Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
There has been debate to whether the is or ever was valid. The evidence brought forward of its death is usually stories of people in the LessWrong community correctly predicting market changes, using only widely available information and rational reasoning. It might be correct that the market is highly efficient, but that LessWrong members and the community as a whole, in many cases, is even more efficient.
Maybe the bias comes from the perception that the unknown risk has to be either very low or very large. It would make sense, for example, for low risks such as getting hit by a lightning. Let us suppose that I am willing to tolerate a certain maximum risk, say <1%. I do not know the real risk of interacting with people, but I want that Nx < 0.01 (if linear), where N is the number of contacts and x is the unknown risk per contact.
(Previously in this series: Round 1, Round 2) In December I ran a pseudorandomness contest. Here’s how it worked: In Round 1, participants were invited to submit 150-bit strings of their own devising. They had 10 minutes to write down their string while using nothing but their own minds. I received 62 submissions. I then used a computer to generate 62 random 150-bit strings, and put all 124 strings in a random order.
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
