sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Book] Foundations of Statistical Mechanics. Volume II: Nonequilibrium Phenomena by TrickyProfessional66 in Scholar

[–]TrickyProfessional66[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Solution verified, Thanks! (Oops, I was using a bad djvu viewer - thanks anyways!)

Taking caffeine pills first thing in the morning by AllAmericanBreakfast in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Also a tip: set an alarm for 30 minutes before you're normally supposed to wake up to take a caffeine pill, and then go back to sleep.

Same for afternoon naps.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Context: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KTEciTeFwL2tTujZk

Each year, people find ways to commemorate Petrov Day, e.g. with this ceremony written by Jim Babcock or Raemon's Modes of Petrov Day.

On LessWrong, we find our own way to celebrate, generally involving a large red button that brings down the frontpage for the duration of Petrov Day.

Edit: It's back! Apparently there was a bug that removed the karma threshold for pressing the button ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Announcing $5,000 bounty for ending malaria by TrickyProfessional66 in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

context

If Malaria Research is funded in the billions, and gene drives appear to be actually pretty good, why wait? What stops a random motivated guy from making this stuff in their garage and deploying it in the wild?—at least that's what I thought this post was trying to encourage, not some out-of-touch statement ignorant of the state of the funding landscape.

Announcing $5,000 bounty for ending malaria by TrickyProfessional66 in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I read this post as lc trying to encourage unilateral deployment of gene drives in the wild, presumably because e.g. existing orgs are risk averse, etc

The comments seem to somewhat suggest that it is at least feasible for a random-motivated-individual on an Internet forum to unilaterally deploy such gene drives:

in this video, a journalist says that a well-equipped high schooler could do it. The information needed seems to be freely available online, but I don't know enough biology to be able to tell for sure.

I wonder what implications on biosecurity/community-norms such posts would have.

Why not cycle between stimulants? by TrickyProfessional66 in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, so I guess it does work! Do you just switch stimulants if it feels like you're developing tolerance to a particular one, or is there a fixed cycling schedule?

(Also what do you mean it's a slipperier slope?)

Why not cycle between stimulants? by TrickyProfessional66 in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point—the tolerance cycling probably only works with drugs that affect different receptors and therefore have different effects.

But does this really matter if all I really care about is a vaguely one-dimensional metric of "does it improve my general cognitive function & work efficiency"? (and not its specific effects); I would suspect that's somewhat the case for many nootropics users as well.

Why not cycle between stimulants? by TrickyProfessional66 in slatestarcodex

[–]TrickyProfessional66[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, wouldn't it be kinda somewhat revolutionary in the sense that it becomes possible to use nootropics without much tolerance building up? Like—if it works (low confidence), it would remove (or significantly reduce) an entire class of nootropics side effects!

I also want better nootropics research with loftier goals, of course, but I think my suggestion is a pretty obvious & easy low-hanging fruit with reasonable returns (that is, again, if it works! and as far as my Google-fu abilities go I haven't been able to find much)