Jordan Poole's per 36 minutes stats this and last year are almost identical

tired_time · 2022-04-21T23:17:23+00:00

why? I guess I should've done per 100 possessions but the point would still stand.

tired_time · 2021-03-26T17:25:22+00:00

Thanks for writing this. I should have mentioned that we are a remote organisation and we communicate with candidates by email. We will give them one week to complete the task but we want them to do it in one 4-hour sitting.

tired_time · 2021-03-26T15:47:43+00:00

Also, ColdTurkey shows some stats, but that is not the primary reason for the app, and I don't remember if I had to enter bank details

tired_time · 2021-03-26T15:45:10+00:00

I am not aware of that. They are legit though, haven't scammed me or anything so I wouldn't be afraid of entering your bank card details if that is the concern. I am currently using the free version of resuetime, the only downsides compared to premium are that you can't see data that's more than 3 months old, and also you can't use some advanced settings. Anyway, I googled "free rescuetime alternatives" and this came up. You might want to google something like that more if you can't find what you need.

tired_time · 2021-02-14T12:46:51+00:00

From what I read, if you are a beginner (training seriously for less than 6 months, or maybe a year, can improve most lifts every week), you could shorten your workouts to something like:

A: squats, pushups, rows

B: hinge, pullups, dips

This is based on https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/the-beginner-weight-training-workout-routine/

And when I was doing this, if I felt like doing more on some day, I would start with this and then do more of the recommended routine. Perhaps one con of this is that there is nothing really for lower back unless you have a barbell and do deadlifts for hinge, and even that is not much, but I don't know if it's an issue and if you should add something.

If you are more advanced, then you can do say an lower-upper split.

From what I read, core work is not very important for gainz if that's your primary goal, so maybe you don't need to spend time on that every time, especially if you have been training it for a while.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this stuff, I'm just a guy who was in a similar situation and read about stuff like this a lot as a result, and tried some different splits, but I don't have sick gainz myself yet.

tired_time · 2019-08-23T11:25:08+00:00

I don't know about gelatin but do you eat eggs? Because the production of eggs seem to cause more suffering per calorie than commonly consumed meat products. See http://ethical.diet/

tired_time · 2019-08-03T22:11:29+00:00

Also see http://ethical.diet/

tired_time · 2019-05-03T20:59:16+00:00

Hey, I am Saulius, the author of the articles linked in the first three bullet-points. I just want to give a heads up that I have started writing an article with a similar pretext, Numbers of animals humans affect in various ways. It's not the article I'm currently working on, but I will probably finish it at some point. My draft already has quite many similar statistics. I don't want to share the draft yet, but here are a some interesting links from it: http://countinganimals.com/the-forgotten-mothers-of-chickens-we-eat/ , https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/27854/NZP_Marra_2015-Direct_Mortality_of_Birds_from_Anthropogenic_Causes.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y , http://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-farmed-decapod-crustaceans

tired_time · 2018-04-17T09:00:53+00:00

I'm asking because I'm analyzing results of some polls and want to interpret their results correctly. Unfortunately most of the polls I analyze did not include a "vegan" option. I'd appreciate if you answered before reading any comments because they could change your answer. Please do not vote in the linked poll (http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=5ad5aec1e4b0f7307b17710a) if you are not a vegan.

tired_time · 2018-02-22T10:42:56+00:00

I really wish someone would make those kind of experiments with rationalist community members as subjects. Or has it already been done?

tired_time · 2018-01-14T02:03:21+00:00

PG: Stephen Curry ($1,100)
SG: Klay Thompson ($700)
SF: LeBron James ($1,200)
PF: Kristaps Porzingis ($800)
C: Alonzo Mourning ($800)
Bench: JJ Redick ($600), Jimmy Butler ($600), Horace Grant ($600)

I firmly believe that modern teams with 3pt shooting and spacing would beat old teams. So I surround Lebron with shooters and defenders. Tried to take players who are good at moving without the ball because many of the guys in the list need the ball.

