Podcasts about johannes c

In this episode of the Veterinary Cancer Pioneers Podcast, Dr. Rachel Venable is joined by Dr. Chand Khanna, founder and board chair of Ethos Discovery, to explore the advancements in comparative oncology. Dr. Khanna delves into the concept of Comparative Oncology 2.0, discussing the increasing collaboration between human and animal health companies. They also examine the challenges of clinical trials, regulatory hurdles, and the future potential of comparative oncology in accelerating cancer drug development. Dr. Khanna highlights key examples of successful transactions between animal health and biotech companies. The conversation reveals how veterinary oncology can significantly contribute to human cancer treatment breakthroughs. Tune in for a deep dive into cutting-edge veterinary cancer research. Citation mentioned in the episode: Fenger JM, Eward W, Hendricks W, McNiel E, Johannes C, et al. (2020) Delivering Innovation to Oncology Drug Development Through Cancer Drug DISCO (Development Incentive Strategy using Comparative Oncology): Perspectives, Gaps and Solutions. Ann med clin Oncol 3: 120. DOI: 10.29011/AMCO-120.000120 (https://www.gavinpublishers.com/article/view/delivering-innovation-to-oncology-drug-development-through-cancer-drug-disco-development-incentive-strategy-using-comparative-oncology-perspectives-gaps-and-solutions)  

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Whiteboard Pen Magazines are Useful, published by Johannes C. Mayer on July 15, 2024 on LessWrong. Glue your colored whiteboard makers together with duck tape to create a whiteboard pen magazine. If required glue a paper layer around the duck tape to make it non-sticky to the touch. Mark which side is up with an arrow, such that you can always in the same way. This more than doubled my color-switching speed, fits in my pocket, and takes

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Whiteboard Pen Magazines are Useful, published by Johannes C. Mayer on July 15, 2024 on LessWrong. Glue your colored whiteboard makers together with duck tape to create a whiteboard pen magazine. If required glue a paper layer around the duck tape to make it non-sticky to the touch. Mark which side is up with an arrow, such that you can always in the same way. This more than doubled my color-switching speed, fits in my pocket, and takes

