Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ancient-plagues During our recent discussion of climate change, someone linked me to this New York Magazine piece making the case for doomism. I disagree with it pretty intensely, but most of my complaints are already listed in the sidebar (some scientists also complained, so they had to add a lot of sidebar caveats in) and I don't want to belabor them. The section I find interesting is the one called Climate Plagues: There are now, trapped in Arctic ice, diseases that have not circulated in the air for millions of years — in some cases, since before humans were around to encounter them. Which means our immune systems would have no idea how to fight back when those prehistoric plagues emerge from the ice. The Arctic also stores terrifying bugs from more recent times. In Alaska, already, researchers have discovered remnants of the 1918 flu. They actually extracted it from the cadaver of a frozen woman. that infected as many as 500 million and killed as many as 100 million — about 5 percent of the world's population and almost six times as many as had died in the world war for which the pandemic served as a kind of gruesome capstone. As the BBC reported in May, scientists suspect smallpox and the bubonic plague are trapped in Siberian ice, too — an abridged history of devastating human sickness, left out like egg salad in the Arctic sun. Experts caution that many of these organisms won't actually survive the thaw and point to the fastidious lab conditions under which they have already reanimated several of them - the 32,000 year old "extremophile" bacteria revived in 2005, an 8 million-year-old bug brought back to life in 2007, the 3.5 million-year-old one that a Russian scientist self-injected just out of curiosity - to suggest that those are necessary conditions for the return of such ancient plagues. But already last year, a boy was killed and 20 others infected by anthrax released when retreating permafrost exposed the frozen carcass of a reindeer killed by the bacteria at least 75 years earlier; 2,000 present-day reindeer were infected too, carrying and spreading the disease beyond the tundra.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-3-can-unimproved [Lars Doucet won this year's Book Review Contest with his review of Henry George's Progress and Poverty. Since then, he's been researching Georgism in more depth, and wants to follow up with what he's learned. I'll be posting three of his Georgism essays here this week, and you can read his other work at Fortress Of Doors] Hi, my name's Lars Doucet (not Scott Alexander), and this is a guest post in an ongoing series that assesses the empirical basis for the economic philosophy of Georgism.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-2-can-landlords [Lars Doucet won this year's Book Review Contest with his review of Henry George's Progress and Poverty. Since then, he's been researching Georgism in more depth, and wants to follow up with what he's learned. I'll be posting three of his Georgism essays here this week, and you can read his other work at Fortress Of Doors] Hi, my name's Lars Doucet (not Scott Alexander), and this is a guest post in an ongoing series that assesses the empirical basis for the economic philosophy of Georgism. Part 0 - Book Review: Progress & Poverty Part I - Is Land Really a Big Deal? Part II - Can Land Value Tax be passed on to Tenants? 👈 (You are here) Part III - Can Unimproved Land Value be Accurately Assessed Separately from Buildings? There were a lot of great comments to Part I. Most zeroed in on the practical aspects of implementing Georgism, such as how to deal with what Gordon Tullock calls The Transitional Gains Trap. Others brought up various perceived political obstacles and a few other topics (yes, I know about zoning, which is also a big deal). With a few exceptions, I didn't see much pushback on the core thesis of Part I, that land is a really big deal. In fact, many of the strongest opponents of LVT seem opposed precisely because they agree that land is a big deal.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-really [Lars Doucet won this year's Book Review Contest with his review of Henry George's Progress and Poverty. Since then, he's been researching Georgism in more depth, and wants to follow up with what he's learned. I'll be posting three of his Georgism essays here this week, and you can read his other work at Fortress Of Doors] Hi, my name's Lars Doucet (not Scott Alexander) and this is a guest post in an ongoing series that assesses the empirical basis for the economic philosophy of Georgism. Part 0 - Book Review: Progress & Poverty Part I - Is Land Really a Big Deal? 👈 (You are here) Part II - Can Land Value Tax be Passed on to Tenants? Part III - Can Unimproved Land Value be Accurately Assessed Separately from Buildings? Extremely special thanks to Count Bla and Alexandra Elbakyan

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/diseasonality [epistemic status: conjecture and speculation in something that isn't really my field] I. It's still not totally clear why some diseases are seasonal. Seasonal diseases usually peak in late winter - so around January/February in the Northern Hemisphere and July/August in the Southern. Around the equator, which lacks seasons, they're less predictable and happen throughout the year. The best known seasonal diseases are flu and colds. But viral diarrhea and chickenpox also qualify, as do older mostly-eradicated diseases like measles and diphtheria. The seasonal flu (source) The novel coronavirus is probably seasonal-ish, although it's hard to tell since so much stuff keeps happening to make it better (vaccines) or worse (new variants). The most common theories for disease seasonality are: Pathogens like the cold Pathogens like low humidity People are cramped indoors during the winter People have low vitamin D during the winter, and vitamin D helps fight pathogens None of these are really satisfactory on their own. Cold and humidity are definitely important - scientists can make flu spread faster or slower in guinea pigs just by altering the temperature and humidity of their cages. But it can't just be cold and humidity. But if it was just cold, you would expect flu to track temperature instead of seasonality. Alaska is colder in the summer than Florida in the winter, so you might expect more summer flu in Alaska than winter flu in Florida. But Alaska and Florida both have lots of flu in the winter and little flu in the summer. (if it was just humidity, same argument, but change the place names to Arizona and Florida.)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/model-city-monday-12621 Tegucigalpa, Honduras The socialist opposition has won Honduras' election and pledges to fight against charter cities there. "Immediately upon assuming the presidency, we are going to send the National Congress an initiative for the repeal of the ZEDE law," incoming president Xiomara Castro said. This was what everyone was afraid of. But the last party tried pretty hard to protect ZEDEs from trigger-happy successors, and the constitution currently says that the only way to get rid of them is to win two consecutive 2/3 votes to do so, then give the existing projects ten years to wind down. Can the socialists get a 2/3 majority? Wikipedia predicts the incoming Honduran Congress will look like this:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-lifespan [epistemic status: non-expert review of a book on a highly technical subject, sorry. If you are involved in biochemistry or anti-aging, feel free to correct my mistakes] David Sinclair - Harvard professor, celebrity biologist, and author of Lifespan - thinks solving aging will be easy. "Aging is going to be remarkably easy to tackle. Easier than cancer" are his exact words, which is maybe less encouraging than he thinks. There are lots of ways that solving aging could be hard. What if humans worked like cars? To restore an old car, you need to fiddle with hundreds of little parts, individually fixing everything from engine parts to chipping paint. Fixing humans to such a standard would be way beyond current technology. Or what if the DNA damage theory of aging was true? This says that as cells divide (or experience normal wear and tear) they don't copy their DNA exactly correctly. As you grow older, more and more errors creep in, and your cells become worse and worse at their jobs. If this were true, there's not much to do either: you'd have to correct the DNA in every cell in the body (using what template? even if you'd saved a copy of your DNA from childhood, how do you get it into all 30 trillion cells?) This is another nonstarter.