@ESYudkowsky I have not been able to find the report, or the “one estimate” referenced, but if you want to find out more here is some basic info from OECD (link in alt) and here is a report on leisure specifically https://t.co/U3txPQaCgi
@ercwl Do you believe this fee level for inscriptions will be maintained for an extended period of time, or are there reasons to suspect that the levels will come down as the novelty wears off?
@ercwl This was my initial take as well but now I’m leaning towards him being a sociopath dressed up as a utilitarian. There’re rumors circulating painting a picture of someone living a lifestyle very far from what he was preaching. Have you considered this explanation and ruled it out?
@phildaian “if we survive, without intervention, we prove that we did not need an intervention to survive” would definitely have been a less spectacular statement - but it would have been accurate.
@owocki@notscottmoore This is a smart move 👏 I don’t engage in debates about it, but I quite often get stuck on the public goods part - and I find that people overuse it because of its positive connotation.
@AriDavidPaul In general the covariance matrix is possible to estimate with decent precision (even if it “breaks down” from time to time) and just settling for the diagonal elements and building a “portfolio theory” around that never made any sense to me.
@AriDavidPaul Many good points, and this is one problem. But it is actually slightly worse than this: because even if you find a perfect forward looking variance estimator the “risk parity” portfolio is still blatantly ignoring the covariance of the assets in the portfolio.
@theSamPadilla I would naively say that this is because “” is an empty string (nothing to iterate over) while “”.split(‘,’) produces a list of length 1 (something to iterate over). But I expect to be proven wrong by someone who actually understands python.