User talk:Vladimir Nesov

From Lesswrongwiki
Revision as of 02:05, 2 November 2010 by Gwern (talk | contribs) (Markup: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, welcome to the LessWrong Wiki, and thanks for your edit to the Talk:Paper clip maximizer page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything, and feel free to email if that doesn't work. You might like to read discussion of this wiki on LessWrong itself. -- BJR (Talk) 14:31, 17 April 2009

How do I not do whatever you thought was bad? PotatoDumplings

Try, see, discuss. Last ones were the new kinds of things. If you disagree with my judgment, by all means debate your position (in the talk tabs). I'm just trying to make sure that each edit improves the quality of the wiki, step by step. --Vladimir Nesov 20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that evolution began after the first replicator arose by chance is accurate, so why remove it? Secondly, saying evolution produced humans "in particular" implies it was somehow more responsible for humans than for anything else. Frost Shock Level 4 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we can't yet say how the first replicator appeared, so "by chance" is too strong an assertion (what it would even mean, in any case?). "In particular" doesn't bring up this connotation for me, but better rewording is always welcome. I removed the whole edit simply because the result appeared to be worse than the original, even if it implied an additional piece of data (which I'm not sure needs to be mentioned in a stub article of this size anyway). --Vladimir Nesov 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd like to say "including humans" rather than "humans in particular".

Go on and edit the page if you like. --Vladimir Nesov 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the other thing, it seems to imply that evolution and only evolution is responsible for life, whereas the formation of the first replicator is clearly an important, non-evolutionary process involved right at the beginning... evolution can't start until there's a replicator. Frost Shock Level 4 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd also need planets, stars and Big Bang... --Vladimir Nesov 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am reading through the sequences for the first time, and was really confused and frustrated as to why there was no link to the sequence "A Human's Guide to Words". I felt very overwhelmed reading the sequence guide 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong, but when I searched and found the sequence in the Wiki, and then started clicking on the links one by one, it was much more manageable for my brain. I read Eliezer's comments on the discussion page closely, and it looks like he wants to get people to go straight to 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong (because it is the sequence guide and he wants to minimize clicks). I think if that is the way that he wants it, it would be nice to at least add in a link to the sequence guide at the bottom of the section, which could say something like "once you have read the sequence guide, here is a link to the sequence in order of posting" or something like that, so there is a link to the sequence if people want to find it without having to search. --philips999 23:50:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you refer to by the difference between clicking links from the 37 Ways guide and from the wiki page -- they are the same links, in more or less the same order... The difference is that the wiki page doesn't include descriptions, is that the feature that makes it more convenient to you? Or the fact that the links on the 37 Ways page are placed at the ends of paragraphs, and some of them are duplicated? What about other, more fleshed out sequence guides on the wiki, do the present similar issues to you? --Vladimir Nesov 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


What is standard about that arrangement of sections? Wikipedia with its >3.4 million articles (which I've worked on for 6 years) certainly doesn't do it that way. 'See Also's go before 'References'/'External links'. --Gwern 15:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)