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Fund me please - I Work so Hard that my Feet start Bleeding and I Need to Infiltrate University, published by Johannes C. Mayer on May 18, 2024 on LessWrong. Bleeding Feet and Dedication During AI Safety Camp (AISC) 2024, I was working with somebody on how to use binary search to approximate a hull that would contain a set of points, only to knock a glass off of my table. It splintered into a thousand pieces all over my floor. A normal person might stop and remove all the glass splinters. I just spent 10 seconds picking up some of the largest pieces and then decided that it would be better to push on the train of thought without interruption. Some time later, I forgot about the glass splinters and ended up stepping on one long enough to penetrate the callus. I prioritized working too much. A pretty nice problem to have, in my book. Collaboration as Intelligence Enhancer It was really easy for me to put in over 50 hours per week during AISC[1] (where I was a research lead). For me, AISC mainly consisted of meeting somebody 1-on-1 and solving some technical problem together. Methylphenidate helps me with not getting distracted when I am on my own, though Methylphenidate is only the number 2 productivity enhancer. For me, the actual ADHD cure seems to be to take methylphenidate while working 1-on-1 with somebody. But this productivity enhancement is not just about the number of hours I can put in. There is a qualitative difference. I get better at everything. Seriously. Usually, I am bad at prioritization, but when I work with somebody, it usually feels, in retrospect, like over 75% of the time was spent working on the optimal thing (given our state of knowledge at the time). I've noticed similar benefits for my abilities in writing, formalizing things, and general reasoning. Hardcore Gamedev University Infiltration I don't quite understand why this effect is so strong. But empirically, there is no doubt it's real. In the past, I spent 3 years making video games. This was always done in teams of 2-4 people. We would spend 8-10 hours per day, 5-6 days a week in the same room. During that time, I worked on this VR "game" where you fly through a 4D fractal (check out the video by scrolling down or on YouTube). For that project, the university provided a powerful tower computer. In the last week of the project, my brain had the brilliant idea to just sleep in the university to save the commute. This also allowed me to access my workstation on Sunday when the entire university was closed down. On Monday the cleaning personnel of the University almost called the cops on me. But in the end, we simply agreed that I would put on a sign on the door so that I wouldn't scare them to death. Also, I later learned that the University security personnel did patrols with K-9s, but somehow I got lucky and they never found me. I did have a bag with food and a toothbrush, which earned me laughs from friends. As there were no showers, on the last day of the project you could literally smell all the hard work I had put in. Worth it. Over 9000% Mean Increase I was always impressed by how good John Wentworth is at working. During SERI MATS, he would eat with us at Lightcone. As soon as all the high-utility conversation topics were finished, he got up - back to work. And yet, John said that working with David Lorell 1-on-1 makes him 3-5x more productive (iirc). I think for me working with somebody is more like a 15-50x increase. Without collaborators, I am struggling hard with my addiction to learning random technical stuff. In contrast to playing video games and the like, there are usually a bunch of decent reasons to learn about some particular technical topic. Only when I later look at the big picture do I realize - was that actually important? Don't pay me, but my collaborators There are mu...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Fund me please - I Work so Hard that my Feet start Bleeding and I Need to Infiltrate University, published by Johannes C. Mayer on May 18, 2024 on LessWrong. Bleeding Feet and Dedication During AI Safety Camp (AISC) 2024, I was working with somebody on how to use binary search to approximate a hull that would contain a set of points, only to knock a glass off of my table. It splintered into a thousand pieces all over my floor. A normal person might stop and remove all the glass splinters. I just spent 10 seconds picking up some of the largest pieces and then decided that it would be better to push on the train of thought without interruption. Some time later, I forgot about the glass splinters and ended up stepping on one long enough to penetrate the callus. I prioritized working too much. A pretty nice problem to have, in my book. Collaboration as Intelligence Enhancer It was really easy for me to put in over 50 hours per week during AISC[1] (where I was a research lead). For me, AISC mainly consisted of meeting somebody 1-on-1 and solving some technical problem together. Methylphenidate helps me with not getting distracted when I am on my own, though Methylphenidate is only the number 2 productivity enhancer. For me, the actual ADHD cure seems to be to take methylphenidate while working 1-on-1 with somebody. But this productivity enhancement is not just about the number of hours I can put in. There is a qualitative difference. I get better at everything. Seriously. Usually, I am bad at prioritization, but when I work with somebody, it usually feels, in retrospect, like over 75% of the time was spent working on the optimal thing (given our state of knowledge at the time). I've noticed similar benefits for my abilities in writing, formalizing things, and general reasoning. Hardcore Gamedev University Infiltration I don't quite understand why this effect is so strong. But empirically, there is no doubt it's real. In the past, I spent 3 years making video games. This was always done in teams of 2-4 people. We would spend 8-10 hours per day, 5-6 days a week in the same room. During that time, I worked on this VR "game" where you fly through a 4D fractal (check out the video by scrolling down or on YouTube). For that project, the university provided a powerful tower computer. In the last week of the project, my brain had the brilliant idea to just sleep in the university to save the commute. This also allowed me to access my workstation on Sunday when the entire university was closed down. On Monday the cleaning personnel of the University almost called the cops on me. But in the end, we simply agreed that I would put on a sign on the door so that I wouldn't scare them to death. Also, I later learned that the University security personnel did patrols with K-9s, but somehow I got lucky and they never found me. I did have a bag with food and a toothbrush, which earned me laughs from friends. As there were no showers, on the last day of the project you could literally smell all the hard work I had put in. Worth it. Over 9000% Mean Increase I was always impressed by how good John Wentworth is at working. During SERI MATS, he would eat with us at Lightcone. As soon as all the high-utility conversation topics were finished, he got up - back to work. And yet, John said that working with David Lorell 1-on-1 makes him 3-5x more productive (iirc). I think for me working with somebody is more like a 15-50x increase. Without collaborators, I am struggling hard with my addiction to learning random technical stuff. In contrast to playing video games and the like, there are usually a bunch of decent reasons to learn about some particular technical topic. Only when I later look at the big picture do I realize - was that actually important? Don't pay me, but my collaborators There are mu...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Pivotal Acts might Not be what You Think they are, published by Johannes C. Mayer on November 5, 2023 on LessWrong. This article is mainly for people who have not read the pivotal act article on arbital or need a refresher. If you have, the most interesting section would probably be "Omnicient ML Researchers: A Pivotal Act without a Monolithic Control Structure". Many people seem to match the concept of a " pivotal act " to some dystopian version of "deploy AGI to take over the world". 'Pivotal act' means something much more specific , though. Something, arguably, quite different. I strongly recommend you read the original article , as I think it is a very important concept to have. I use the term quite often, so it is frustrating when people start to say very strange things, such as "We can't just let a powerful AI system loose on the world. That's dangerous!" as if that were the defining feature of a pivotal act. As the original article is quite long let me briefly summarize what I see as the most important points. Explaining Pivotal Act An act that puts us outside of the existential risk danger zone (especially from AI), and into a position from which humanity can flourish is a pivotal act. Most importantly that means a pivotal act needs to prevent a misaligned AGI from being built. Taking over the world is really not required per se. If you can prevent the creation of a misaligned AGI by creating a powerful global institution that can effectively regulate AI, then that counts as a pivotal act. If I could prevent a misaligned AGI from ever being deployed, by eating 10 bananas in 60 seconds, then that would count as a pivotal act too! Preventing Misaligned AGI Requires Control Why then, is 'pivotal act' often associated with the notion of taking over the world? Preventing a misaligned AGI from being built, is a tough problem. Efficively we need to constrain the state of the world such that no misaligned AGI can arise. To successfully do this you need a lot of control over the world. There is no way around that. Taking over the world really means putting oneself into a position of high control, and in that sense, it is necessary to take over the world, at least to a certain extent, to prevent a misaligned AGI from ever being built. Common Confusions Probably, one point of confusion is that "taking over the world" has a lot of negative connotations associated with it. Power is easy to abuse. Putting an entity [1] into a position of great power can certainly go sideways. But I fail to see the alternative. What else are we supposed to do instead of controlling the world in such a way that no misaligned AGI can ever be built? The issue is that many people seem to argue, that giving an entity a lot of control over the world is a pretty terrible idea, as if there is some better alternative we can fall back onto. And then they might start to talk about how they are more hopeful about AI regulation as if pulling off AI regulation successfully does not require an entity that has a great deal of control over the world. Or worse, they name some alternative proposal like figuring out mechanistic interpretability, as if figuring out mechanistic interpretability is identical to putting the world into a state where no misaligned AGI can arise. [2] Pivotal acts that don't directly create a position of Power There are pivotal acts that don't require you to have a lot of control over the world. However, any pivotal acts I know of will still ultimately need to result in the creation of some powerful controlling structure. Starting a process that will ultimately result in the creation of the right controlling structure that can prevent misaligned AGI would already count as a pivotal act. Human Upload An example of such a pivotal act is uploading a human. Imagine you knew how to upload ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Pivotal Acts might Not be what You Think they are, published by Johannes C. Mayer on November 5, 2023 on LessWrong. This article is mainly for people who have not read the pivotal act article on arbital or need a refresher. If you have, the most interesting section would probably be "Omnicient ML Researchers: A Pivotal Act without a Monolithic Control Structure". Many people seem to match the concept of a " pivotal act " to some dystopian version of "deploy AGI to take over the world". 'Pivotal act' means something much more specific , though. Something, arguably, quite different. I strongly recommend you read the original article , as I think it is a very important concept to have. I use the term quite often, so it is frustrating when people start to say very strange things, such as "We can't just let a powerful AI system loose on the world. That's dangerous!" as if that were the defining feature of a pivotal act. As the original article is quite long let me briefly summarize what I see as the most important points. Explaining Pivotal Act An act that puts us outside of the existential risk danger zone (especially from AI), and into a position from which humanity can flourish is a pivotal act. Most importantly that means a pivotal act needs to prevent a misaligned AGI from being built. Taking over the world is really not required per se. If you can prevent the creation of a misaligned AGI by creating a powerful global institution that can effectively regulate AI, then that counts as a pivotal act. If I could prevent a misaligned AGI from ever being deployed, by eating 10 bananas in 60 seconds, then that would count as a pivotal act too! Preventing Misaligned AGI Requires Control Why then, is 'pivotal act' often associated with the notion of taking over the world? Preventing a misaligned AGI from being built, is a tough problem. Efficively we need to constrain the state of the world such that no misaligned AGI can arise. To successfully do this you need a lot of control over the world. There is no way around that. Taking over the world really means putting oneself into a position of high control, and in that sense, it is necessary to take over the world, at least to a certain extent, to prevent a misaligned AGI from ever being built. Common Confusions Probably, one point of confusion is that "taking over the world" has a lot of negative connotations associated with it. Power is easy to abuse. Putting an entity [1] into a position of great power can certainly go sideways. But I fail to see the alternative. What else are we supposed to do instead of controlling the world in such a way that no misaligned AGI can ever be built? The issue is that many people seem to argue, that giving an entity a lot of control over the world is a pretty terrible idea, as if there is some better alternative we can fall back onto. And then they might start to talk about how they are more hopeful about AI regulation as if pulling off AI regulation successfully does not require an entity that has a great deal of control over the world. Or worse, they name some alternative proposal like figuring out mechanistic interpretability, as if figuring out mechanistic interpretability is identical to putting the world into a state where no misaligned AGI can arise. [2] Pivotal acts that don't directly create a position of Power There are pivotal acts that don't require you to have a lot of control over the world. However, any pivotal acts I know of will still ultimately need to result in the creation of some powerful controlling structure. Starting a process that will ultimately result in the creation of the right controlling structure that can prevent misaligned AGI would already count as a pivotal act. Human Upload An example of such a pivotal act is uploading a human. Imagine you knew how to upload ...

