lagrangian
3mo ago
(I'm a bit grumpy because I spent the day integrating with an LLM-based auto code eval system that represents scores with emojis.)
Gonna need to hear more about that.
lagrangian
3mo ago
LLMs are great at writing scripts for this kind of thing. Untested, but see e.g. https://g.co/gemini/share/3ce27fe9318f
lagrangian
4mo ago
Look into intuniv - it is commonly prescribed with stimulants and can mellow them out.
lagrangian
5mo ago
mog
a term popularized by modern day aesthetic bodybuilders meaning out sizing or dwarfing somebody in muscle size, fullness, and definition Watch me man I’m about to fucking mog these rockets over there! Jesus Christ that guy is about to mog them!
TIL
lagrangian
5mo ago
Reading the details, this strikes me as reasonable on the part of the Biden admin.
Two major caveats on what you've written:
- The news in the press release is about an additional 7.7 gigadollars for 160 kilopeople. Your figures are for the total over his entire term.
- This is, like all previous loan forgiveness by Biden, not a giveaway so much as letting people qualify for forgiveness programs for which they fell through the cracks. E.g. from here
Automatically cancel debt for borrowers who would otherwise be eligible for loan forgiveness under income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, like the SAVE Plan, or Public Service Loan Forgiveness but are not enrolled in those programs.
It's also forgiving loans for people on permanent disability. That one's a little more questionable - I imagine some "permanent disabilities" are sketchy at best. But, still not "free money for all."
I think it's important to acknowledge that this is (afaik) very much not a giveaway to all or even most loan holders, including those doing well. I'm against executive orders/overreach, and I want to see the government stop giving out loans for underwater basket weaving as much as the next Mottizan, but this is just much less crazy than it seems at a glance.
lagrangian
5mo ago
Meta: please consider making multiple top level comments instead of one (excellent!) multi-topic comment. The responses get disorganized as-is.
lagrangian
6mo ago
And when Scott did a survey on the topic, users ranked it higher, though it's been a long time and I can't remember what the post was.
From his Lorien Psychology page:
- Is Adderall the right stimulant for me? There are two commonly used families of stimulant for ADHD: Adderall and Ritalin. Most adults will find drugs in the Adderall family more effective.
See for example this survey of 4,425 ADHD patients by ADDitude Magazine, where 52% of adult Adderall users described their treatment as very effective, compared to only 41% of adult Ritalin users. Only 12% of Adderall users described it as ineffective, compared to 22% of Ritalin users.
More formal studies find the same thing. Faraone does a meta-analysis comparing both drugs in children (not exactly our population of interest, but this is the best I can find) and finds Ritalin to have an effect size of around 0.9 and Adderall of around 1.3 (higher means more effective). A separate meta-analysis by Stuhec, Lukic, and Locatelli finds two Adderall-family drugs to have effect sizes of 0.6 – 0.9, compared to Ritalin’s 0.5.
About 80% of my patients who have tried both tell me they prefer Adderall (informal estimate). Along with Adderall being more effective, they complain that Ritalin makes them feel more “robotic” (note the Additude survey shows Ritalin users about half again as likely to complain of “dampened personality”). This isn’t to say that Adderall is better for everyone – just that it’s a better choice to try first.
Does Ritalin have any advantages? The main advantage is that it’s considered harder to get addicted to. But addiction to ADHD drugs is already very unlikely (see the section on Addiction below), and realistically it’s less addictive because it is a worse drug which people like less. Also, there are now members of the Adderall family at least equally suitable for people at risk of addiction (see the section on Vyvanse below). Another Ritalin advantage is that it lasts less time, so if you want very fine-grained control over exactly when you are or aren’t stimulated Ritalin may be a better choice. But you probably do not need this much control. I understand Ritalin may have other advantages for children, but I’m not a child psychiatrist and don’t understand it well enough to comment on.
I personally think the 25% of Adderall that is left handed amphetamine is unpleasant. Go Vyvanse if possible imo (or Dexedrine), for that mellow, pure right-handed goodness.
lagrangian
6mo ago
No.
lagrangian
6mo ago
That's a lot to handle, wow. Did you and your now-husband discuss taking care of elderly/infirm parents to this degree early on (i.e. before marriage)? Either way, was it a difficult decision to let your husband's parents move in?
I'd prefer to end up with someone who wouldn't want us to do this for either set of our parents. I'm not saying I don't care if they rot in a shitty retirement home, I'm just saying I don't care enough to make it my problem. It's unclear to me how unpalatable a statement that would be for someone to hear on a date, or how much it'd actually prevent this kind of scenario in our future.
Update on Ms. Definitely:
Dates three and four were even better than the first two. But it turns out even in the case that she stays, there's probably a fair amount of extended travel in her next couple years. This all added up to more uncertainty than I could handle, so I gave up. Not an easy decision - I think we both wanted to keep going, just life got in the way. Very glad I met her though.
