AppeasingRoko

Sure, but it also decreases mortality by reducing the risk for hundreds of diseases, including heart disease, the leading killer for over-65s. You have to balance pros/cons, obviously!

Humans aren't cars...? Don't use an analogy unless it has a logical basis.

Okay, I am happy to leave this part of the discussion. I think biological processes are highly distinguishable from non-biological ones, however (i.e. heavy brain usage is highly beneficial).

However, the article just says minimum exercise should be maintained for minimum entropy... there's no analysis as to why minimum entropy is a good thing. Longevity and wellbeing are complicated, multifactorial goals, and are certainly not determined by something as reductive as "biological entropy".

An entirely sedentary lifestyle has incredibly high mortality. Similarly so for extreme exercise/steroid abuse.

By definition, there is a point in between which maximises longevity on average. This may not be the same as the point which maximises quality of life.

How exactly does exercise "damage all your parts"? You need proof to back up that bizarre claim. Humans are evolutionarily designed to be long distance athletes.

This is an ad?

I agree. This is someone with the barest of knowledge of physics, and suddenly thinks they can upheave decades of study. It's fine to have a hypothesis based on a rudimentary understanding, but back it up with contextual science (physiology) and proper studies.

Also, the worst use of Occam's razor I've ever seen. By your logic, superficial observation and intuitive models of reality are more likely right than in depth, much more-complicated science.

How is a process of building muscle through exercise, which humans have been doing for hundreds of years, and which is extremely well understood by modern science more likely wrong than a bizarre metaphorical similarity to how physical objects degrade due to stress? Use it or lose it is our latest understanding of both the mind and the body.

Yeah exactly, that's why people who study at university are dumber, because they wear out their brain!

I've made a crypto trading bot which provides liquidity on poloniex, pretty simple. Makes a bit of money because of high volatility. It's not technically very impressive though.

My not particularly informed view is it wouldn't be great. Overfitting would be the biggest problem, as well as the fact that people design trading software specifically to exploit other trading bots these days.

On the plus side, less human input in trading software may greatly reduce human biases which make us suck at trading.

Hey! Thank you so much for your answer, it's very helpful. I'll give that book a read. I'm applying for a dev job at Janestreet, which I know is very competitive. I'm a pretty good at maths for a programmer, and pretty good at programming for a mathematician, but I'm not sure if the interview will be a mix of both or specifically on designing algorithms, doing toy problems, etc.