In Frames and Framing in Documentary Comics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), Johannes Schmid's new book considers documentary comics in relationship to framing, that is both the strategic use of communication to encourage a particular interpretation of a scenario; secondly, the process of structuring a representation (or portions thereof) by situating it within certain boundaries, in the case of comics, a panel or a page, for example. Dr. Schmid combines theories of framing analysis and cognitive narratology with comics studies, focusing on the medium's visual frames and engaging in a broader discussion about facts and journalism in the current age of fake news and post-truth politics. After laying out its theoretical foundation, the book tackles this subject by dividing it up into Material Framing, Visual Framing, and Narrative framing.   Dr. Johannes Schmid is a postdoctoral researcher at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany, and associate editor at American Studies: A Quarterly, the official journal of the German Society for American Studies (GAAS). His other recent publications include Shooting Pictures, Drawing Blood: The Photographic Image in the Graphic War Memoir (2016). Elizabeth Allyn Woock an assistant professor in the Department of English and American Studies at Palacky University in the Czech Republic with an interdisciplinary background in history and popular literature. Her specialization falls within the study of comic books and graphic novels. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Frames and Framing in Documentary Comics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), Johannes Schmid's new book considers documentary comics in relationship to framing, that is both the strategic use of communication to encourage a particular interpretation of a scenario; secondly, the process of structuring a representation (or portions thereof) by situating it within certain boundaries, in the case of comics, a panel or a page, for example. Dr. Schmid combines theories of framing analysis and cognitive narratology with comics studies, focusing on the medium's visual frames and engaging in a broader discussion about facts and journalism in the current age of fake news and post-truth politics. After laying out its theoretical foundation, the book tackles this subject by dividing it up into Material Framing, Visual Framing, and Narrative framing.   Dr. Johannes Schmid is a postdoctoral researcher at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany, and associate editor at American Studies: A Quarterly, the official journal of the German Society for American Studies (GAAS). His other recent publications include Shooting Pictures, Drawing Blood: The Photographic Image in the Graphic War Memoir (2016). Elizabeth Allyn Woock an assistant professor in the Department of English and American Studies at Palacky University in the Czech Republic with an interdisciplinary background in history and popular literature. Her specialization falls within the study of comic books and graphic novels. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

In Frames and Framing in Documentary Comics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), Johannes Schmid's new book considers documentary comics in relationship to framing, that is both the strategic use of communication to encourage a particular interpretation of a scenario; secondly, the process of structuring a representation (or portions thereof) by situating it within certain boundaries, in the case of comics, a panel or a page, for example. Dr. Schmid combines theories of framing analysis and cognitive narratology with comics studies, focusing on the medium's visual frames and engaging in a broader discussion about facts and journalism in the current age of fake news and post-truth politics. After laying out its theoretical foundation, the book tackles this subject by dividing it up into Material Framing, Visual Framing, and Narrative framing.   Dr. Johannes Schmid is a postdoctoral researcher at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany, and associate editor at American Studies: A Quarterly, the official journal of the German Society for American Studies (GAAS). His other recent publications include Shooting Pictures, Drawing Blood: The Photographic Image in the Graphic War Memoir (2016). Elizabeth Allyn Woock an assistant professor in the Department of English and American Studies at Palacky University in the Czech Republic with an interdisciplinary background in history and popular literature. Her specialization falls within the study of comic books and graphic novels. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