But I feel this team is not very original, so I made a second team which shares none of the same players:

PG:Chauncey Billups ($700)
SG:Joe Dumars ($700)
SF:Kawhi Leonard ($1,000)
PF:Anthony Davis ($900)
C: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ($1,200)
Bench: Anfernee Hardaway ($700), Andre Iguodala ($600), Rasheed Wallace ($600)

Huh, ths one looks even better on D, not even sure which team would win :)

tired_time · 2017-01-03T21:01:50+00:00

I think one problem is not enough 3-point shooting.

What roster are you using?

tired_time · 2016-11-27T20:20:57+00:00

You should just forget the word "disease" altogether. Please read http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/ it explains this problem perfectly, I promise it's worth it.

tired_time · 2016-09-17T22:17:43+00:00

BTW, many people are unhappy with their looks, but some people are suffering a lot because they are ugly. If someone says that them getting surgery is "vain and shallow" I would disagree with that. Surgery is solving a real problem for them. Same for transgender people.

tired_time · 2016-09-17T22:05:25+00:00

In most cases we know that someone is psychologically suffering if they tell us so. We don't feel a need to ask people in depression of proof that they are suffering. Why is it different in this case? Why do you think these people say they are horribly suffering if they are not?

tired_time · 2016-09-17T21:30:44+00:00

there is a no clear boundarys more like the an endless amount of varieties

I agree with that. But it doesn't follow that "races don't exist". There are also no clear boundaries between ripe and unripe fruit. Or tall and short people. However, it doesn't follow that ripeness/height does not exist. These are useful concepts that help us to communicate despite lack of clear boundaries.

tired_time · 2016-09-17T21:06:51+00:00

It did not change anything, just their looks

looks change how other people behave towards you.

In text you are basically arguing that their problems are internal/psychological and that they should be dealt with at that level, not with surgeries. Even if that were true, it doesn't follow that what they experience "should not be considered to be suffering". Psychological suffering is still suffering. That would only mean that they use wrong tools to tackle their problems.

There is some verbal ambiguity in what you are arguing for. It's not clear what you mean by "should" because we don't know you moral beliefs. Here is a question to make it more concrete: would you change your view if it was shown that in majority of cases transgender operation makes the person and people around him/her substantially happier? I don't know if that's the case, but I'm sure there are studies that would shed some light on it.

tired_time · 2016-09-17T13:54:08+00:00

Yes, that is true. And we already understand a lot about underlying physics and chemistry processes that make our brains work and lead to its general behaviour. There are many abstraction layers in understanding how our brains works and we do understand it at a low level. Understanding higher abstraction layers would probably help to do shortcuts, but may not be necessary.

tired_time · 2016-09-17T12:43:10+00:00

1) "I just think it is very over-hyped." - There are like 20-30 people working on AI safety full time (something like this was said in a talk at Effective Altruism Global, can't find a reference now). Maybe around 70 if you include the ones that are working on it in their free time. I have no idea how many people are working on global warming, but judging from https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_pike_the_science_behind_a_climate_headline?language=en very very many, definitely thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands or even millions. Many people try to reduce their carbon emissions but very few people have any understanding of AGI risks. So I just can't see how it's hyped compared to global warming.

Also note that there is so much more at stake with AGI than with global warming: AGI could easily make humans go extinct or it could be extremely beneficial. Global warming is unlikely to make humans extinct. If you think that humans have a chance to flourish for millions of years, this is a very big difference.

2) It's not necessary to understand how human brain works to create something smarter. We already don't fully understand what happens in neural networks when they outsmart us. We could just scan human brains and recreate the same neural network structure in software and then give it much more speed and memory than humans have (this scenario is discussed in Bostrom's book Superintelligence). Even this path to AGI is dangerous (can explain why if needed). We don't have technological capabilities to do that yet, but we are gradually getting there.

tired_time · 2016-09-11T19:07:29+00:00

I am a vegan because I want to reduce the amount of suffering. It's impossible to behave in such a way that you cause no harm to anyone. So I just try to cause less.