The whole thing has me feeling a touch heartbroken, but significantly moreso: motivated to try harder at dating, on apps and off. I think that's part of the puzzle here: if I felt like I'd already tried as hard as I could at dating, I'd be more prepared to say "life's complicated, let's figure it out together." But I just haven't. Tried some, sure, but not enough, in no small part because only in the last few years have I gotten to the point that I feel I'm good enough for a woman that's good enough for me.
lagrangian
6mo ago
While I also love Vim, I want to push back on the claim that it's time consuming to learn. I think you can expect to lose ten or twenty hours of productivity to getting used to it, after which it's a net positive (but a continuing learning curve).
Even more practical is to just use a Vim plugin for a worse more normal editor. This is also a good gateway drug to Vim.
lagrangian
6mo ago
- Use type annotations.
- Don't get clever. Python is incredibly flexible, and you should use a very small subset of what's available. See e.g. the Google Python style guide.
- Have good test coverage.
- Have good version control/dependency management.
lagrangian
7mo ago
Thanks for this!
One modification I wonder if you'd be willing to simulate for us: what if we don't strictly require stopping at n? You could formalize it to something like "given a strategy that on average samples n suitors when run it to its stopping point, what are the loss/etc?" p(miss) becomes 0 by definition.
That feels more like real life: if the goal is to stop dating by 35, but I happen to be dating Hitler when I hit 35, I'm probably gonna push it to 36.
I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those variables go together. The odds that a woman who is age 25-34, smart, attractive, and good personality is also single are... not high lol.
Yeah, the single filter should probably be stronger, given the correlation you point out. But, most other places, the math has the opposite problem, so maybe it cancels out.
focus less on looks
Attractiveness is really not the thing I'm being picky on - I don't think this advice is relevant to me here. This particular woman is quite sufficiently attractive, but (to repeat myself) she could be significantly less attractive and I'd still feel this way. Even removing that filter entirely, the numbers don't shift much. If anything, IQ is the interesting point to argue over I think.
lagrangian
7mo ago
E.g. here, although in fairness 1) "sexual intercourse with black out drunk women" isn't quite what was being advocated for by others, and 2) I freely admit (as I did then) that my (extremely sleep deprived) prose on the subject was not super well organized. Still, yeah, shocking to me to see how the votes settled.
lagrangian
7mo ago
There are many markets and your value will vary between them. App wise, if you are looking for anything serious, avoid Tinder (though it may vary by city) - I like Hinge. See who matches/responds/goes on a first date, see who goes on a second, see who makes it to a few months...I think the earlier in the pipeline there, the more it tells you about your profile and the app; the later, the more it tells you about you.
As to meeting people IRL, you'd, uh, want to ask someone else (though I'm working on it, in theory, a bit).
Some metrics are fairly objective. Height, income, even attractiveness. Personality gets more subjective, but still definitely has identifiable groups. Other than height, mostly it's things one can work on. As to where a particular set of category ratings puts you, harder to say.
You can in principle sign up as a woman and look at men's profiles, too.
lagrangian
7mo ago
99% IQ? I know we are supposed to be kind in this particular thread. But...are you sure you're in the top 1%?
Yes. I'd guess 140-145 IQ, based on various standardized tests/competitions/comparison to peers. I'd wager she's smarter. (Insert some standard disclaimers about IQ being stupid, especially out at the tails; I mean all of the above more about intelligence than IQ, let alone IQ as measured by any particular test.)
What is going on with this filter setting?
It's possible that it's a pure coincidence that the strongest connections I've felt to people, platonic or romantic, male or female, have all been to people this bright. But, I doubt it, and the causality isn't difficult to imagine. Shared life experiences and interests, and a sense that they can see more of me than "that smart guy." Somehow this all matters even when we're not talking about anything that requires being smart
That being said, on an unrelated note, I did appreciate your arguments against sexual intercourse with black out drunk women and I agree that is a bad thing. Unlike a lot of people in that thread.
Thank you, shit, that was not the proudest of themotte I've ever been. OTOH, it's nice to know I don't quite fit every stereotype here, and to have something to point to as foil to when I explain to someone "look I'm really not that conservative, it just sounds that way sometimes".
lagrangian
7mo ago
I don't have anything to add, but love the post and the math. Makes me think of a Fermi paradox equation
Ha, thanks, yeah.
for incels!
Uh, not-so-thanks? I wonder what fraction of this board is any way incels. I've had at least reasonable luck with these things over the years, and maybe I'm projecting, but wouldn't expect otherwise of most people here. We've got a lot of articulate and gainfully employed people - I picture mostly NEETs when I hear "incel."
lagrangian
7mo ago
I've liked your advice before, we'll see. Thanks for the anecdote. I'm surprised to find that your comment here, and the similar sentiment in a few others, has at least moved me from "obviously not happening" to "very unlikely to happen." It's not really my MO to take risk or be able to picture life being great, but maybe that's stupid in this context. Patiently always buy index funds may be a better strategy in the financial case than the romantic one...
