forloop

> Amphetamines allow for short term gains in productivity for individuals and possibly companies.

Your premise is incorrect! It depends on the dosage. Low dose amphetamines can be neuroprotective. Even meth!

People also take a combination of drugs to stave off tolerance. Memantine, for example.

> As much as Silicon Valley likes the myth of the lone (drug fueled) rockstar developer, please don't be deluded to think this has any semblance of relevance in reality.

I'm not making reference to that.

Increased productivity is good for living standards—ceteris paribus. I've given two examples of how amphetamines may be used profitably in the longterm (which increases productivity). And because of what I've said in the first sentence, it follows living standards will be improved.

How does society benefit from products/services and innovation/invention? Really!

I was making a distinction between sport and economic activity; rather than the strict definition of a job.

A sport is zero-sum. Economic activity is normally positive-sum.

> All for the benefit of the employers?

And society. Sports and jobs are different.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man[0].

Is there any factual basis? Or historical reason(s) which influences the psyche of the U.S., inducing an irrational response to poker?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Can anyone comment on why poker is illegal in most of the U.S.?

I'm in the UK, and the government leans on the side of restricting freedom, yet poker-for-money is totally legal here.

And also, to make up for the temporal inequality (the past ratio), the teams should be something like 5/6 female.

And logically: until that happens, the school system isn't catering for half their population.

Another apologist.

Cameron has all but said he wants to ban encryption:

“[I]n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”, the prime minister asked rhetorically.[0]

I like the UK. They're backwards in some areas of policy, though. And probably have a penchant to control their populace by any means possible.

---

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron...

I've seen the site quoted in The Guardian (a newspaper of record).

Feel free to investigate their methods, and report back! I take them as being somewhat credible. As do you by your own admission.

The cryptome.org article refers to Europe.

> He was referring to bribery of foreign countries (such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia in his examples) that U.S. and European countries compete to win contracts.

From the first line of the cryptome.org article: 'What is the recent flap regarding Echelon and U.S. spying on European industries all about?'

> Perception != reality

Sorry, they don't have the actual corruption statistics available!

Looking at this[0] table of least corrupt countries by perception, Europe has 7 in the top 10. Least corrupt. Least.

Occam's razor: The person who worked in intelligence, and is/was a Washington lawyer lied. Even without data, that surely must have crossed people's minds, no?!

[0] https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

For a start, encryption could be used more widely.

Which is the polar opposite of what some governments want[0].

It's almost as if governments are playing the terrorist card to push through laws which benefit them—the political class.

Oh, but that's OK: everyone does it!

---

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron...

Their funding is thanks to the British government[0]. So they'll do no such thing.

[0] They enforce something like a TV tax.

Why was your website hosting account suspended, Paul?

Presumably, because your post is on HN. It would probably be best to keep it up. It's still useful to know, IMO.

The loss of grudges/prejudices is also a loss of skills and unique perspectives. That sounds as much an opportunity as a danger.

I could come up with ridiculous 'nightmares', and interpret them, as well:

I wake from nightmare worlds where 'world hunger' is cured but 'satiety' becomes broken.

Interpreted as:

Without scarcity peoples' greed will continue to grow unabated. The lust for consumption will result with the depletion of natural resources, and the destruction of society.

The dream is a non sequitur; and even taken as a metaphor, it has gapping holes in the logic!

1. Prejudices are passed down through generations.

2. People change their position on subjects, when new information becomes available.

3. There's nothing 'natural' about living short lives. Some species live longer than us; and some are even negligibly senescent[0]!

4. I've established there's at least one other mechanism by which people can alter their ideas (point 2). Others could be found.

5. Dying of cancer (and other diseases) seems like the worst possible solution to the problem. Torturing people who don't age, and then not have them die in the end seems more humane! (That may be the second worst solution). Killing healthy 150 y/o, so that there's generational turnover would also work (I would prefer that to the status quo, personally). Under such circumstance, I think it probable a reasonable remedy could be found (sans death, pain, and indignity)!