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mm-omicron-variant Noah Smith has a good summary of the Omicron evidence here, including a lot of quotes from experts. But experts say a lot of stuff like "well, it could be bad, but we can't be sure", plus sometimes they disagree. This is the kind of situation where prediction markets are useful, so let's look at them. (source: Metaculus) R0 is a measure of how quickly a disease spreads under certain ideal conditions. The original Wuhan strain was probably around 2.5, and the Delta variant was probably around 5. So if this number is higher than 5, it's more transmissible than Delta. The community prediction is 7.31, so Metaculus predicts it will be significantly more transmissible than Delta. (source: Metaculus) Metaculus didn't want to wade in to precise lethality statistics, so they just asked for a yes-or-no answer on whether it would be deadlier than Delta. Forecasters say there's a 34% chance it will be. The specific resolution criteria is if at least 3 of the first 4 studies find a statistically significant difference "favoring" Omicron. That feels pretty strict to me, so you should think of this as the probability that it will be really noticeably deadlier than Delta.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/14/the-virtue-of-silence/ Leah Libresco writes a couple of essays (1, 2) on an ethical dilemma reported in the New York Times. In the course of a confidential medical history, a doctor hears her patient is suffering from stress-related complaints after having sent an innocent man to prison. The doctor wants to know whether it is ethical to report the matter to the police. The Times' columnist says yes – it would save the poor prisoner. Leah says no – violating medical confidentiality creates an expectation that medical confidentiality will be violated in the future, thus dooming patients who are too afraid to talk about drug use or gay sex or other potentially embarrassing but important medical risk factors.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-november [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this. PS: Happy Thanksgiving!] 1: The story of Jeff Bezos' biological father, a former circus performer who didn't realize Jeff was his son until well into the 2010s. 2: New type of nominative determinism just dropped (source):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/pascalian-medicine I. When I reviewed Vitamin D, I said I was about 75% sure it didn't work against COVID. When I reviewed ivermectin, I said I was about 90% sure. Another way of looking at this is that I must think there's a 25% chance Vitamin D works, and a 10% chance ivermectin does. Both substances are generally safe with few side effects. So (as many commenters brought up) there's a Pascal's Wager like argument that someone with COVID should take both. The downside is some mild inconvenience and cost (both drugs together probably cost $20 for a week-long course). The upside is a well-below-50% but still pretty substantial probability that they could save my life. (Alexandros Marinos has also been thinking about this, and calls it Omura's Wager) We can go further. The same people behind ivmmeta.com have posted this "meta-analysis" of curcumin, a common spice and oft-mooted panacea: (source) I'm going to guess it's not true, because I've become pretty critical of these people's methodology since doing the ivermectin review. Also, curcumin is a PAIN (pan-assay interference compound, ie a substance with weird chemical properties that make every test seem positive, so if you do chemical tests to see whether it activates eg coronavirus-fighting immune cells, it will always say yes). This means people are always publishing exciting papers about it and alternative medicine people are always getting really enthusiastic about it and suggesting it as the cure for everything (eg depression).

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/higlights-from-the-comments-on-ivermectin Thanks to everyone who commented on my recent post Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted To Know. Let's start with the negative comments. Leading pro-ivermectin website ivmmeta.com understandably disagreed with my fisking of them. They have a section where they respond to critics (see responses to Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, to the BBC, to the parasitic worm hypothesis, and to someone named AT who they won't explain further). I was honored to also get a response here. They write: We note a few limitations and apparent biases in the SA/SSC ivermectin analysis. Author appears to be against all treatments, labeling them all "unorthodox" and "controversial", even those approved by western health authorities, including casirivimab/imdevimab, bamlanivimab, sotrovimab, and paxlovid. We encourage the author to at least direct readers to government approved treatments, for which there are several in the author's country, and many more in other countries (including ivermectin). While approved treatments in a specific country may not be as effective (or as inexpensive) as current evidence-based protocols combining multiple treatments, they are better than dismissing everything as "unorthodox". Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants — we need to embrace all safe and effective means.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the Andrew writes: One word I don't see mentioned anywhere is "manufacturing." It's one thing to make enough drug for a clinical trial, it's another to make millions of commercial doses reliably. FDA approval requires inspection of and confidence in these commercial-scale manufacturing processes. Zutano adds: To expand on this more: the clinical trials only show that *that one particular batch* was safe and efficacious (the FDA thinks this, since they agreed to terminate the trial early). Pfizer must then show that the commercial batches will be identical in every relevant way to the clinical trial batches, so that they will have the same safety and efficacy. What are the relevant ways? Pfizer must decide that, and justify their decisions to the FDA with supporting evidence. Scaling up chemical manufacturing is not trivial (a regular contender for Understatement of the Year). E.g. heating and stirring work differently in different sized reactors. Heat transfer in and out of your reactor works through surface area, but heat produced/consumed by the reaction depends on volume. If your stirrer design isn't right for the viscosity of the solution, you might get hotspots and so on. Ideally, the FDA expects you to understand the chemistry so thoroughly that you know everything that can possibly go wrong, and design your commercial process so that none of these things can possibly happen. The commercial batches will therefore be identical *by design* to the clinical trial batches, and you have to prove this with science.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-approve-paxlovid https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-approve-paxlovid I. You thought it wasn't going to be a prediction market post, but surprise, it's a prediction market post! Metaculus predicts January 1 as the median date for the FDA approving Paxlovid. They estimate a 92% chance it will get approved by March. For context: a recent study by Pfizer, the pharma company backing the drug, found Paxlovid decreased hospitalizations and deaths from COVID by a factor of ten

