If we are correct about the laws of physics, then ghosts can’t exist. But some people are insistent that they’ve directly interacted with ghosts. Is there a way ghosts could exist if we modified the laws of physics a bit?

Continue reading

(Here is the same clip in HD, but that 2010 YouTube vibe is part of the fun)

This clip is in the running for most-mocked scene of all time, but I think it’s good, actually.

First, let’s get some things out of the way:

1. The writers of NCIS know how keyboards work. (They probably used keyboards to write this scene, even.)
2. The director of this episode knows how keyboards work.
3. I’m going to go out on a limb and say >90% of this show’s audience knows how keyboards work.

This scene was not written this way because the writers think their audience is dumb and doesn’t know how a keyboard works. It was written this way because of the Rule of Cool.

The Rule of Cool states: an audience’s willingness to suspend disbelief is proportional to how cool a scene is.

Continue reading

Nearly nine years after part 1, I bring three new short ideas.

1. Keep in mind that scientific fraud happens sometimes
2. Clichés are good, actually
3. You must put unnecessary decoration on your useful items, or else you’re a weirdo

Continue reading

This post contains spoilers for Guardians of the Galaxy.

Continue reading

Investors often say that standard deviation is a bad way to measure investment risk because it penalizes upside volatility as well as downside. I agree that standard deviation isn’t a great measure of risk, but that’s not the reason. A good risk measure should penalize upside volatility, because upside volatility is bad.

Continue reading

(that I still remember a decade later)

Evolution on Earth

Fact 1: When foxes are bred to be more docile, their ears become floppy like dogs’ ears instead of pointy like wild foxes’.

Fact 2: Crows can learn to use a short stick to fetch a longer stick to fetch food.

The basic setup of the experiment is: There’s a box with some food at the bottom. The crow can’t reach the food. The crow has a short stick, but the stick isn’t long enough to reach the food, either.

There’s also a second box containing a long stick. The short stick is long enough to reach the long stick. Most crows figure out that they can use the short stick to fetch the long stick and then use the long stick to fetch the food.

If you add a third layer of indirection, where they have to use a short stick to fetch a medium stick and the medium stick to fetch a long stick and the long stick to fetch food, most crows don’t figure it out but a few of them do.

I wrote a rap song about this experiment, it used to be on YouTube but I think it’s gone now.

Continue reading

When I was 18, my dad took me to the bank to get my first credit card. I had a conversation with the bank teller that went something like this:

Bank teller: This card gives 1% cash back.

Me: What does that mean?

Bank teller: It means when you spend money with the card, you get 1% cash back.

Me: But what does cash back mean, though?

Bank teller: It means you get cash back.

Me: …

The bank teller communicated poorly, and also I did not do a good job at articulating which part I was confused about. If I were that bank teller, here is what I would say to my 18-year old self:

Continue reading

I’m playing Elden Ring. I’m fighting a difficult boss¹, and I’m getting kind of frustrated. I die again. I’m thinking about whether I want to keep playing. I don’t know. Am I having a good time? I can’t tell. How is it that I can’t tell?

Continue reading

Last year, I wrote a list of things I’ve changed my mind on. But good truth-seeking doesn’t just require you to consider where you might be wrong; you must also consider where you might be right.

In this post, I provide some beliefs I used to be uncertain about, that I have come to believe more strongly.

Continue reading

Epistemic status: This entire essay rests on two controversial premises (linear aggregation and antispeciesism) that I believe are quite robust, but I will not be able to convince anyone that they’re true, so I’m not even going to try.

Cross-posted to the Effective Altruism Forum.

If welfare is important, and if the value of welfare scales something-like-linearly, and if there is nothing morally special about the human species¹, then these two things are probably also true:

1. The best possible universe isn’t filled with humans or human-like beings. It’s filled with some other type of being that’s much happier than humans, or has much richer experiences than humans, or otherwise experiences much more positive welfare than humans, for whatever “welfare” means. Let’s call these beings Welfareans.
2. A universe filled with Welfareans is much better than a universe filled with humanoids.

(Historically, people referred to these beings as “hedonium”. I dislike that term because hedonium sounds like a thing. It doesn’t sound like something that matters. It’s supposed to be the opposite of that—it’s supposed to be the most profoundly innately valuable sentient being. So I think it’s better to describe the beings as Welfareans. I suppose we could also call them Hedoneans, but I don’t want to constrain myself to hedonistic utilitarianism.)

Even in the “Good Ending” where we solve AI alignment and governance and coordination problems and we end up with a superintelligent AI that builds a flourishing post-scarcity civilization, will there be Welfareans? In that world, humans will be able to create a flourishing future for themselves; but beings who don’t exist yet won’t be able to give themselves good lives, because they don’t exist.

Continue reading