In Frames and Framing in Documentary Comics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021), Johannes Schmid's new book considers documentary comics in relationship to framing, that is both the strategic use of communication to encourage a particular interpretation of a scenario; secondly, the process of structuring a representation (or portions thereof) by situating it within certain boundaries, in the case of comics, a panel or a page, for example. Dr. Schmid combines theories of framing analysis and cognitive narratology with comics studies, focusing on the medium's visual frames and engaging in a broader discussion about facts and journalism in the current age of fake news and post-truth politics. After laying out its theoretical foundation, the book tackles this subject by dividing it up into Material Framing, Visual Framing, and Narrative framing.   Dr. Johannes Schmid is a postdoctoral researcher at Europa-Universität Flensburg, Germany, and associate editor at American Studies: A Quarterly, the official journal of the German Society for American Studies (GAAS). His other recent publications include Shooting Pictures, Drawing Blood: The Photographic Image in the Graphic War Memoir (2016). Elizabeth Allyn Woock an assistant professor in the Department of English and American Studies at Palacky University in the Czech Republic with an interdisciplinary background in history and popular literature. Her specialization falls within the study of comic books and graphic novels. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Focus on the Hardest Part First, published by Johannes C. Mayer on September 11, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. Here is some obvious advice. I think a common failure mode when working on AI alignment[1] is to not focus on the hard parts of the problem first. This is a problem when generating a research agenda, as well as when working on any specific research agenda. Given a research agenda, there are normally many problems that you know how to make progress on. But blindly working on what seems tractable is not a good idea. Let's say we are working on a research agenda about solving problems A, B, and C. We know that if we find solutions to A, B, and C we will solve alignment. However, if we can't solve even one subproblem, the agenda would be doomed. If C seems like a very hard problem, that you are not sure you can solve, it would be a bad idea to flinch away from C and work on problem A instead, when A seems so much more manageable. If solving A takes a lot of time and effort, all of that time and effort would be wasted, if you can't solve C in the end. It's especially worrisome when A has tight fightback loops, such that you constantly feel like you are making progress. Or when it is just generally fun to work on A. Of course, it can make sense to work on A first if you expect this to help you solve C, or at least give you more information on its tractability. The general version of this is illustrated by considering that you have a large list of problems that you need to solve. In this case, focusing on problems that will provide you with information that will be helpful for solving many of the other problems can be very useful. But even then you should not lose sight of the hard problems that might block you down the road. The takeaway is that these two things are very different: Solving A as an instrumental subgoal in order to make progress on C, when C is a potential blocker. Avoiding C, because it seems hard, and instead working on A because it seems tractable. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Focus on the Hardest Part First, published by Johannes C. Mayer on September 11, 2023 on LessWrong. Here is some obvious advice. I think a common failure mode when working on AI alignment[1] is to not focus on the hard parts of the problem first. This is a problem when generating a research agenda, as well as when working on any specific research agenda. Given a research agenda, there are normally many problems that you know how to make progress on. But blindly working on what seems tractable is not a good idea. Let's say we are working on a research agenda about solving problems A, B, and C. We know that if we find solutions to A, B, and C we will solve alignment. However, if we can't solve even one subproblem, the agenda would be doomed. If C seems like a very hard problem, that you are not sure you can solve, it would be a bad idea to flinch away from C and work on problem A instead, when A seems so much more manageable. If solving A takes a lot of time and effort, all of that time and effort would be wasted, if you can't solve C in the end. It's especially worrisome when A has tight fightback loops, such that you constantly feel like you are making progress. Or when it is just generally fun to work on A. Of course, it can make sense to work on A first if you expect this to help you solve C, or at least give you more information on its tractability. The general version of this is illustrated by considering that you have a large list of problems that you need to solve. In this case, focusing on problems that will provide you with information that will be helpful for solving many of the other problems can be very useful. But even then you should not lose sight of the hard problems that might block you down the road. The takeaway is that these two things are very different: Solving A as an instrumental subgoal in order to make progress on C, when C is a potential blocker. Avoiding C, because it seems hard, and instead working on A because it seems tractable. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Focus on the Hardest Part First, published by Johannes C. Mayer on September 11, 2023 on LessWrong. Here is some obvious advice. I think a common failure mode when working on AI alignment[1] is to not focus on the hard parts of the problem first. This is a problem when generating a research agenda, as well as when working on any specific research agenda. Given a research agenda, there are normally many problems that you know how to make progress on. But blindly working on what seems tractable is not a good idea. Let's say we are working on a research agenda about solving problems A, B, and C. We know that if we find solutions to A, B, and C we will solve alignment. However, if we can't solve even one subproblem, the agenda would be doomed. If C seems like a very hard problem, that you are not sure you can solve, it would be a bad idea to flinch away from C and work on problem A instead, when A seems so much more manageable. If solving A takes a lot of time and effort, all of that time and effort would be wasted, if you can't solve C in the end. It's especially worrisome when A has tight fightback loops, such that you constantly feel like you are making progress. Or when it is just generally fun to work on A. Of course, it can make sense to work on A first if you expect this to help you solve C, or at least give you more information on its tractability. The general version of this is illustrated by considering that you have a large list of problems that you need to solve. In this case, focusing on problems that will provide you with information that will be helpful for solving many of the other problems can be very useful. But even then you should not lose sight of the hard problems that might block you down the road. The takeaway is that these two things are very different: Solving A as an instrumental subgoal in order to make progress on C, when C is a potential blocker. Avoiding C, because it seems hard, and instead working on A because it seems tractable. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: I can see how I am Dumb, published by Johannes C. Mayer on June 10, 2023 on LessWrong. When I'm talking to somebody, sometimes I lose the conversational thread. Or sometimes I feel like there is this thing I want to say that seems relevant now, but I just can't remember it. Or maybe I'm trying to solve a particular problem. I throw myself again and again at the problem, but it just won't budge. And then after some long amount of time, possibly hours, I realize that the solution was extremely simple. And I just failed to execute the right kind of solution-finding algorithm that would have found this very simple solution quickly. I would expect that people with more intelligence, perform better in these domains. They have probably an easier time remembering and retaining the right things. Well, that alone might be sufficient to explain a large chunk of what makes a more intelligent person able to perform better. If you remember the right things quickly that are relevant in the moment, and if you can keep track of more things in your head at the same time without losing track of what these things were, then that might account for a large chunk of how an intelligent person is better at performing any particular thing. The core point here is that I think everybody, even somebody who would be much smarter than me, can see various failure modes in their own cognition and realize that they might be just so fundamental that there is no direct way of changing them. I'm pretty sure that at some level what sorts of things your brain spits out into your consciousness and how useful that information is in the given situation, is something that you can't fundamentally change. I expect this to be a hard-coded algorithm, and I expect there to be many such hard-coded cognitive processes that can't be changed (at least not in major ways). The cognitive improvements that you can apply will be at a higher level. To me, it seems that is what much of the Sequences are about. You can understand that there is something like the sunk cost fallacy, and understanding what it is, allows you to train yourself to recognize when you fall pray to it (Though that is a separate step from understanding what it is that you actually need to do to get most of the benefit). And the way you would do this is by for example using TAPs. In a sense, it seems that tabs are a way to install a very small hook into your brain in the programming sense. My current model of it is that you install a little watcher program that watches your sensory input streams and your internal model of the world. And then, when it detects a specific pattern, it triggers the execution of another algorithm. The interesting thing is that if you do this well, then all of this will become subconscious. So it's not that you can't change your subconscious algorithms. TABs are a way to install tiny new subconsciously executed algorithms into your brain. So let me make give an example of an algorithm that I think is largely unchangeable. Let's do an experiment. Please follow the bolded instructions: Imagine a car in your mind's eye. Now, your brain will have brought probably some specific car to mind. Maybe it's a 911 Porsche, the Cybertruck, or another Tesla. The point is that based on you reading the word car your brain pulled a lot more information out of the depths of your brain, such as an image or a "feeling of carness". How is your mind doing this? You read the word car and your mind produces some qualia that is associated with the concept of car. Now think of a car part. Now what did you imagine? A steering wheel, a door, an engine, a cylinder, a wheel, a windshield, an antenna? Notice that there was one thing that came to mind first and then maybe another thing. But how did your brain generate that specific thing? Why did you for exa...