| ▲ | Aperocky 2 hours ago |
| > not available to 99.999999999999999999% There are not enough human 25 years old in history for this many 9s. You had 21 nines, which would only make sense if there were 10 billion billion humans ever and that he is the only one. However, the current estimate is there were 107 billion humans ever alive in history, so your statement is impossible even if the estimate is off by 10000 fold. |
|
| ▲ | autophagian 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Your failure here is that you are using normal math, not Effective Altriusm math. That number should not only include past/current 25 year olds, but also all possible future 25 year olds, including all 25 year olds simulatable by a future powerful AI. In that context, the estimation is quite modest. |
|
| ▲ | 27183 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| ha you beat me to it by mere seconds |
| |
| ▲ | Aperocky 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You would expect someone following quant trading to have sensitivities to quantity, but alas. | | |
| ▲ | askafriend 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not writing a technical paper and I refuse to write like what you're suggesting. It's just a rhetorical device! | | |
| ▲ | jcranmer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's just a rhetorical device! It's a rhetorical device that I have yet to see used to good effect. The kind of rhetorical device that undercuts the argument rather than strengthens it. | |
| ▲ | 27183 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | your claim would be suspect with only 1 nine, given the evidence. Like, the guy failed spectacularly. | | |
| ▲ | askafriend 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're so caught up in irrelevant details like a rhetorical device that you've missed that this guy's fund is up 80% for the year and his investors are having a GREAT year. Worth reflecting on. |
|
|
|
|
