eyudkowsky

You win the thread.

Thou art looking too hard for logical fallacies. "Pretty much universally" is pretty much clear.

So basically... we live in Europe, right?

If you're going to spend money on your blog's design eventually, you should do it sooner rather than later.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis not taken all that seriously any more

Apologies for not noting this. Frankly I don't even notice NSFW ads any more.

It's both. You're told you own the item, then suddenly that you don't own it any more.

Oh, that was subtle.

One path to becoming a genius is to be as smart as an adult at age 14, then grow around as much between 14 and 24 as most people do.

There is such a thing as personal variance, you know. The fundamental attribution error kicks in when you're trying to judge by single events. If you observe someone for a year, it's a lot more reasonable to expect them to be much the same next year. I would agree with the statement "people are oddly consistent", it's just that it's not so easy to judge from single events, and when we do judge we're likely to miss consistent background causes or consistent reactions, and think in terms of consistent personal attributes.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when I meet someone who actually improves over time in any visible way. I don't go around expecting it.

You over 39?

My understanding is that the per-minute risk of car travel and plane travel are roughly equivalent. Per mile, of course, planes are a heck of a lot safer. But if you wear your seatbelt in your car, you should be willing to sit at the back of a plane, right?

Only one-way interaction between different selves? And you call this time travel.

The Conspiracy

If you feel like not dying, I would suggest signing up for cryonics with Alcor or another reputable provider.

Otherwise, frankly, quit whining. It's not like there are no alternatives to death.

I met my mate on the Internet, but not on a dating site. There's a large difference!

The Simulation Argument is not that we are living in a computer simulation. It is that you must reject at least one of the 3 propositions:

(1) we are not living in a computer simulation

(2) the human species will give rise to descendants that have the power to run lots of simulations

(3) at least a few of them will run ancestor simulations.

Which of these three do you think is untrue? Alternatively you could reject the Simulation Argument that says the three propositions are mutually incompatible - but if so, how?

What a gyp! This page doesn't tell me any ways to kill my users.

I can't do creative work without air conditioning. Sad but true.

Why, what's wrong with OpenTable?

Simple, useful, congrats.

Run. This doesn't sound like a situation that's going to get better over time.

Thanks!

Clearly, they don't make bandits like they used to.

Where is this website?

Microsoft doesn't have much of a choice if they ever want to challenge Google - they have to buy whatever they're offered in this space.

Godel Escher Bach

The Moral Animal

Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases

Language in Thought and Action

Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

The Adapted Mind

Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

The Tao is Silent

Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition

Dvorak solved this for me permanently.

Founding a nonprofit.

No.