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: I can see how I am Dumb, published by Johannes C. Mayer on June 10, 2023 on LessWrong. When I'm talking to somebody, sometimes I lose the conversational thread. Or sometimes I feel like there is this thing I want to say that seems relevant now, but I just can't remember it. Or maybe I'm trying to solve a particular problem. I throw myself again and again at the problem, but it just won't budge. And then after some long amount of time, possibly hours, I realize that the solution was extremely simple. And I just failed to execute the right kind of solution-finding algorithm that would have found this very simple solution quickly. I would expect that people with more intelligence, perform better in these domains. They have probably an easier time remembering and retaining the right things. Well, that alone might be sufficient to explain a large chunk of what makes a more intelligent person able to perform better. If you remember the right things quickly that are relevant in the moment, and if you can keep track of more things in your head at the same time without losing track of what these things were, then that might account for a large chunk of how an intelligent person is better at performing any particular thing. The core point here is that I think everybody, even somebody who would be much smarter than me, can see various failure modes in their own cognition and realize that they might be just so fundamental that there is no direct way of changing them. I'm pretty sure that at some level what sorts of things your brain spits out into your consciousness and how useful that information is in the given situation, is something that you can't fundamentally change. I expect this to be a hard-coded algorithm, and I expect there to be many such hard-coded cognitive processes that can't be changed (at least not in major ways). The cognitive improvements that you can apply will be at a higher level. To me, it seems that is what much of the Sequences are about. You can understand that there is something like the sunk cost fallacy, and understanding what it is, allows you to train yourself to recognize when you fall pray to it (Though that is a separate step from understanding what it is that you actually need to do to get most of the benefit). And the way you would do this is by for example using TAPs. In a sense, it seems that tabs are a way to install a very small hook into your brain in the programming sense. My current model of it is that you install a little watcher program that watches your sensory input streams and your internal model of the world. And then, when it detects a specific pattern, it triggers the execution of another algorithm. The interesting thing is that if you do this well, then all of this will become subconscious. So it's not that you can't change your subconscious algorithms. TABs are a way to install tiny new subconsciously executed algorithms into your brain. So let me make give an example of an algorithm that I think is largely unchangeable. Let's do an experiment. Please follow the bolded instructions: Imagine a car in your mind's eye. Now, your brain will have brought probably some specific car to mind. Maybe it's a 911 Porsche, the Cybertruck, or another Tesla. The point is that based on you reading the word car your brain pulled a lot more information out of the depths of your brain, such as an image or a "feeling of carness". How is your mind doing this? You read the word car and your mind produces some qualia that is associated with the concept of car. Now think of a car part. Now what did you imagine? A steering wheel, a door, an engine, a cylinder, a wheel, a windshield, an antenna? Notice that there was one thing that came to mind first and then maybe another thing. But how did your brain generate that specific thing? Why did you for exa...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: My Advice for Incoming SERI MATS Scholars, published by Johannes C. Mayer on January 3, 2023 on LessWrong. I have participated in SERI MATS 2.0 in John's stream. Here is some advice based on my experience. Be Nice The AI alignment community is pretty small. If you are an ass, everybody will know that you are an ass. The same holds to a lesser extent for being nice. When I was visiting Edinburgh to attend a talk by David Krueger, there were several people there, that I had first met at Lightcone. When I was visiting Trajan House, the same thing happened. You never know when you might be talking to a grantmaker over dinner. Epistemic status: I did not actually behave like an ass. I expect this to be true, based on how many people I ran into that I've seen before, in different parts of the world. Use Lunch and Dinner at Lightcone During MATS 2.0 lunch and dinner were both served at Lightcone every day of the week. There were always many cool people around, and the conversations were unusually insightful. My favorite heuristic is to just join whatever conversation John is in. I am pretty sure that at least 15% of the value of SERI MATS came from eating lunch and dinner at Lightcone. Probably much more than that. Epistemic status: It feels like this was very useful, but it is hard to quantify. Take care of yourself At the beginning of SERI MATS, there were many social events (mostly just general Berkeley EA/Rationalist events). They were all happening pretty late. For some reason, I need to sleep 10:30 to 12:00 hours every day or I will be tired. My team was meeting at 10:00 every day. For the first 3 weeks, I was basically sleep-deprived almost every day. John's workshops are pretty great, and being sleep-deprived during them destroyed probably more than 20% of the value. That being said, at least one of the socials was high-value, and it was probably worth the cost. The worst thing was that I got used to being sleep-deprived. I sleep-deprived myself, even when there were no socials happening. I made similar mistakes with doing sports and eating healthily. Somehow it's hard to keep up all the good habits when you change your environment. Epistemic status: It's hard to evaluate the counterfactual where I was not sleep-deprived. I estimate I could have gotten 5-35% more value by not making the mistakes I listed. Learn to detach yourself from your ideas Check out this comment. Be Agentic If something doesn't fit right, try to fix it. Do you have a crazy idea about how to improve the office? Ask, or implement it yourself (after getting permission)! (The Lightcone ops team is very competent and cool. John had a loft bed in his office when I was there. I am not sure about the situation in the new SERI MATS offices.) Choose how you spend your time. If you are in a conversation, notice when you would rather do something else. I recommend that you act on this feeling. Get back to work, join that other discussion that seems more interesting, or do whatever else seems higher value. I think being able to do this is great. Building up this skill is probably easier when talking to rationalists. They won't punish you for this kind of initiative. In general, being agentic seems highly related to making sure that you thought all your high-value thoughts. I recommend sitting down for at least 5 minutes by the clock every day, and trying to come up with high-value directions to think in. The second step is then to always do what you think is best. Which is not easy. Think about AI alignment from scratch Reading somebodies work is different from discovering the underlying insights for yourself. Many details will be omitted in a write-up. Especially details on the research process. When I thought about AI alignment from scratch, I was thinking thoughts I had not thought of before. It seems l...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: My Advice for Incoming SERI MATS Scholars, published by Johannes C. Mayer on January 3, 2023 on LessWrong. I have participated in SERI MATS 2.0 in John's stream. Here is some advice based on my experience. Be Nice The AI alignment community is pretty small. If you are an ass, everybody will know that you are an ass. The same holds to a lesser extent for being nice. When I was visiting Edinburgh to attend a talk by David Krueger, there were several people there, that I had first met at Lightcone. When I was visiting Trajan House, the same thing happened. You never know when you might be talking to a grantmaker over dinner. Epistemic status: I did not actually behave like an ass. I expect this to be true, based on how many people I ran into that I've seen before, in different parts of the world. Use Lunch and Dinner at Lightcone During MATS 2.0 lunch and dinner were both served at Lightcone every day of the week. There were always many cool people around, and the conversations were unusually insightful. My favorite heuristic is to just join whatever conversation John is in. I am pretty sure that at least 15% of the value of SERI MATS came from eating lunch and dinner at Lightcone. Probably much more than that. Epistemic status: It feels like this was very useful, but it is hard to quantify. Take care of yourself At the beginning of SERI MATS, there were many social events (mostly just general Berkeley EA/Rationalist events). They were all happening pretty late. For some reason, I need to sleep 10:30 to 12:00 hours every day or I will be tired. My team was meeting at 10:00 every day. For the first 3 weeks, I was basically sleep-deprived almost every day. John's workshops are pretty great, and being sleep-deprived during them destroyed probably more than 20% of the value. That being said, at least one of the socials was high-value, and it was probably worth the cost. The worst thing was that I got used to being sleep-deprived. I sleep-deprived myself, even when there were no socials happening. I made similar mistakes with doing sports and eating healthily. Somehow it's hard to keep up all the good habits when you change your environment. Epistemic status: It's hard to evaluate the counterfactual where I was not sleep-deprived. I estimate I could have gotten 5-35% more value by not making the mistakes I listed. Learn to detach yourself from your ideas Check out this comment. Be Agentic If something doesn't fit right, try to fix it. Do you have a crazy idea about how to improve the office? Ask, or implement it yourself (after getting permission)! (The Lightcone ops team is very competent and cool. John had a loft bed in his office when I was there. I am not sure about the situation in the new SERI MATS offices.) Choose how you spend your time. If you are in a conversation, notice when you would rather do something else. I recommend that you act on this feeling. Get back to work, join that other discussion that seems more interesting, or do whatever else seems higher value. I think being able to do this is great. Building up this skill is probably easier when talking to rationalists. They won't punish you for this kind of initiative. In general, being agentic seems highly related to making sure that you thought all your high-value thoughts. I recommend sitting down for at least 5 minutes by the clock every day, and trying to come up with high-value directions to think in. The second step is then to always do what you think is best. Which is not easy. Think about AI alignment from scratch Reading somebodies work is different from discovering the underlying insights for yourself. Many details will be omitted in a write-up. Especially details on the research process. When I thought about AI alignment from scratch, I was thinking thoughts I had not thought of before. It seems l...