How does this pass as science?? There is no actual data on people. They simulated from a multivariate normal and then reported the frequency of observations where all three dimensions were one or more standard deviations above the mean. This has no bearing on the actual number of exceptional people, the results follow only from the assumed correlations and the assumption of normality (which is probably wrong).
Readit Newsmonkeyjoe commented on The number of exceptional people: Fewer than 85 per 1M across key traits sciencedirect.com/science... · Posted by u/paulpauper
I think there is hidden gold in the linked research paper. In the second to last paragraph, it says if you are willing to discard the trivial partition (each point on its own) from Richness, then you *can* have Scale-Invariance and Refinement-Consistency as well. To me this suggests an optimal (in some sense) class of algorithms, perhaps to be chosen from based on computational complexity, cross-validation, etc.
monkeyjoe commented on Show HN: How did your computer reach my server? how-did-i-get-here.net/... · Posted by u/archmaster
On my device, there are no intermediate steps shown between my device and the server. Just FYI.
monkeyjoe commented on We're not Platonists, we've just learned the bitter lesson astralcodexten.substack.c... · Posted by u/Michelangelo11
I think it's an important unanswered question whether intelligence really is the bottleneck for many of the things that require it. Is the production of better and better computer chips really bottlenecked by the intellect of the designers, or by simulation software and the back and forth between design and the physical process of prototyping and testing?
And if intelligence is not the bottleneck... well... is superintelligence actually worth as much as we think it is? Is human intellect the apex of what biological systems can do, or is it merely the point past which intelligence stops being the bottleneck and the returns of higher intelligence drop off dramatically?
I think this is a really interesting take.
I think having a language that helps understand those limitations is a useful achievement. Much of mathematics does have that. A notable exception is the definition of real numbers. They are usually presented as a string of infinite decimals, or a converging sequence, or a set of numbers less than something. All of those notions obscure the basic limitation of knowing the real number and give a veneer of similarity to rational number. Rational numbers are numbers that we can have in our hand while irrational numbers are ones which we can never have. It is important to have a setup that respects that difference.
This is what motivated me to come up with a new definition of real numbers, namely, they are objects (I call them oracles) that answer Yes or No when asked if the number ought to be between two given rational numbers. Abstracting out what properties such an object should have, one can come up with a space of these oracles, define an arithmetic, and prove that they satisfy the axioms of real numbers.
For details: https://github.com/jostylr/Reals-as-Oracles/
In many ways, this is giving a definitional support to the use of interval analysis which is, of course, a very practical concern. It also brings our some cool stuff about mediants and continued fractions (nothing new about that, but nicely motivated).
It also fits in with the adjacent post about busy beaver numbers and its conclusion about knowing a number is in an interval.
> Rational numbers are numbers that we can have in our hand while irrational numbers are ones which we can never have. It is important to have a setup that respects that difference.
Do you mean physically? Basic shapes like circles, squares and triangles allow us to hold irrational numbers in our hands as distances. Children playing with blocks can sense that root 2 does not conform nicely with other (rational) distances.
monkeyjoe commented on Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions hbr.org/2019/03/stop-elim... · Posted by u/Anon84
Looks like I'd fail your pre-screen test. What's the "mathematical" solution if you're not allowed to convert strings to ints? Ascii math?
I think it just means taking the input as an integer and then separating out the “ones place”and “tens place” using integer division and modulo operator. E.g.,
ones = number % 10
tens = number // 10
do_print = (ones + tens) == 10monkeyjoe commented on Mobile phone calls linked with increased risk of high blood pressure escardio.org/The-ESC/Pres... · Posted by u/geox
> Anything that is less than double-blind is essentially a well documented hunch.
Not true! Economists have devoted person-millenia developing the theory of instrumental variables, which lets you extract causal relationships from historical non-experimental data.
That said, it's damn hard to find a good instrument. Many economists use it badly, and most doctors don't even know the theory.
Even subject level fixed effects would have made this a much better study. Doesn’t need to go all the way to IV to be a thoughtful design.
monkeyjoe commented on Mobile phone calls linked with increased risk of high blood pressure escardio.org/The-ESC/Pres... · Posted by u/geox
This study would be a lot more credible if they asked about cell phone use on follow up and then differenced everyone against their prior reporting, to determine if *changes* in cell phone use (and other control factors that might change over time) increased risk of hypertension. Still not perfect because of the long time lag to follow up, but much better. Either they didn’t know to do this or they did but then didn’t find the desired results… either way, not a good look.
If you need big data, the thing you are looking for is small and the effect size of what you are optimizing will also be small.
Very well put.
monkeyjoe commented on FCC Call Authentication Trust Anchor Final Rule (Jan 2022) regulations.gov/document/... · Posted by u/monkeyjoe
OP here.
I've seen much recent discussion on HN about robocalls not being resolved by the new STIR/SHAKEN protocol arising from the TRACED Act. I found this on https://regulations.gov and thought it would be of interest.
The big US providers have implemented the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework as of mid-2021 but there was a 2-year extension to mid-2023 for small providers. The implementation appears to have been ineffective at stopping robocalls because of origination via the exempt small providers. The FCC has now passed a rule that a subset of small providers (those most likely to be originating illegal robocalls) must be in compliance by mid-2022.
TLDR - if this works there should finally be a dropoff in robocalls this summer.