Thanks for the interpretation, but you may have been overly charitable!

---

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence

Do you have a deeper point—which I'm missing—or is this FUD?

It's by Nick Bostrom[0].

He's the same guy that wrote 'Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies'[1]; which is reportedly the book which 'alerted' Elon Musk to the dangers of AI.

---

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dange...

Software can be changed.

TY!

Turned it into a bookmarklet†.

† javascript:document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].playbackRate = 3.0;

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIJdFxYlEKE

YouTube doesn't have playback at 3x speed, unfortunately.

The irony. Is it really going to take the death of generations for people accept anti-ageing?

I find it somewhat amusing. I can't guarantee it'll be as funny once I've got cancer/heart disease/dementia, though.

Say a 10xer is 30, and the average lifespan is 80 years. If ageing could be halved, then the remaining 50-year-left-pre-intervention results in 100 years of life. But has there already be any substance which has doubled lifespan? Yes[0]! In rats. Humans aren't rats; but it's a clue to what's possible in mammals (verses C. elegans, or yeast).

> Until better than marginal gains are realized, I would say it's premature to hold massive lifespan lengthening out as a realistic possibility since we don't know what road blocks lie ahead. Sure, it's possible in the 'anything is possible' sense, but, IMO, not as a practical consideration.

People are working on the problem of radical live extension today. So even if you consider it impractical, that's certainly not a view held by everyone.

Plus, a gradual improvement is all that's needed. As long as someone can live long enough to reach longevity escape velocity[1], that's the problem solved!

[0] http://www.kurzweilai.net/fullerene-c60-administration-doubl...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity_escape_velocity

1) This sounds like rationalisation. Clearly there's advantages to being 10x at something valuable.

2) The premise of the 10xers not being around in 50-100 years could be correct. It depends on the amount of money invested in anti-ageing technology.

Coming down on one side or another, in a binary fashion: I think your comment is false.

> So your statement hints at the science of philosophy, and what constitutes proof

That should say 'philosophy of science'... Proofread, ftw!

Testing substances on healthy humans is a big deal. At the moment nootropics are used only in disease models.

Also, the creation of nootropics which offer greater upgrades to cognition should be a priority. There have been a few promising chemical such as PRL-8-53[0], but when people have tried such chemicals on themselves they haven't lived up to their promise.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRL-8-53

Thought you may say that.

How is something in medicine proven? It's not with deduction, it's with induction! So nothing in medicine is proven with 100% certainty. What's left is probability! Even as an anonymous nobody, I'm able to point to hints of life extension in humans today, or 100% increase in lifespan of mammals! Or the work being done on various vectors; ranging from the slowing of ageing, via metabolism, to the reversal of ageing!

Then there's something like SENS which has enumerated seven types of ageing. If those seven types of ageing are reversed, then ageing will be reversed. I believe those seven categories are yet to be disproved.

So your statement hints at the science of philosophy, and what constitutes proof. As I've said above, I say probability!

> That depends on what actual results you can deliver.

Nothing to do with me. I plan on purchasing the results.

> If it's not very much, that's not a fallacy, it's a demonstration.

Rats' lifespans have been doubled[0]. And there are medications which are used for other conditions being looked at: like rapamycin (or the development of a variant), and metformin.

There are also supplements like the newly released nicotinamide riboside.

Plus, people such as Google (via Calico) are developing treatments targeting the longevity gene FOXO3.

The area is vast. And you've just demonstrated my point. What you've said sounds reasonable, but is actually bullshit.

[0] http://www.kurzweilai.net/fullerene-c60-administration-doubl...

Edit: Grammar.

I hope Peter encourages start-ups in longevity and nootropics.

Or just nootropics. If there's more smart people then additional anti-ageing tech will follow—since all arguments against said tech are fallacious; even if they seem reasonable prima facie!

> Maybe, once the DWP's contract with Monster expires in a few years, gov.uk will be able to make a case that they should be running it.

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation based on what you said previously.

If you read what I've said with that in mind, it should make sense! Why wouldn't I take account of what's already been talked about?