I: induction, inductive bias, inefficient market, information theory, integer, instrumental, instrumental rationality, intelligence, intelligence explosion, intentionality, intuition pump, intuitionism, IRC, isomorphism J: joint probability K: koan, Kolmogorov complexity L: Laplace’s Rule of Succession, Less Wrong, likelihood ratio, LISP token, Litany of Gendlin, Litany of Tarski, log odds, logarithm, logic, lookup table M: machine code, Many Worlds Interpretation, marginal efficiency, marginal probability, marginal returns, market economy, Mind Projection Fallacy, modesty N: necessary condition, neural networks O: optimization, order of magnitude P: package deal fallacy, particle, Peano arithmetic, prediction market, probability mass, p-value R: real number, renormalization, reversible computer S: scalar factor, science, second-order, self-handicapping, solipsism, sufficient condition, superposition - RobbBB (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2015 (AEDT)
—from https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Talk:RAZ_Glossary
they will usually [+have] more reason
- icecream17 (17 Jan 2023)
Fixed! —Said Achmiz March 12, 2023, at 10:45 PM
faith in crisis is faith as is.
Space: Fascinating
I see nothing wrong with hitting explain over and over, with not end in sight. Each step is progress, because it gives deeper understanding and knowledge. Even if there is no final dialog box, I will still keep hitting explain. If the knowledge gained doesn't seem to be worth the effort, I will ignore it for now, until I have better methods available.
What does insulting Wulky mean in this context? And how does his status as a neo-utopian affect the probability of him being a crime boss (this part is a joke)?
"4.5 × 10−31 m/s2" should end in "...s^2" or the nicely typeset equivalent.
Fixed, thanks! —Said Achmiz January 11, 2020, at 07:04 PM
A Taxonomy for the “Abuse of Definition” Zoo
I wrote of this before. This kind of arguing tactic is like abuse of notation in the name of being more precise, but instead of stopping strategic equivocation, you shut down all meaningful communication. Time to get precise about the different kinds and how to recognise them.
Stealing Words
I talk about love and you ask me to define what I mean by “love”. You give your own, reductive definition for ”love”. I cannot say “love“ any more, because now it doesn’t mean what I want to say.
Don’t play games with me, I say. You ask me to define “game”. Unfortunately, I don’t have either of Homo Ludens by Johan Huizinga or Games People Play by Eric Berne handy, so I look it up in an encyclopedia, and only find definitions from sports, board games, logic (game semantics) and strategic game theory. I cannot say “game“ any more, because now it doesn’t mean what I want to say.
Too Many Small Concepts
I talk about feelings, and you ask me to distinguish between “affects”, “moods”, “qualia”, “emotions” and “sensory stimuli”. I throw my copy of Descartes’ Error at your face. This level of distinction doesn’t even make sense. Emotions cause body states, which cause sensory stimuli, which all together cause feelings.
I talk about the probability of rain tomorrow, and you ask me if this a “subjective probability”, “frequentist probability”, or a “propensity”. The math would be the same. The expected utility of carrying an umbrella is high.
I talk about what is good, or what is right, and you ask me to distinguish between “ethics”, “morals” and “utility”. For the rest of the conversation, I have to use a phrase like “moral AND ethical“ and I sound like Sam Harris.
I say I love you, and you ask me to decide between “storge“, “philia“, “amor“ and “agape“. Something got lost in translation here.
Loading Definitions
You tell me about toxic masculinity. You tell me that “toxic masculinity” is always bad. I ask about certain positive masculine traits. You tell me that these traits are not “toxic masculinity“. You explain that “toxic masculinity” is bad by definition.
Tunnel-Vision Prescriptivism
I want to talk about common ideas of “politics“. Not about politics, but about what people commonly mean or understand when they say “politics”. You ask me to define “politics”. That’s not my point at all. You give a definition of “politics”. Is that what other people understand when you say “politics“, I ask. Who cares what clueless people think about politics, you counter.
Making Words Unwieldly
You introduce a bunch of phrases like “being-in-itself“, “the feeling of emotion“, “sex-worker-excluding radical feminist” and insist I be precise and always use the long form.
(from https://the-grey-tribe.tumblr.com/post/173889994273/a-taxonomy-for-the-abuse-of-definition-zoo )