Attractive—where does 1 in 3 here conditional on 25-34 and high IQ place them on absolute attractiveness? I would assume given youth, iq, and contentiousness the person would be well above average in attractiveness to start with. Even if only from the correlated likely socioeconomic advantages they enjoyed growing up. I mean, how many ugly people do you see walking around the campus of say Stanford?
That's valid. It's plausible I could weaken this filter. Some of the point of it was to remove women who are too attractive to be into me. I tend to find them paradoxically unattractive anyway: give me a t-shirt over gratuitously well put together outfits and makeup any day. The personality filter also does some of the work on that front.
I don't think I could remove it, though. Especially by my age bracket, a fair number of people are getting out of shape, and that's not ideal.
As to the specific question re: absolute attractiveness, I guess the target is 6-8, although I've always found the numbers weird. Like, is this linear? Are we measuring against only the same age, or if not, how broad a range? Do we include my specific preferences? At any rate, Ms. Definitely is great on this front, very much my cup of tea.
lagrangian
7mo ago
See the thing is, I get real tired of hearing stupid people talk, and there's an awful (or delightful) lot of that in dating. It's great being able to talk about things in my life and know she has context on them. I hear this point about overvaluing a woman's intelligence/career frequently (e.g. here), but strenuously disagree. At some point I'd try proving myself wrong on that again, but I am not there.
lagrangian
7mo ago
Yeah, I think that'd be evidence I pulled a Peter from the lab leak debate. OTOH, 22 from my metro area makes me think my filters are somewhere between reasonable and slightly picky, especially in context of being myself somewhat of an atypical individual (but a fairly "modal Mottizan" - I can't seem to find that post...)
30 year fixed rate mortgage is a helluva drug. I've also finally started making local friends in the last couple years, since buying the house, which was half the point of buying the thing: to make myself stay put.
And, she's leaving in a month. If it were even three to six, I could have enough data to not feel like a crazy person. Stranger things have happened, but I just don't see doing it.
That said, it wouldn't be the first time in recent history I failed to predict my own behavior re: moving and major life decisions, although the other time I decided to stay rather than take the much better job out of state. I suppose I'm going to not think about this possibility too hard, keep going on dates, and see if it feels even modestly less crazy closer to D[efinitely leaving]-day.
It's also not obvious if she rates me as highly as I her. Highly I think, but there's some gender asymmetry here where, especially once she moves to $EVEN_LARGER_CITY, men like me are somewhat common (albeit still not super common); women like her aren't common, anywhere (...I think, pretty strongly, but ??). The assumption that she's leaving town makes it hard to read certain things, since all I can trivially infer from her going out with me is that she like me enough to burn some time with before the move.
Lower IQ filter down to >120 (80thp) as opposed to ~135(99p).
I really don't think so. It's easy living in a bubble of smart people to forget what p80 intelligence looks like. The least smart person I've ever dated was a first grade teacher, and presumably she was at least above average, leaving not a ton of room, if any, from her to p80. I really wanted to believe it wouldn't matter, but it just did. My real preference is probably steeper than p99, and Ms. Definitely clearly is past there. I'm fairly sure she's smarter than me, and I know I'm comfortably past p99. It doesn't hurt that often, and in this case, IQ correlated with gainful employment.
Attractive.. okay keep this one, but don't be a k-drama protagonist about this
I'm really not trying to be, with my factor of 3 on that. Note that I didn't put "top 1/3" attractiveness - the intention is to filter out some at the top, filter out more at the bottom, and aim for some objective notion of at least modestly above average. She easily is, and fits a number of my specific preferences that are neutral to most people. She could be a fair amount less attractive and it wouldn't have changed my reaction.
Note also that by "attracted" (factor of 3), I meant "attracted to me" not "I'm attracted to her". I'm alright looking, but appearance certainly isn't my top selling point.
All that said, I think there may be some redundancy between these two factors, and between them and everything else. I.e. women who are smart, age appropriate, personality match etc are more likely than random women to be attractive/attracted to me.
Politics - For the most part, drop this.
I put a light factor here (2) intentionally. I don't need her to be a Mottizan, just not to hate me for having weird opinions on things from time to time. This also filters out e.g. strongly religious people.
Also I doubt this woman meets all these filters. I mean what are the odds right? You have rose tinted glasses on.
Rose tinted glasses in general, entirely possible. As to the specific factors, I think they're all there, but it's possible she misses on "attracted to me" (I don't think so, but hard to say, and these things take time especially for women sometimes), "politics" (we've gotten into it some, but not that much - the lack of it coming up is in itself actually almost enough to check this box) and "personality" (I don't think so at all, but don't know her that well just yet). There's zero doubt that she's within an hour drive, human, female, age appropriate, highly intelligent, attractive, and single.
I think the answer is roughly the same as that to my favorite riddle: https://xkcd.com/blue_eyes.html
More options
Context Copy link