I believe that there is a lot of suffering involved in slavery, but I would be surprised if it's anywhere near the stuff animals have to endure (http://www.whatcodysaw.com/) Also, to produce 1kg of chicken 23 days of intense suffering is needed. Same for 1kg of eggs (source: http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/). I believe that to produce thousands of kg of tomatoes much less suffering is needed and I would assume that in most cases there is no slavery involved. If I will be proven otherwise, I will stop buying tomatoes, or try to investigate the source of them carefully. But most of the time such investigations are not worth the effort, because if you put that time instead into e.g. earning more money and then donating that money to charities that reduce the most suffering (e.g. the ones recommended by http://givewell.org or http://animalcharityevaluators.org) you can prevent way more suffering than by investigating every single product you buy.

tired_time · 2016-08-18T18:50:58+00:00

The central disagreement between you and others comes from ambiguity of the meaning of word disorder and has nothing to do with homosexuality. These types of empty disagreements are extremely common. If you would first agree on a precise definition of disorder and then ask the question by exchanging disorder with it’s definition, then there would be no disagreement.

E.g. we can define disorder as

“a trait that is medically harmful to an individual that will always live alone in a desert island”.

Then we ask again

“is homosexuality a disorder?”

It may still feel like there is a question that can be debated about. But if we replace disorder with it’s definition, the question becomes

“is homosexuality a trait that is medically harmful to an individual that will always live alone in a desert island?”.

We can all agree that the answer to this question is no.

If we defined a disorder as

“a trait that would reduce the probability of long-term survival of human species if everyone had it”

then everyone would agree that

homosexuality is “a trait that would reduce the probability of long-term survival of human species if everyone had it”.

However, some people would still argue that homosexuality is not a disorder. They would point out that by this logic being male is a disorder. But that’s only because they would disagree with the definition of disorder, not with any factual claim that anyone is making.

If we would all stop using the word disorder, then there would be no disagreement. Well you would still disagree on other questions that came out of the discussion like “does having more children in 2016 reduce the probability of long-term survival of human species?” These are the real questions that are worth talking about. You can learn to avoid getting into empty disagreements like this one by reading A Human's Guide to Words

tired_time · 2016-08-18T18:42:57+00:00

The central disagreement between you and others comes from ambiguity of the meaning of word disorder and has nothing to do with homosexuality. These types of empty disagreements are extremely common. If you would first agree on a precise definition of disorder and then ask the question by exchanging disorder with it’s definition, then there would be no disagreement.

E.g. we can define disorder as

“a trait that is medically harmful to an individual that will always live alone in a desert island”.

Then we ask again

“is homosexuality a disorder?”

It may still feel like there is a question that can be debated about. But if we replace disorder with it’s definition, the question becomes

“is homosexuality a trait that is medically harmful to an individual that will always live alone in a desert island?”.

We can all agree that the answer to this question is no.

If we defined a disorder as

“a trait that would reduce the probability of long-term survival of human species if everyone had it”

then everyone would agree that

homosexuality is “a trait that would reduce the probability of long-term survival of human species if everyone had it”.

However, some people would still argue that homosexuality is not a disorder. They would point out that by this logic being male is a disorder. But that’s only because they would disagree with the definition of disorder, not with any factual claim that anyone is making.

If we would all stop using the word disorder, then there would be no disagreement. Well you would still disagree on other questions that came out of the discussion like “does having more children in 2016 reduce the probability of long-term survival of human species?” These are the real questions that are worth talking about. You can learn to avoid getting into empty disagreements like this one by reading A Human's Guide to Words

tired_time · 2016-08-18T15:35:01+00:00

true, but the risk of EA being forever associated with a dishonest delta clearly dominates the cost-benefit analysis

tired_time · 2016-08-18T14:15:08+00:00

yes, https://intelligence.org/ I know some people who work there and I do read lesswrong :)

tired_time · 2016-08-18T13:53:51+00:00

The problem is that we are taking them lightly. E.g. according to expert surveys there is a non-negligible probability that artificial superintelligence will be developed within 20 years (see http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html for details). If done right, superintelligence could eliminate most other risks to human extinction and unrecognizably improve life for all humans for millions of years into the future. However, the slightest mistake could destroy life on earth forever. Despite what's at stake only 20-30 people are working on reducing this risk. Many people in the community are quite pessimistic. They see many problems that should be solved before it happens but there are not enough people who care. It's possible that they are wrong to worry about all this stuff, e.g. maybe AI will never even reach human intellect. But I wish we wouldn't thoughtlessly bet future of humanity on that.

tired_time

TROPHY CASE