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Working towards AI alignment is better, published by Johannes C. Mayer on December 9, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. There are people not motivated to solve AI alignment, who do work related to AI alignment. E.g. people work on adversarial robustness, understanding how to do science mechanically, or on advancing other paradigms that are more interpretable than modern ML. These people might be interested in the science, or work on it for some other personal reason. They probably will do a worse job, compared to, if they would try to advance AI alignment, even when they work on something that is useful for AI alignment. This basic idea was mentioned by Buck in a talk. The following is a list of reasons why somebody who tries to solve alignment directly, would be better at solving alignment (though this sentence alone makes it sound obvious): They are more likely to switch directions once they realize that they could be doing something better with their time, to make progress on AI alignment. E.g. somebody who is interested in type theory and then learns that they can help AI alignment might be excited to help, but when there is lots of evidence that they should do something that does not involve type theory, they will keep sticking to doing things with type theory until the end, because their interest in type theory outweighs their desire to advance AI alignment. The path that they take to solve the problem might look very different. It is less likely that they take unpromissing but interesting sidetracks. Simplifications that they make to the problem decrease the value of a solution less, in expectation. In general, if there are multiple ways to solve the problem, the solution we end up with will likely be more relevant for alignment. They can employ the full power of their consequentialist reasoning and be agentic about what to do, without starting to goodhart. E.g. if you just let them do whatever, they are likely to discover things that are useful that you did not think of before. If somebodies main objective is not to solve AI alignment, it is likely that they will follow whatever looks best to their real motivation, as long as they can find some plausible explanation for why this is useful for AI alignment so that they have an excuse (in the case where they are payed to work on this to advance AI alignment). There are probably many more points I have not thought of. How much you want to solve alignment compared to other things is a spectrum. What you care about might naturally drift. When you work on something for a long time, you get attached to your work. That's something to keep in mind. It's interesting to think about the difference, between trying to solve alignment and just doing related work. It can help to notice when we fall into this trap ourselves. Also, getting clear on this might help in doing the good things (e.g. the things in the list above) even more. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Saying no to the Appleman, published by Johannes C. Mayer on April 29, 2022 on LessWrong. Today I was overhearing an interesting conversation between my father and a door-to-door salesperson. It was interesting to witness the inability of my father to say no, and the tactics that the salesperson used. Nobody knew that I was listening. My father tried to tell that salesperson no perhaps 5 times. My father was always trying to fish for arguments to justify the no. The salesperson seemed to be listening carefully, making sounds that indicate acknowledgment and understanding. But then when he began to speak again, he ignored the argument and tried to give reasons why buying apples is good. Or he would seem to offer something special to my father by reducing the minimum order quantity. As an argument, my father said something along the lines of there being many people in the household that all need to be financially supported, and that therefore buying these overpriced apples is not a good choice. Though he did not mention the apples being overpriced. And the salesperson without a moment's hesitation interjected that if there are so many people, then it would be better to buy 40kg instead of 20. And he managed to say it in a joking tone, making it not seem offensive. (So a joking tone of voice can be used to put options on the table that would be socially inappropriate otherwise, without taking a reputation hit. Interesting.) And for offering something special he used a cute little psychological trick. Ideally, you would like to sell as much as possible. Having a minimum buy quantity is good to check the reaction of the potential buyer. If it is only a bit above what he would like to spend you might be able to talk him into buying more than he otherwise would. If he does not seem like he is going to take the offer you can just lower the minimum buy quantity. And then it seems like the seller is doing you a favor. But of course, selling anything is better than nothing. And the seller did never offer to lower the price. He only talked about that there is some other place my father probably never heard of, where the apples cost 5$, and that therefore his offer of 4$ per 1kg of apples must be good. The seller started with 30kg being the minimum order quantity the first time he showed up. Each time after that my father said no I think. And each time the seller lowered the minimum order quantity. Form 30 to 24 to 20. And this time he lowered it again to 15, and then finally to 10kg. That is still 40$ of apples. I guess that this is still profitable for the seller (taking into account travel time and expenses). But it seems to scratch the bottom. It all of course depends on how many other buyers there are, and how far they are apart. I am in the countryside right now, and not in a big city. It might even be worth taking a small loss for the seller, not breaking the buyer's streak of buying. I would expect that each time you buy the same thing from the same seller, it gets harder and harder to not buy again as a habit forms. Perhaps the buyer just had a bad day and next time he would buy again. "You want to find customers and hold them" is advice I have heard multiple times, though I don't remember where I have heard it. How not to say no I don't think my father has learned how to say no yet. He was always trying to justify his no. But of course, justifying your no only makes sense if the other person tries to find the truth of whether the no is the best thing for you. And the salesperson is already set very hard on that selling apples is what is good. It is sort of the Principal-Agent problem, in terms of wanting the salesperson (agent) to be an interlocutor to you (the Principal) that helps you figure out the right decision. Giving a justification is only an invitation for it t...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Saying no to the Appleman, published by Johannes C. Mayer on April 29, 2022 on LessWrong. Today I was overhearing an interesting conversation between my father and a door-to-door salesperson. It was interesting to witness the inability of my father to say no, and the tactics that the salesperson used. Nobody knew that I was listening. My father tried to tell that salesperson no perhaps 5 times. My father was always trying to fish for arguments to justify the no. The salesperson seemed to be listening carefully, making sounds that indicate acknowledgment and understanding. But then when he began to speak again, he ignored the argument and tried to give reasons why buying apples is good. Or he would seem to offer something special to my father by reducing the minimum order quantity. As an argument, my father said something along the lines of there being many people in the household that all need to be financially supported, and that therefore buying these overpriced apples is not a good choice. Though he did not mention the apples being overpriced. And the salesperson without a moment's hesitation interjected that if there are so many people, then it would be better to buy 40kg instead of 20. And he managed to say it in a joking tone, making it not seem offensive. (So a joking tone of voice can be used to put options on the table that would be socially inappropriate otherwise, without taking a reputation hit. Interesting.) And for offering something special he used a cute little psychological trick. Ideally, you would like to sell as much as possible. Having a minimum buy quantity is good to check the reaction of the potential buyer. If it is only a bit above what he would like to spend you might be able to talk him into buying more than he otherwise would. If he does not seem like he is going to take the offer you can just lower the minimum buy quantity. And then it seems like the seller is doing you a favor. But of course, selling anything is better than nothing. And the seller did never offer to lower the price. He only talked about that there is some other place my father probably never heard of, where the apples cost 5$, and that therefore his offer of 4$ per 1kg of apples must be good. The seller started with 30kg being the minimum order quantity the first time he showed up. Each time after that my father said no I think. And each time the seller lowered the minimum order quantity. Form 30 to 24 to 20. And this time he lowered it again to 15, and then finally to 10kg. That is still 40$ of apples. I guess that this is still profitable for the seller (taking into account travel time and expenses). But it seems to scratch the bottom. It all of course depends on how many other buyers there are, and how far they are apart. I am in the countryside right now, and not in a big city. It might even be worth taking a small loss for the seller, not breaking the buyer's streak of buying. I would expect that each time you buy the same thing from the same seller, it gets harder and harder to not buy again as a habit forms. Perhaps the buyer just had a bad day and next time he would buy again. "You want to find customers and hold them" is advice I have heard multiple times, though I don't remember where I have heard it. How not to say no I don't think my father has learned how to say no yet. He was always trying to justify his no. But of course, justifying your no only makes sense if the other person tries to find the truth of whether the no is the best thing for you. And the salesperson is already set very hard on that selling apples is what is good. It is sort of the Principal-Agent problem, in terms of wanting the salesperson (agent) to be an interlocutor to you (the Principal) that helps you figure out the right decision. Giving a justification is only an invitation for it t...