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-great Thanks to everyone who commented on last week's post Secrets Of The Great Families. Some highlights: Many people knew of interesting families I'd missed. Stephen Frug brings up the Jameses: Any short list of the great families (or at least the great American families) should include the James's: Henry James is one of the perennial candidates for the greatest American novelist, and his brother William James is one of the perennial candidates for the greatest American philosopher. Their sister Alice James got a posthumous reputation as a diarist. (There were two other brothers who never became famous. Their father, Henry James Sr., had some reputation as a theologian, although not in the Henry (Jr)/William James league. Kalimac writes: Another member of the Darwin family who achieved fame in a different area was the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams, who was on a slightly different branch but was 4 generations down from both Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood. Watch out, too, for other cases where the surnames differ. I like to offer the story of Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister and a leading figure in British politics in the 1920s and 30s. He had a particular ability to deliver powerful and effective speeches, which is perhaps partly explained by some of them having been written for him by his cousin, whose name was Rudyard Kipling.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted I know I'm two months late here. Everyone's already made up their mind and moved on to other things. But here's my pitch: this is one of the most carefully-pored-over scientific issues of our time. Dozens of teams published studies saying ivermectin definitely worked. Then most scientists concluded it didn't. What a great opportunity to exercise our study-analyzing muscles! To learn stuff about how science works which we can then apply to less well-traveled terrain! Sure, you read the articles saying that experts had concluded the studies were wrong. But did you really develop a gears-level understanding of what was going on? That's what we have a chance to get here! The Devil's Advocate Any deep dive into ivermectin has to start here:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-1115 Reciprocal Scoring, Part II I talked about this last week as a potential solution to the problem of long-term forecasting. Instead of waiting a century to see what happens, get a bunch of teams, and incentivize each to predict what the others will guess. If they all expect the others to strive for accuracy, then the stable Schelling point is the most accurate answer. Now there's a paper, by Karger, Monrad, Mellers, and Tetlock - Reciprocal Scoring: A Method For Forecasting Unanswerable Questions. They focus not just on long-run outcomes but on conditionals and counterfactuals. The paper starts with an argument against conditional prediction markets that I'd somehow missed before. Suppose you want to know whether a mask mandate will save lives during a pandemic. Current state of the art is to start two prediction markets: "conditional on there being a mask mandate, how many people will die?" and "conditional on there not being a mask mandate, how many people will die?" In this situation, this doesn't work! Governments are more likely to resort to mask mandates in worlds where the pandemic is very bad. So you should probably predict a higher number of deaths for the mandate condition. But then confused policy-makers will interpret your prediction market as evidence that a mask mandate will cost lives.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/apply-for-an-acx-grant What is ACX Grants? I want to give grants to good research and good projects with a minimum of paperwork. Like an NIH grant or something, only a lot less money and prestige. How is this different from Marginal Revolution's Fast Grants, Nadia Eghbal's Helium Grants, or EA Funds' grant rounds? Not different at all. It's total 100% plagiarism of them. I'm doing it anyway because I think it's a good idea, and I predict there are a lot of good people with good projects in this community who haven't heard about / participated in those, but who will participate when I do it. How much money are you giving out? ACX Grants proper will involve $250,000 of my own money, but I'm hoping to supplement with much more of other people's money, amount to be determined. See the sections on ACX Grants + and ACX Grants ++ below. Why do you have $250,000 to spend on grants? Unsolicited gifts from rich patrons, your generosity in subscribing to my Substack, and the second item here.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-orban Lyman Stone on Twitter: Twitter avatar for @lymanstonekyLyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 @lymanstoneky Here's the @slatestarcodex piece: astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-boo… Overall, I agree with a lot of his assessment of Orban. But I want to quibble on two points: 1) The relationship between dictatorship and democracy 2) "Why admire Orban?" Dictator Book Club: Orban...astralcodexten.substack.com November 5th 2021 7 Likes I won't make you read it all in tweet format. He continues: 1) Dictatorship and democracy. The arguments about Orban cheating in elections might be totally true. I dunno. But that's sort of irrelevant. Neutral opinion polls nobody disputes show he would have gotten 2/3 under almost any system. Image His crude poll share was about 60% before the 2010 election, but given the threshold effects, he'd likely have ended up at a supermajority under almost any system. And as @slatestarcodex [says], a lot of the initiatives that the EU most despises under Orban are initiatives that *everyone agrees* have supermajority public support among Hungarian voters. Moreover, I agree with @slatestarcodex that if public opinion turned in Hungary, Orban would probably turn on a dime too. The dude loves power. But that should inform our read of what's going on in Hungary. *Hungarians wanted* a right-nationalist authoritarian leader, *and so they voted for one*, and the electorate has *wanted* recurrent intensifications of that regime. So is it a dictatorship? Or is it a democracy? This gets at the problem with "democracy" as a concept. Hungary is undeniably Democratic: there is widespread public support for the regime, which is selected by elections, the results of which are a decent approximation of trustworthy and neutral opinion polls. But I think it's still possibly reasonable to call Orban a dictator. He wields enormous *personal* power, there are few checks on his power, and he uses power to create a *personal* clique of supporters to perpetuate that power and enfeeble the competition. But this is the point: Democracy and dictatorship aren't opposites. In fact, they are natural companions! So much so that before the 20th century, "democracy" was often used *literally as a synonym* for "authoritarian and demagogic rule"! Orban is a great example of why the word "democracy" came into ill repute in the past: because it was widely understood that "the people" (often pejoratively "the mob") will often vote for a strongman to stomp his boot on the face of disliked others. That's not so much a disagreement with @slatestarcodex as just a comment where I think the modern western liberal mindset obscures understanding the phenomenon of populist leadership. 2) Why admire Orban? Here I think @slatestarcodex misses some important stuff, perhaps because his biographies miss it. Yes, Orban was incompetent in the 90s. So were MOST immediate post-Soviet leaders! And while Orban may have been corrupt, you can compare the personal wealth of the Fidesz clique to the cliques that looted Russia or Ukraine and realize that Hungary got a better class of corrupt leaders than much of eastern Europe. Moreover, Hungary actually had competitive elections with changes of power and leaders who *respected* those results! Maybe they were dirty but, like, it happened! This wasn't universally true! So why might Hungarians admire a dissident-cum-parliamentarian who competed for their votes and when defeated responded democratically by adapting to try to win the next election? Because.... duh?