> Admittedly, no real effort is put into explaining how the time machine actually works, other than Gilliam’s signature steampunk wires and bellows.

> Science Score: 9

Primer

> As for the science, the basic idea is that Aaron and Abe are trying to build a device to counter the effects of gravity by creating a room-temperature superconductor (a hot topic in physics this year, albeit a controversial one) that exploits the Meissner effect to remove the magnetic field inside a plain gray box large enough to fit one person.

> The limitation that you can’t travel to times earlier than you turned the machine on is actually very realistic—closed timelike curves in relativity would have exactly that feature.

> Science Score: 3

I don't understand this reviewer

Yes, existential risk of general AI might be small; but even fewer people are working on it: only about one hundred, worldwide. Similarly, the reason E.A. stepped off the climate change train is because it was a popular issue, which means the marginal benefit of one person contributing decreases.

When more people direct attention to AI safety, another area will be the one where E.A. can contribute most, and the focus will shift.

Re: pareto principle, I've never actually looked at what the principle means. "80% of the consequences come from 20% of the causes" is quite useful, as I understand it it means "don't assume that causes of consequences are randomly distributed".

I think I see it often misunderstood the way I misunderstood (/misunderstand?) it: "As with most things, there is the 80/20 rule (Pareto again), exceptions are sometimes warranted in important situations." this sentence just says "you should stick to the rule about 80% of the time"

Re: advice, thanks for taking the time! I hadn't considered research, but luckily I already agree with 3) :P

I am naturally a quite chaotic person, I have trouble helping other people create order when I'm already having trouble keeping an eye on all the streams that exist in the team. Any tips would be appreciated.

I wish people would stop bringing up the Pareto principle. "Some things are consistently bigger than other things." Can we talk about why things are bigger than other things instead of saying it's because of some law of nature?