Scottish doctor, writer, speaker, and outspoken cholesterol sceptic Malcolm Kendrick is back on the podcast this week. He continues to challenge the widespread use of statin medications, despite being targeted personally and professionally by those opposing his message. Since we last talked he has authored a new book, A Statin Nation: Damaging Millions in a Brave New Post-health World, elucidating his position against mainstream medicine’s rampant cholesterol-lowering tactics.  On this podcast, Dr. Kendrick describes in detail exactly what he believes drives the process of cardiovascular disease, informed from 35 years of research on the subject.  He explains specifically why cholesterol has been misunderstood, and how medicine got it wrong. We discuss corruption in medical research and the money supporting the status quo, and Dr. Kendrick shares some of the best ways to avoid heart disease (which have little to do with diet!). Here’s the outline of this interview with Malcolm Kendrick: [00:00:07] Our first podcast with Malcolm Kendrick: Why Cholesterol Levels Have No Effect on Cardiovascular Disease (And Things to Think about Instead). [00:00:30] Book: A Statin Nation: Damaging Millions in a Brave New Post-health World, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. His previous two books: Doctoring Data and The Cholesterol Con. [00:02:00] Causes vs processes. [00:03:40] History behind his journey and questioning authority. [00:07:30] Articles written by Elspeth Smith. [00:09:00] Karl Rokitansky’s paper discussing an alternative way of looking at CVD: A manual of pathological anatomy, Vol. 4. Day GE, trans. London: Sydenham Society, 1852:261; in print here. [00:09:06] Rudolf Virchow, researcher who pointed to cholesterol in artery walls. [00:10:55] Researcher Nikolai N. Anichkov: fed rabbits a high-cholesterol diet and cholesterol appeared in their arteries (sort of). [00:12:07] Ancel Keys; blaming saturated fat. [00:14:11] France - highest saturated fat consumption, lowest rate of CVD. Georgia - lowest sat fat consumption, highest rate of CVD.  See graph, here. [00:15:16] International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS). Study: Ravnskov, Uffe, et al. "Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review." BMJ open 6.6 (2016): e010401. [00:16:50] Pleiotropic effects of statins. [00:17:29] Movie: 12 Angry Men (1957). [00:20:30] Robert Ross - response to injury hypothesis; Study: Ross, Russell, John Glomset, and Laurence Harker. "Response to injury and atherogenesis." The American journal of pathology 86.3 (1977): 675. [00:20:40] TV show: Stranger Things. [00:22:31] Infectious disease hypothesis. [00:22:52] Analogy of rust in the paint of a car; Sickle Cell Disease as an example. [00:27:12] 14-year old boy with Sickle Cell and atherosclerosis; Study: Elsharawy, M. A., and K. M. Moghazy. "Peripheral arterial lesions in patient with sickle cell disease." EJVES Extra 14.2 (2007): 15-18. [00:28:57] Endothelial progenitor cells, produced in the bone marrow, discovered in 1997. [00:29:31] Pig study of endothelial turnover: Caplan, Bernard A., and Colin J. Schwartz. "Increased endothelial cell turnover in areas of in vivo Evans Blue uptake in the pig aorta." Atherosclerosis 17.3 (1973): 401-417. [00:31:48] Vitamin C's role in maintaining collagen and blood vessels. [00:33:08] Lp(a) molecules - patching cracks in the artery walls. [00:33:42] Depriving guinea pigs of vitamin C caused atherosclerosis; Study: Willis, G. C. "The reversibility of atherosclerosis." Canadian Medical Association Journal 77.2 (1957): 106. [00:34:24] Linus Pauling - said CVD was caused by chronic low-level vitamin C deficiency. [00:35:53] What else damages endothelial cells? Many things, including smoking, air pollution, high blood sugar, Kawasaki disease, sepsis/infection. [00:41:19] Glycocalyx; Nitric oxide. [00:43:30] Health benefits of sun exposure. [00:44:26] Biomechanical stress (blood pressure) - atherosclerosis in arteries but not in veins. [00:47:57] Things that interfere with repair: steroids, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. [00:55:00] The effects of stress on the cardiovascular system. [00:57:55] Red blood cells are what brings cholesterol into blood clots. [00:58:59] Cholesterol crystals in atherosclerotic plaques come from red blood cells. Study: Kolodgie, Frank D., et al. "Intraplaque hemorrhage and progression of coronary atheroma." New England Journal of Medicine 349.24 (2003): 2316-2325. [01:00:55] Very low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs) are procoagulant; High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is anticoagulant. [01:03:46] Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH); Factor VIII. [01:08:15] Cholesterol-lowering pharmaceuticals; Repatha. In the clinical trial, the total number of cardiovascular deaths was greater in the Repatha group than the placebo group. Study: Sabatine, Marc S., et al. "Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease." New England Journal of Medicine 376.18 (2017): 1713-1722. [01:09:34] David Deamer, biologist and Research Professor of Biomolecular Engineering. [01:10:05] Karl Popper, philosopher. [01:10:28] Bradford Hill’s Criteria for Causation. [01:13:52] Michael Mosley, BBC journalist. [01:16:40] Statin denialism - an internet cult with deadly consequences? [01:19:18] The money behind the statin and low-fat industries. [01:20:06] Margarine; Trans-fatty acids, banned in several countries. [01:24:37] The impact of food; The focus on food to the exclusion of other pillars of health. [01:26:38] Dr. Phil Hammond; CLANGERS [01:28:21] Avoiding internet attacks. [01:32:00] ApoA-1 Milano. Original study: Nissen, Steven E., et al. "Effect of recombinant ApoA-I Milano on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial." Jama 290.17 (2003): 2292-2300. [01:33:05] The Heart Protection (HPS) Study in the UK: Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. "MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20 536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo controlled trial." The Lancet 360.9326 (2002): 7-22. [01:33:36]  Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. "Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)." The Lancet 344.8934 (1994): 1383-1389. [01:33:49] West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS): Shepherd, James, et al. "Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia." New England Journal of Medicine 333.20 (1995): 1301-1308. [01:34:21] National Institute of Health’s ALLHAT-LLT trial: Officers, A. L. L. H. A. T. "Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group: Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs. usual care: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT)." JAMA 288.23 (2002): 2998-3007. [01:34:50] 2005 - Regulations guiding clinical trials changed. [01:35:14] Negative antidepressant studies not published; Study: Turner, Erick H., et al. "Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy." New England Journal of Medicine 358.3 (2008): 252-260. [01:37:11] Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE): Analysis of recovered data: Ramsden, Christopher E., et al. "Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)." bmj 353 (2016): i1246. [01:39:44] Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Ioannidis, John PA. "Why most published research findings are false." PLoS medicine 2.8 (2005): e124. [01:39:55] Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet: half of what is published is not true: Horton, Richard. "Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma." Lancet 385.9976 (2015): 1380. [01:41:11] The problem with reproducibility; a database of clinical trials that cannot be challenged or reproduced. [01:42:37] Editors of prominent journals losing faith in published research: Marci Angell, Richard Smith [01:44:55] Parachute study: Yeh, Robert W., et al. "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial." bmj 363 (2018): k5094. [01:46:01] Benefits that are major are obvious; no randomized clinical trial necessary. [01:48:33] Preventing vs. screening. [01:51:42] Podcast: Movement Analysis and Breathing Strategies for Pain Relief and Improved Performance with physical therapist Zac Cupples. [01:51:59] Analysis of women who died in various ways, examining breast tissue; found that a high % of women had what you could diagnose as breast cancer. Study: Bhathal, P. S., et al. "Frequency of benign and malignant breast lesions in 207 consecutive autopsies in Australian women." British journal of cancer 51.2 (1985): 271. [01:53:34] Screening programs not associated with reduced CVD or death; Study: Krogsbøll, Lasse T., et al. "General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis." Bmj 345 (2012): e7191. [01:54:26] Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) scan. Podcast: Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC): A Direct Measure of Cardiovascular Disease Risk, with Ivor Cummins. [01:54:46] Cardiologist Bernard Lown.  [01:58:38] People who had measles/mumps less likely to get CVD; Study: Kubota, Yasuhiko, et al. "Association of measles and mumps with cardiovascular disease: The Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC) study." Atherosclerosis 241.2 (2015): 682-686. [02:00:55] Life expectancy in US and UK is now falling. [02:06:46] Physical health doesn't exist without social health and psychological health. [02:07:40] Negative Twitter messages correlate with rates of heart disease; Study: Eichstaedt, Johannes C., et al. "Psychological language on Twitter predicts county-level heart disease mortality." Psychological science 26.2 (2015): 159-169. [02:09:58] People who take statins believe they’re protected so they stop exercising. Study: Lee, David SH, et al. "Statins and physical activity in older men: the osteoporotic fractures in men study." JAMA internal medicine 174.8 (2014): 1263-1270. [02:11:45] Simple changes: make friends, have good relationships, speak to your kids, exercise, eat natural food, sunshine. [02:16:53] Blood sugar measurements following funny lecture vs. boring lecture; Study: Hayashi, Keiko, et al. "Laughter lowered the increase in postprandial blood glucose." Diabetes care 26.5 (2003): 1651-1652. [02:18:08] Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s blog.