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/secrets-of-the-great-families I. Let's talk impressive families. Aldous Huxley was an author most famous for Brave New World, though his other stuff is also great and underappreciated. His brother Julian Huxley founded UNESCO and the World Wildlife Fund, was secretary of the Zoological Society of London and president of the British Eugenics Society, and coined the terms "ethnic group", "cline", and "transhumanism". Their half-brother Andrew Huxley won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering how nerves work. Their grandfather was Thomas Huxley, one of the first and greatest advocates of evolution, and President of the Royal Society. Henri Poincare was a great mathematician, credited with pioneering chaos theory and topology. The Poincare Institute, Poincare Prize, and the Poincare Crater on the moon are all named after him. His cousin, Raymond Poincare, was president of France from 1913 to 1920. Raymond's brother, Lucien Poincare, was a distinguished physicist, and head of the University of Paris.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/model-city-monday-11821 Telosa, USA Bloomberg: The Diapers.com Guy Wants To Build A Utopian Megalopolis Marc Lore founded diapers.com, various other internet startups, served a stint as Wal-Mart's e-commerce director, and made a few billion dollars. Now he wants to start a city with a new vision of socially responsible democracy. Why move to this city instead of one of the many existing cities which are not in deserts and, you know, actually exist? Lore's pitch is that Telosa (working name) will be inclusive and sustainable by following a Georgist model: all the land will be held in a community-owned trust, and all profits will go to social services.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-book-club-orban (previously: Erdogan, Modi) I. Some are born great. Some achieve greatness. And some are Victor Orban's college roommates. Orban: Europe's New Strongman and Orbanland, my two sources for this installment of our Dictator Book Club, tell the story of a man who spent the last eleven years taking over Hungary and distributing it to guys he knew in college. Janos Ader, President of Hungary. Laszlo Kover, Speaker of the National Assembly. Joszef Szajer, drafter of the Hungarian constitution. All of them have something in common: they were Viktor Orban's college chums. Gabor Fodor, former Minister of Education, and Lajos Simicska, former media baron, were both literally his roommates. The rank order of how rich and powerful you are in today's Hungary, and the rank order of how close you sat to Viktor Orban in the cafeteria of Istvan Bibo College, are more similar than anyone has a right to expect. Our story begins on March 30 1988, when young Viktor Orban founded an extra-curricular society at his college called The Alliance Of Young Democrats (Hungarian abbreviation: FiDeSz). Thirty-seven students met in a college common room and agreed to start a youth organization. Orban's two roommates were there, along with a couple of other guys they knew. Orban gave the pitch: the Soviet Union was crumbling. A potential post-Soviet Hungary would need fresh blood, new politicians who could navigate the democratic environment. They could get in on the ground floor. It must have seemed kind of far-fetched. Orban was a hick from the very furthest reaches of Hicksville, the "tiny, wretched village of Alcsutdoboz". He grew up so poor that he would later describe "what an unforgettable experience it had been for him as a fifteen-year-old to use a bathroom for the first time, and to have warm water simply by turning on a tap". He was neither exceptionally bright nor exceptionally charismatic. Still, there was something about him. To call it "a competitive streak" would be an understatement. He loved fighting. The dirtier, the better. He had been kicked out of school after school for violent behavior as a child. As a teen, he'd gone into football, and despite having little natural talent he'd worked his way up to the semi-professional leagues through sheer practice and determination. During his mandatory military service, he'd beaten up one of his commanding officers. Throughout his life, people would keep underestimating how long, how dirty, and how intensely he was willing to fight for something he wanted. In the proverb "never mud-wrestle a pig, you'll both get dirty but the pig will like it", the pig is Viktor Orban. Those thirty-six college friends must have seen something in him. They gave him his loyalty, and he gave them their marching orders. The predicted Soviet collapse arrived faster than anybody expected, and after some really fast networking ("did you know I represent the youth, who are the future of this country?") Orban got invited to give a speech at a big ceremony marking the successful revolution, and he knocked it out of the park.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/non-cognitive-skills-for-educational Suppose you want to study the genetics of intelligence. You probably want a sample size in the six digits, and you can't make a six digit number of people sit down and take IQ tests. Also, whenever you say "genetics" and "intelligence" in the same sentence, an angry mob shows up at your door. One solution is to switch to a more popular / less stressful line of work, like Mafia snitch or al-Qaeda second-in-command. But another solution is to use educational attainment.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-11121 Keynesian Beauty Contests I have no source for this, someone told me about it at a meetup. Suppose you want to run a forecasting tournament on whether nuclear war will destroy civilization by 2100. But nobody cares how much money they have in eighty years, plus if civilization is destroyed you can't collect your winnings. There are lots of kludgey solutions to this, but one possibility is a Keynesian beauty contest. Get a lot of isolated teams, and make them predict what all the other teams will guess. Whoever gets closest to the average wins the prize. Let's start with the good: in theory, this does solve the problem. Presumably the easiest way for the teams to all guess the same is to converge on the "right" answer. In some sense, the definition of probability is what a smart person who knows a certain amount of information should estimate, so if you ask someone to predict what a person just as smart as you who has the same information as you will estimate, that's like asking for your probability.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/jhanas-and-the-dark-room-problem The Dark Room Problem in neuroscience goes something like this: suppose the brain is minimizing prediction error, or free energy, or whatever. You can minimize lots of things by sitting quietly in a dark room. Everything will be very, very predictable. So how come people do other things? The usual workaround is inbuilt biological drives, considered as "set points". You "predict" that you will be well-fed, so getting hungry registers as prediction error and brings you out of your dark room to eat. Et cetera. Andrés Gómez Emilsson recently shared a perspective I hadn't considered before, which is: actually, sitting quietly in a dark room is really great. The Buddha discussed states of extreme bliss attainable through meditation: Secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion (Samyutta Nikaya) I had always figured that "sensual pleasures" here meant things like sex. But I think maybe he just means stimuli, full stop. The meditator cuts themselves from all sensory stimuli, eg by meditating really hard on a single object like the breath and ignoring everything else, and as a result gets "rapture and happiness born of seclusion".

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/epistemic-minor-leagues [I'm traveling this week - here is an older essay I never previously got around to posting] Viral game designer Adrian Hon wrote an article about What Alternate Reality Games Can Teach Us About QAnon. It argues that people fall for QAnon because it gives them an interesting mystery. It's a place where new discoveries are always around the corner, where a few hours of research by an amateur like you can fill in one of the missing links between Joe Biden and the Lizard Pope. The thrill of QAnon isn't just learning that all your political opponents are secretly Satanists or Illuminati or whatever. It's the feeling that you have something to contribute to the great project of figuring out the secret structure of the world, and that other people in a shared community of knowledge-seeking will appreciate you for it. One place you could go from here is to talk about how QAnoners are the sort of people who are excluded from existing systems of knowledge production. They are never going to be Professors of Biology, and they know it. Their only hopes of being taken seriously as an Expert - a position our culture treats as the height of dignity - is to create a complete alternate system of knowledge, ungrounded in any previous system, where they can end up as an expert on the Lizard Papacy. This is sort of true. But it needs to acknowledge that even being included in existing systems of knowledge production isn't that great. You become a Biology PhD student, you spend ten years learning about fungal ribosomes, and probably there's still some guy in China who knows more than you and beats you to the one interesting thing about fungal ribosomes left to figure out, plus nobody cares about fungal ribosomes anyway. Meanwhile, the QAnon devotee has discovered five earth-shattering facts about the Lizard Papacy in the last two hours, including previously-unrecognized links to the Kennedys, World War I, and ancient Lemuria. I think Hon is right that this drive to discover secrets and add them to a shared community of knowledge-seekers could be a contributor to the QAnon phenomenon. Like I said, it's a good article.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/chilling-effects [Epistemic status: Extremely confused! Low confidence in all of this] I. On the recent global warming post, a commenter argued that at least fewer people would die of cold. I was prepared to dismiss this on the grounds that it couldn't possibly be enough people to matter, but, um: There are only about sixty million deaths per year total, so if this is true then almost 10% of all deaths are due to cold. That sounds…extremely untrue, right? You can find the source here (study, popular article). The study confirms that it is claiming that 8.52% of all deaths are cold-related (plus an additional ~1% heat-related). It separates the world into a grid of 0.5 degree x 0.5 degree squares. It uses a bunch of assumptions and interpolations to get a dataset of daily average temperatures and mortality rates for each square over ten years. Then it calculates a function of how mortality varies with respect

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-october [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Our World In Data - we are winning the war on oil spills: 2: @incunabula: "Cheese is one of the 5 things the Western book as we know it depends on. The other four are snails, Jesus, underwear and spectacles. If even one of these things was absent, the book you hold in your hand today would look completely different. I'll explain why…" 3: Mansana de la Discordia ("the block of discord") is a city block in Barcelona where four of the city's most famous architects built houses next to each other in clashing styles: It's also a pun on manzana de la Discordia, "Apple of Discord" 4: As late as the 1930s, most upper-middle-class American families had servants. By the end of World War II, almost nobody did. The transition was first felt as a supply-side issue - well-off people wanted servants as much as ever, but fewer and fewer people were willing to serve. Here's an article on the government commission set up to deal with the problem. I first saw this linked by somebody trying to tie it in to the current labor shortage. 5: Harvard Gazette reviews Stephen Pinker's new book on rationality. Someone sent this to me for the contrast with Secret Of Our Success - Pinker argues that hunter-gatherer tribes use critical thinking all the time, are skeptical of arguments from authority, and "owe their survival to a scientific mindset". I'd love to see a debate between Pinker and Henrich (or an explanation of why they feel like they're really on the same side and don't need to iron anything out). 6: It's hard to talk about IQ research without getting accused of something something Nazis. But here's a claim that actually, Nazis hated IQ research, worrying that it would "be an instrument of Jewry to fortify its hegemony" and outshine more properly Aryan values like "practical intelligence" and "character". Whenever someone tells you that they don't believe in IQ, consider calling them out on perpetuating discredited Nazi ideology.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-kids Ramparen writes: No one really does it because of climate change imo, that is just a neat excuse to avoid the responsibility and limitations that being a parent brings into your life Of course, this was immediately followed by some people (1, 2) saying they were seriously considering not having kids because of climate change, and this article had caused them to rethink their stance (you can find more further down). I don't want to pick on Ramperen in particular because a lot of people made this point. But I do want to pick on someone, so here goes. We talk about the Principle of Charity here a lot, and most of you are willing to grant it to right-wingers. If this was the post about how some people really do oppose abortion for moral reasons, and it's not just sexism - or how some people really do oppose immigration for cultural reasons, and it's not just racism - or anything along these lines, everyone would be on board. But I think this ethos of acknowledging that people can be honest and have principles, and not immediately jump to "they're making it up" cuts both ways. Some people are actually really concerned about global warming. Some people in the comments linked to a University of Bath survey in which 56% of young people said they thought "humanity is doomed" because of climate change. I haven't looked at the survey closely to see if the methodology was good or if this is a fair summary, and probably some of this is just mood affiliation - "'yes' is the side you're supposed to take if you're progressive, right?" But I think a lot of young people actually think the world is doomed. If you think the world is doomed - and that its death throes will be pretty horrible - that actually does sound like a good reason not to have children, doesn't it?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on-having-kids Please Don't Give Up On Having Kids Because Of Climate Change It will probably make things worse, and there are better ways to contribute 22 hr ago 119 904 I. A recent poll finds that 39% of young people "feel uncertain" about having children because of climate change. And sure, people say a lot of things on polls, but people seem to be talking about this more and more. For example, from NPR: Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many. He's at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a "small-family ethic" — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to "give them grandchildren." Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe. For years, people have lamented how bad things might get "for our grandchildren," but Rieder tells the students that future isn't so far off anymore. Or, from CNBC, Climate Change Is Making People Think Twice About Having Children:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-modern Thanks to everyone who commented on Whither Tartaria (currently 1079 comments). Many of you really like modern architecture, and many others of you really hate it. I appreciate most of you being able to accept disagreement on that and move on to the bigger question of why there's so much more of it now. The most interesting thing I got from the comments was Chaostician linking to Wikipedia's page on the Great Male Renunciation - men's fashion changing from ornate colorful clothing to dark suits. Wikipedia seems pretty convinced that this was because of egalitarianism norms: The Great Male Renunciation is the historical phenomenon at the end of the 18th century in which Western men stopped using brilliant or refined forms in their dress, which were left to women's clothing. Coined by psychoanalyst John Flügel in 1930, it is considered a major turning point in the history of clothing in which the men relinquished their claim to adornment and beauty. The Great Renunciation encouraged the establishment of the suit's monopoly on male dress codes at the beginning of the 19th century. The Great Male Renunciation began in the mid-18th century, inspired by the ideals of the The Enlightenment; clothing that signaled aristocratic status fell out of style in favor of functional, utilitarian garments. The newfound practicality of men's clothing also coincided with the articulation of the idea that men were rational and that women were frivolous and emotional.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-mindset I. You tried Carol Dweck's Growth Mindset, but the replication crisis crushed your faith. You tried Mike Cernovich's Gorilla Mindset, but your neighbors all took out restraining orders against you. And yet, without a mindset, what separates you from the beasts? Just in time, Julia Galef brings us The Scout Mindset (subtitle: "Why Some People See Things Clearly And Others Don't). Galef admits she's a little behind the curve on this one. Books on rationality and overcoming cognitive biases were big ten years ago (Thinking Fast And Slow, Predictably Irrational, The Black Swan, etc). Nowadays "smiling TED-talk-circuit celebrity wants to help you improve your thinking!" is more likely to elicit groans than breathless anticipation. And that isn't the least accurate description of Julia (you can watch her TED talk here). But Galef earned her celebrity status honestly, through long years of hard labor in the rationality mines. Back in ~2007, a bunch of people interested in biases and decision-making joined the "rationalist community" centered around the group blogs Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong. Around 2012, they mostly left to do different stuff. Some of them went into AI to try to save the world. Others went into effective altruism to try to revolutionize charity. Some, like me, got distracted and wrote a few thousand blog posts on whatever shiny things happened to catch their eyes. But a few stuck around and tried to complete the original project. They founded a group called the Center For Applied Rationality (aka "CFAR", yes, it's a pun) to try to figure out how to actually make people more rational in the real world.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/whither-tartaria Imagine a postapocalyptic world. Beside the ruined buildings of our own civilization - St. Peter's Basilica, the Taj Mahal, those really great Art Deco skyscrapers - dwell savages in mud huts. The savages see the buildings every day, but they never compose legends about how they were built by the gods in a lost golden age. No, they say they themselves could totally build things just as good or better. They just choose to build mud huts instead, because they're more stylish. This is the setup for my all-time favorite conspiracy theory, Tartaria. Its true believers say we are those savages. We live in the shadow of the Taj Mahal, Art Deco skyscrapers, etc. But our buildings look like this:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-september [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: My parents' and grandparents' generations had lots of weird rules about fashion like "never wear white after Labor Day". I'd always been baffled by this kind of stuff - why not? What would happen if you did? In 1922, someone wore a straw hat after official stop-wearing-straw-hats date September 15, leading to the week-long Straw Hat Riot in New York and several hospitalizations. 2: The Story Of Adrenochrome: QAnon believes that elites are addicted to adrenochrome, a drug synthesized from the glands of tortured children. Where did this theory come from? The short version is "Hunter S Thompson made it up for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". But read the long version for, among other things, explanations for why it shows up in Dune and A Clockwork Orange. 3: While the Aztecs were sacrificing prisoners to the gods, their neighbors in the Tlaxcala were "a republic ruled by an assembly of commoners and nobles". 4: Contra speculation, there is no link between knowledge of the Tuskegee experiment and black people's unwillingness to take the COVID vaccine.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lisbon-meetup-this-saturday When: Saturday, September 18th, 5 PM Where: guitars.record.caps, aka a suspiciously ordinary-looking tree in Parque da Pedra, Monsanto Park. Our intrepid organizer writes: "Spot the tall white guy in pink pants. There's an adjacent road with street parking, and a clearing at that point that opens onto a trail that leads to the park." Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. If you're somewhere other than Lisbon , check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-revolt-of-the-public I. Martin Gurri's The Revolt Of The Public is from 2014, which means you might as well read the Epic of Gilgamesh. It has a second-edition-update-chapter from 2017, which means it might as well be Beowulf. The book is about how social-media-connected masses are revolting against elites, but the revolt has moved forward so quickly that a lot of what Gurri considers wild speculation is now obvious fact. I picked up the book on its "accurately predicted the present moment" cred, but it predicted the present moment so accurately that it's barely worth reading anymore. It might as well just say "open your eyes and look around". In fact, I can't even really confirm whether it predicted anything accurately or not. Certainly everything it says is true. Anyone who wrote it in 2000 would have been a prophet. Anyone who wrote it in 2020 would have been stating the obvious. Was writing it in 2014 a boring chronicle of clear truths, or an achievement for the ages? I find my memories are insufficiently precise to be sure. It's like that thing where someone who warned about the coronavirus on March 1 2020 was a bold visionary, but someone who warned about it on March 20 was a conformist bandwagoner - except about the entire history of the 21st century so far. Maybe the best we can do with it is read it backwards, as an artifact of the era when the public was only ambiguously revolting, to see how the knowledge of the coming age arose and spread.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-modi-a-political-biography I. I have a friend who studied the history of fascism. She gets angry when people call Trump (or some other villain du jour) fascist. "Words have meanings! Fascism isn't just any right-winger you dislike!" Maybe she takes this a little too far; by a strict definition, she's not even sure Franco qualifies. Anyway, I mention this because she says Narendra Modi, the current prime minister of India, is absolutely, literally, a fascist. This is a strong claim, but Balakrishna Moonje helped found the precursor to Modi's party. He went on a fact-finding trip to fascist Italy, met Mussolini, decided he had the right idea, and told the Indian papers that he wanted to: "...imitate the youth movement of Germany and the Balilla and Fascist organisations of Italy. I think they are eminently suited for introduction in India, adapting them to suit the special conditions. I have been very much impressed by these movements and I have seen their activities with my own eyes in all details." So let's at least say this isn't the least fascist-inspired group around. It's not that there aren't extenuating circumstances. Indian independence movements of the time were fighting Britain, which made the fascist powers natural allies. And in 1934 when Moonje met Mussolini nobody had seen just how badly fascism could go. Still, not the sort of pedigree you want for your country's ruling party.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/washington-dc-meetup-this-saturday When: Saturday, September 11th, 5 PM Where: decent.search.hurls, aka the patio and lot around 1002 N St. NW. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. If you're somewhere other than DC, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-unbearable-semiheaviness-of-being I hear that Google tests prospective employees with weird vaguely-science-related riddles. If I were in charge of this, here's what I would ask: You're an American spy in Cuba. The CIA has gotten you a position refilling the water coolers in Castro's presidential palace, hoping you can poison him. But Castro's security is pretty good. Every time you enter the palace, they search you so exhaustively that you're sure you can't smuggle anything in. And you're sure you can't access any poisons within the palace. And every time he drinks water, Castro calls in a chemist to test it for any impurity first; the tests can detect any contaminant at any concentration. On the plus side, you're completely unsupervised within the palace, and have access to a kitchen with all the usual kitchen appliances. And the CIA has given you a time manipulation gizmo, so you can take literally as long as you want, even if it's thousands of years. How do you kill Castro? One answer: Start with an amount of water several thousand times Castro's usual daily consumption. Put it in the freezer until it's half frozen. Dump out the unfrozen half, melt the frozen half, then repeat this process with the meltwater. After some very large number of cycles, put the result in Castro's water cooler every day. He'll be dead within a year. The hydrogen in water is a combination of normal hydrogen (only a proton in the nucleus) and deuterium (a proton and neutron in the nucleus). These have slightly different chemical properties, so you can do various types of distillation to enrich for one or the other, including repeated freezing (realistically freezing works very slowly; our hypothetical spy would need an unrealistic amount of time, water, and patience). Normal water is about 99.9% H2O, 0.1% HDO, and negligible amounts of D2O. Water with more D2O than normal is called heavy water, water with more HDO than normal is called semiheavy water, and water with more H2O than normal (ie not even the usual tiny amounts of the other two constituents) is called light water.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/too-good-to-check-a-play-in-three I. Seen on Twitter: In case you find this hard to follow: ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that looked promising against COVID in early studies. Later it started looking less promising, and investigators found that a major supporting study was fraudulent. But by this point it had gotten popular among conspiracy theorists as a suppressed coronavirus cure that They Don't Want You To Know. The media has tried to spread the word that the scientific consensus remains skeptical. In the process, they may have gone a little overboard and portrayed it as the world's deadliest toxin that will definitely kill you and it will all somehow be Donald Trump's fault. It turned into the latest culture war issue, and now there's a whole discourse on (for example) how supposedly-sober fact-checkers keep calling it "a horse dewormer" (it is used to deworm horses, but it's also FDA-approved for humans, but lots of the people using it are buying the horse version), and probably this is hypocritical in some way. Enter the article above. A doctor named Jason McElyea apparently told local broadcaster KFOR that Oklahoma hospitals are "overwhelmed" with ivermectin poisoning cases, so much so that "gunshot victims" are "left waiting". Some of the world's biggest news outlets heard the story and ran with it. The tweet mentions the Rolling Stone version, but the same story, with the same doctor's testimony, got picked up by The Guardian, the BBC, Yahoo News, etc.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/new-york-meetup-this-monday When: Monday, 9/6. I'll be arriving at 5 PM but some other people might get there earlier, around 3. Where: swung.shape.shows, aka Teardrop Park in Lower Manhattan Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. The New York organizers have asked me to link their LW event page and their meetup group's Google Group for organizing future events. If you're somewhere other than New York, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/boston-meetup-this-sunday When: Sunday, 9/5, 5 PM Where: area.bricks.tribune, aka John F Kennedy Park in Cambridge, near the picnic tables. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'll be there on my meetups tour and hope to meet many of you. Some rationalist/EA leaders are focusing on Boston right now as a promising place to community-build. They're especially trying to expand the student groups at Harvard and MIT. If you live in Boston and/or attend either of those colleges, then - whether or not you can make it Sunday - consider giving them your name through this form so they can help get you connected. If you're somewhere other than Boston, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/long-covid-much-more-than-you-wanted Like everyone else, I'm trying to figure out how cautious I should be around COVID. It seems like the most important concern for young vaccinated people like myself is the risk of Long COVID symptoms, so I spent a while trying to figure out what those were. My basic conclusion is that everyone else is right, that news stories on this phenomenon seem remarkably good, and that there's not much we know for sure beyond the simple summary you've probably already heard. Insofar as anything surprised me, it was how bad the worst-case scenario would be. Here are some of the basic things I found: 1. Long COVID is probably a lot of different things, some of which are boring and obvious, others of which are still kind of mysterious. First, people with severe COVID that lands them in the ICU have long-lasting symptoms in multiple organ systems. This isn't surprising, and should be considered in the context of post-ICU syndrome. Basically, if anything makes you sick enough to land in the ICU, your body is going to be pretty scarred by the illness (and maybe also by the inevitable side effects of intensive care), and this will last a long time and cause many problems. EG if you're bedridden for many weeks, your muscles waste away, and then it takes a long time for them to recover and you feel weak and fragile until you do. Or if your lungs stop working and you need mechanical ventilation, your lungs might be pretty weak for a while, and other parts of your body might not get quite the amount of oxygen they're used to and might get damaged in a way that takes a long time to recover. There's a similar problem where if you are sufficiently old and frail, any illness will take you down a level of functioning and you might not be able to get up a level again. See for example this article discussing how about 1/5 of elderly flu patients have "persistent functional decline" and may never regain their pre-flu level of functioning. Second, even in young people with milder cases, COVID can sometimes cause lung damage. If you get lung damage, you'll have at least breathing problems, and maybe other problems. Your lungs will probably heal eventually, but some kinds of lung healing cause permanent scarring; this can present as shortness of breath on exertion, or become a problem later after other lung injuries.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/on-hreha-on-behavioral-economics Jason Hreha's article on The Death Of Behavioral Economics has been going around lately, after an experiment by behavioral econ guru Dan Ariely was discovered to be fraudulent. The article argues that this is the tip of the iceberg - looking back on the last few years of replication crisis, behavioral economics has been undermined almost to the point of irrelevance. The article itself mostly just urges behavioral economists to do better, which is always good advice for everyone. But as usual, it's the inflammatory title that's gone viral. I think a strong interpretation of behavioral economics as dead or debunked is unjustified. I. My medical school had final exams made of true-false questions, with an option to answer "don't know". They were scored like so: if you got it right, +1 point; wrong, -0.5 points; don't know, 0. You can easily confirm that it's always worth guessing even if you genuinely don't know the answer (+0.25 points on average instead of 0). On average people probably had to guess on ~30% of questions (don't ask; it's an Irish education system thing), so you could increase your test score 7.5% with the right strategy here. I knew all this, but it was still really hard to guess. I did it, but I had to fight my natural inclinations. And when I talked about this with friends - smart people, the sort of people who got into medical school! - none of them guessed, and no matter how much I argued with them they refused to start. The average medical student would sell their soul for 7.5% higher grades on standardized tests - but this was a step too far.