Im Podcast unterhalten sich Ralf Schönball und Johannes C. Bockenheimer.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Ralf Schönball über Enteignungskampagnen und die Wohnungsnot.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Ralf Schönball über die Kosten der Enteignungskampagne.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Jan-Philipp Hein über die Gewerbeflächenknappheit in Berlin.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Karin Christmann über den neuen Berliner Feiertag.

Im Podcast berichten Johannes C. Bockenheimer und Silvia Perdoni über den BVG-Streik in der Hauptstadt.

Im Podcast spricht Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Ralf Schönball.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Kevin P. Hoffmann.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Jan-Philipp Hein über die Folgen des Brexit für die Wirtschaft.

Life in the big city can be fully of late nights, lots of lights and risky behaviour. This week we look at what living in the big city may mean for your health. Whether it be the impact of light pollution and getting a good night's rest, to the trade-offs of being a night owl, our circadian rhythms can be impacted by living a 24/7 life. We find out about studies on big data about a cities health, from a long term study of insomniacs in South Korea to using social media to determine when a city is 'feeling lucky' and willing to take a risk.References: Jin-young Min, Kyoung-bok Min. Outdoor Artificial Nighttime Light and Use of Hypnotic Medications in Older Adults: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 2018; 14 (11): 1903 DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.7490 Suzana Almoosawi Snieguole Vingeliene Frederic Gachon Trudy Voortman Luigi Palla Jonathan D Johnston Rob Martinus Van Dam Christian Darimont Leonidas G Karagounis. Chronotype: Implications for Epidemiologic Studies on Chrono-Nutrition and Cardiometabolic Health. Advances in Nutrition, 2018 DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmy070 A. Ross Otto, Johannes C. Eichstaedt. Real-world unexpected outcomes predict city-level mood states and risk-taking behavior. PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (11): e0206923 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206923

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Christian Hönicke.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Alexander Fröhlich.

Im Podcast unterhalten sich diesmal Laura Hofmann und Johannes C. Bockenheimer

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Ralf Schönball.

Im Podcast spricht Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Felix Hackenbruch über die Schwierigkeiten der Energiewende.

Im Podcast spricht Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Stefan Jacobs über drohende Dieselverbote.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Alexander Fröhlich über den Besucher aus Ankara.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Tagesspiegel-Herausgeber Sebastian Turner.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer unterhält sich mit dem "Checkpoint"-Team

Im Podcast unterhalten sich Oliver Voß und Johannes C. Bockenheimer über Anwendungen der Künstlichen Intelligenz (KI).

Im Podcast spricht Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit dem Wirtschaftspublizisten Wolf Lotter.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Ralf Schönball über die mögliche Bebauung auf dem Tempelhofer Feld.

Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Fatina Keilani über sogenannte "Profilierungsfahrer".

In dieser Episode unterhalten sich Laura Hofmann und Johannes C. Bockenheimer.

Im Podcast sprechen Ralf Schönball und Johannes C. Bockenheimer über die Baupolitik des Senats.

In dieser Episode unterhalten sich Fatina Keilani und Johannes C. Bockenheimer

Johannes C. Bockenheimer hat sich auf die Suche nach der liberalen Gesellschaft gemacht – oder besser gesagt: auf die Suche nach dem, was davon übrig geblieben ist. Sein Gast in dieser Podcast-Episode: der Journalist Ulf Poschardt. Die AfD hält der Franke für eine "Kathedrale der Angst", Jürgen Trittin für den deutschesten Menschen auf diesem Planeten und Thatcher und Punk für verwandte Phänomene.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer unterhält sich mit Laura Hofmann über Hochzeitstrends, überlastete Standesämter und die Heiratslust in den einzelnen Bezirken.

Jedes Jahr im Mai kommen die besten deutschsprachigen Inszenierungen nach Berlin. Im Podcast sprechen Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Rüdiger Schaper über das diesjährige Festival.

Erneut wurden Menschen im Berliner Verkehr schwer verletzt. Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Stefan Jacobs im Podcast, wie gefährlich man in Berlin auf zwei Rädern fährt, wie man sich besser schützt - und was der Senat für die Verkehrssicherheit unternimmt.

Erneut kam es zu einem Angriff auf Juden in der Hauptstadt - Laura Hofmann und Johannes C. Bockenheimer besprechen die Hintergründe

Hat Berlins Polizei überreagiert? Im Podcast unterhält sich Johannes C. Bockenheimer mit Alexander Fröhlich über den Terroralarm von Wochenende.

Ein Lufthansa-Manager fordert den Abriss des Pannenflughafens BER, die Airport-Leitung kontert mit dem Vorwurf, die Fluglinie engagiere sich zu wenig vor Ort. Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Gerd Appenzeller über ein schwierige Wirtschaftsbeziehung.

Die Initiative "Bündnis Neukölln" engagiert sich gegen Rechtsextremismus im Bezirk. Nun ist sie selbst ins Visier des Verfassungsschutzes geraten. Wie es dazu kam, diskutieren Matthias Meisner und Johannes C. Bockenheimer im Podcast.

Christian Hönicke und Johannes C. Bockenheimer diskutieren über ein Beteiligungsverfahren, das zur Luftnummer wurde.

Johannes C. Bockenheimer spricht mit Stefan Jacobs über das Urteil des BGH. Dieser gab der Revision zweier Männer statt, die nach einem illegalen Autorennen mit tödlichem Ausgang vom Landgericht Berlin zu lebenslangen Haftstrafen verurteilt worden waren.