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/berkeley-meetup-this-saturday When: Saturday, August 28, at 1 PM Where: deflection.jump.puppy, aka the lawn where West Circle meets Free Speech Bikeway near the UC Berkeley parking lot. Who: Anyone who wants. Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you're not "the typical SSC reader", even if you're worried people won't like you, etc. Also, me! I'm starting my meetups tour there. I'll be announcing the meetups on the tour (about 15 of them) on this blog a day or two before they happen. Sorry for the potential spam emails if none of them are relevant to you. If you're somewhere other than Berkeley, check the spreadsheet to find the closest meetup to you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-missing [Original article: Kids Can Recover From Missing Even A Lot Of School] I. Many commenters shared their own stories of missing lots of school and bouncing back from it. For example, Rachel E: I was unschooled until I was 15, I'm pursuing a PhD now. Catching up on the basics wasn't easy but only took a few months. There are still a bunch of random general knowledge things I don't know, but at most it's caused a moment of embarrassment in social situations (e.g., when I genuinely thought dinosaurs were mythical creatures). BUT I was motivated to catch up, which I think makes a big difference. I'd say most kids probably don't care too much about their education, so for them, missing school might matter more And ral: Hear, hear. I had serious medical problems in grade 5, needed a major surgery in grade 6, and was told I'd have to miss a year. My parents tried homeschooling, rigorously followed a bunch of curricula, and discovered I could finish *all* the assigned coursework in 2 hours/day and spend the rest of the time reading my favorite books. We were so unimpressed by the time wasted in "regular school" that we kept homeschooling another 2 years. I now have a PhD, but those were among the best days of my life. And Pepe: If you are interested in an anecdote: I did not go to high school (well, attended for two or three months) and now I have a PhD from a very good university. Not receiving any formal education between the ages of 16 and 23 does not seem to have affected my ability to do college (and later grad school) level work.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-governor Californians love long-shot bets. Actors trying to make it big in LA, tech founders chasing unicorns in San Francisco, cult leaders trying to found religions in Pasadena. In Silicon Valley, VCs turn the long-shot bet into an art: if some new startup has a 5% chance of making a billion, that's $50 million in expectation. Just a whole state full of people looking for weird opportunities. ...which makes it extra funny that the biggest opportunity of all came by a few months ago, and they all missed it. My claim is that basically anyone with the slightest amount of fame or money - any B-list actor, any second-tier tech CEO, any successful blogger or influencer, maybe me, maybe even you - could have maneuvered themselves into a position where they had a 5-10% chance of becoming Governor of California. Let's start at the beginning. Governor Gavin Newsom had a bad year. First he pissed off Republicans with his strong response to COVID. Then he pissed off the people who wanted strong responses to COVID by attending an unvaccinated unmasked dinner. Also, taxes are still high, homelessness is still high, rents are still (too damn) high, and parts of the state are literally on fire. Gavin Newsom didn't cause most of this, but he also hasn't announced any particularly inspired plans to fight it. Just a really, really bad year. (also, his ex-wife is dating Donald Trump Jr, which has to hurt) California has a long tradition of direct democracy. Citizens can circulate petitions, and if they get enough signatures, everyone has to vote on them. After several tries, Republicans finally got enough signatures on a "recall Newsom" petition to trigger an election. The way the election works is: there are two questions on the ballot. First, should Newsom be removed as governor? Second, if he is removed, who replaces him? Everyone gets to vote on both questions, so even if you want to keep Newsom you can still vote on who replaces him if he loses.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/carbon-costs-quantified This post tries to quantify how much carbon is produced by various activities, lifestyle changes, and actors. can't stress enough how approximate and unreliable these numbers are. The reason I made this chart and other people didn't isn't because I'm smarter or harder-working than they are. It's because I'm less responsible, and more willing to use numbers that are kind of grounded in wild guesses, and technically shouldn't be compared to each other. My defense is they're probably mostly order-of-magnitude correct, and I believe having probably mostly order-of-magnitude correct estimates is better than having no estimates at all. Explanations below:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/meetups-everywhere-2021-times-and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QFbM5B9KfsiwqO6DvJ4D05dQitBtZ6kYDwXZ3Hj6SEc/edit#gid=1585750313 Thanks to everyone who respond to my request for ACX outdoor meetup organizers. Volunteers have arranged meetups in 170 cities around the world, including beautiful Lusk, Wyoming (population: 1,526). You can see the full list here, and I'll also have it below in case you can't access the spreadsheet for some reason. I'll be trying to attend ~15 of the 170 meetups. Since I focused on the US last time, I'm going to focus on Europe this year (plus a few US cities on the way). My very preliminary itinerary (all dates in US month/day format) is: Berkeley: Saturday 8/28, 1 PM Boston: Sunday, 9/5, 5 PM New York: Monday, 9/6, 5 PM Washington DC: Saturday, 9/11, 5 PM Lisbon: Saturday, 9/18, 5 PM Madrid: TBD (late September?) Zurich: TBD (late September?) Vienna: TBD (late September?) Prague: TBD (early October?) Berlin: TBD (early October?) Paris: TBD (early October?) London: TBD (mid October?) Cambridge: TBD (mid October?) Oxford: TBD (mid October?) Edinburgh: TBD (mid October?) I don't want to make confident predictions about how quickly I can travel through Europe, so I'll post the rest of my schedule once I know more. If you gave me a schedule for the first five cities, I've unilaterally replaced it with what works for me, sorry. If you're trying to organize a meetup for the TBD cities, sorry I'm making your life confusing right now. Also, if COVID or something else comes up, I might have to drop some cities from my list, in which case I'll let you know and you can have a normal meetup at whatever time works for you.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-aducanumab These are highlights from the comments of Adumbrations Of Aducanumab, Details Of The Infant Fish Oil Story, and discussion of those posts elsewhere. C_B writes: I agree with this post's overall point that the FDA is not, on average, too lax, and that the Atlantic article's take that the aducanumab approval is a sign of them being too lax is a bad take. That said, I think the beginning of this article really undersells how uniquely bad the aducanumab approval is. It's not just "pretty unclear whether it actually treats Alzheimers." Nobody in the field thinks there's any serious possibility that it treats Alzheimers. - Here's Derek Lowe talking about it: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/08/the-aducanumab-approval - The FDA's advisory committee doesn't think it treats Alzheimers: https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2020/11/11/fda-committee-votes-aducanumab-trial-data-fail-support-alzhimers-treatment-benefit/ - The trial was halted for futility: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-biogen-alzheimers/biogen-eisai-scrap-alzheimer-drug-trials-idUSKCN1R213G - The details of the "positive results" are textbook p-hacking of exactly the sort that the whole replication crisis has been about. It's a post-hoc subgroup analysis where the subgroup was selected based on similarity to the patients who had the most positive results; i.e., trivially guaranteed to show "positive" results via group selection. You can read more details in the statistical reviewer's comments in the advisory committee's document (PDF, starting on p. 174): https://www.fda.gov/media/143502/download