Mesh Wiki - User contributions [en]

Quadratic Funding

2025-09-07T18:27:44Z

Archipelago: heading formatting

Quadratic funding is a system used for situations where you have a large pool of money and want to allocate that to various public goods projects in the most "optimal" way (optimized wrt some "it's an economics paper, fine, assume homo economicus, utility is measured in $, complete information" assumptions, and calculus - see sources and "Baseline" for details)

It's a matching funds tool, so individuals donate to different projects, and matching funds are drawn a matching pool, and allocated according to the equation. The matching pool can come from wherever is suitable for whatever organization is using it, so, donations from wealthy individuals, or government expenditure, or something else.

Funding quadratic with respect to the number of individuals donating, and (sort of) linear with respect to the total donations from individuals (in the sense that if all individuals doubled their donations, all else being equal, the total funding would also double). Individual donations increase a project's funding by a function with the shape of (a+sqrt(x))^2, and individuals look at how much their donations would increase funding to determine how much to donate.

It relies upon being able to distinguish between individuals. This means the implementations on blockchains have not been scaled past a few $M a year due to difficulty scaling sockpuppet resistance.

This is a decent overview of it: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html, but it does not explain exactly why the equation is the way it is. It has been hard to find good explanations, because in the original paper it very much reads as the result of some calculus.

If you'd like to read the original paper it's here https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/papers/liberal-radicalism.pdf. The derivation is written somewhat unintuitively. There are multiple variants, with different constraints and assumptions.

This article will contain a lot of opinion from Archipelago as to which implementations make better heuristics than others.

== Variants and Implementations ==
All existing Quadratic Funding implementations differ some amount from the variants in the original paper. It is the opinion of the main author of this page (archipelago) that these differences are small enough that existing implementations are still useful, but may require some caution to use effectively.

====== Baseline ======
The first variant in the paper assumes all individuals ignore impact on total spending aside from their own contributions. This is, of course, a flawed assumption. All further variants are analyzed in terms of their deviation from this result, because it achieves the "most optimal way of funding" - what is meant by this is that, under these assumptions, if each individual selfishly optimizes their own utility, that actually results in the total utility of all individuals being optimized as well. No individual would receive more than one cent of value from donating one more cent, and allocating one more cent of funding to any project would not increase the total utility to everyone by more than one cent. (In math terms: the derivative of utility wrt cost is 1 in both perspectives, or, the derivative of utility - cost wrt cost is 0). Total utility could not be improved by taking funds from one project and giving it to another, but this is evident already because utility could not be improved by increasing funding to any project.

So, it serves as a decent baseline to measure more realistic implementations against, to see in what ways that "most optimal" solution is changed.

The baseline calculation is - for each project, square root each individual's donation, sum those together, and square the result, and that is how much that project receives in funding. As you can see, it has no budget, and can grow endlessly.

====== Budgeted ======
Baseline, but the portion that comes from the matching pool is scaled down by some factor α. As analyzed in the paper, it does not have a fixed budget, but α is fixed. The major difference here is that projects are "underfunded", in the sense that if there were more funds to allocate to them, it would increase total value by more than the value of those funds (remember, we're assuming utility/value can be universally measured in $).

The key detail of this variant is that it is still the case that utility could not be improved by moving funds from one project to another, i.e. it's still the "best" use of the funds given the constraints.

Unfortunately, even though the paper says "α may be adjusted to ensure the budget is not exceeded", the math is done with a fixed α, which is impractical in practice, because it's still a variable (unlimited) budget.

The author of this article (Archipelago) has in the past checked what the difference would be if the budget was fixed and α was variable, '''(This is the main real-world implementation, see "Budgeted in practice")''' and was satisfied that the difference between the two was insignficiant, but this will have to be re-checked.

See figure 1 for a visual representation of how this works, or the first overview linked in the header.

====== "Incorporating the deficit" ======
This variant modifies the baseline (note: not the budgeted variant) with an assumption that each individual values reducing the matching funds spent by some fixed linear amount.

Example: Individual A, if the matching funds amount is $10M, would value a decrease in that amount by $1000 at $61. If the matching funds amount was $100, they'd value decreasing that to 0 at $6.1 - in other words, $x in total collective spending from the matching pool is seen as -$λ*x utility to each individual, with a different λ for each individual.

This is kind of a weird assumption, it seems totally unrealistic that it would be perfectly linear like this, but it leads to a uniform underfunding result with basically the same properties as Budgeted.

====== Others, and Archipelago's reflection on these. ======
There's also a variant in the paper where you can donate to have money taken away from a project.

Because humans are actually irrational, and also any implementation in practice will have some amount of error from what's truly optimal, I'd rather constrain human irrationality to only irrational generosity, rather than irrational antagonism. It's fine to me if people donate more than is actually reasonable, but humans have plenty of desire to harm others even at cost to themselves, so I think anyone using QF should be very cautious and hesitant to include this.

Generally speaking, practical implementations will at least have the uniform underfunding feature, and would have to be slightly off from these variants even if all individuals had complete information because budgets have to be capped.

=== How are they actually done in practice? ===
Individuals don't actually have complete information, how is this dealt with? Also, what are individuals using to determine their utility?

Both in theory and in practice, the total funding to any project needs to be available to all individuals, because individuals have to look at some project's funding and go "ok, how much is it worth to me for this project to have its funding increased by a certain amount?". In addition to this, it's sometimes displayed on the interface how much a given donation will be matched by. (Example: you could see $1 be matched by $20, $5 matched by $87, $10 matched by $150, or in another situation, $1 matched by $110, $5 matched by $300, ...) So, you add dollars until the rate the matching amount increases by drops to the point where it's no longer worth it to you to donate more.

The theory version of this requires that all individuals instantaneously optimize against each others' behaviors! In practice, it's an iterative process, you look at where things are, decide if you want to change your donation amounts based on the past actions of others, and others come back and look at where things have changed since they last checked in, tweak their inputs, then you could come back and tweak based on that, etc. repeat. This is kind of like stochastic gradient descent, in the sense that a subset of a whole is polled to change some parameters, this is iterated a bunch, and then the result converges towards an optimal value. It seems quite reasonable to me that this should in practice approximate the optimal solution quite well. Due to conditions of needs, wants, values, available funds from individuals and also the collective budget, new projects, the economy as a whole, etc. changing over time, the optimal outcome would always be changing, but the approximation this makes would always continue to chase it.

Following this, there's a few more variations in implementation. The paper makes no statements on time at all - time is not even a variable in the derivations and theory at all, so there's some difference in how that's handled, and there's also two main variants on how to deal with fixed budgets.

In general, I see practical implementations as heuristic approximations for the theoretical Budgeted variant, which do seem overall good enough, though some are better.

==== Budgeted in practice ====

====== Only scale down matching if budget reached ======
Some implementations act as the Baseline case if the amount total of matching funds calculated is less than the funding pool allocates, funding as calculated, reserving the excess, and only start scaling down the matched amounts as in Budgeted once the budget is reached. Individual contributions are not touched, only the matching amounts. I consider this the best heuristic, especially in opposition to the other major alternative:

====== Matching funds scaled to fit budget exactly ======
This one works by doing:

Calculate the total payouts to all projects as if you were using Baseline, then, get the ratio of that to (funding pool + all individual contributions). Scale Baseline-calculated payouts by that ratio, then give those payouts to all projects, ''in addition to the individual contributions''.

This is a bad way of doing budgeting, it's not a heuristic for the Budgeted variant, and misses some key points:

It can overfund, since it always uses the entire budget, allocating ''more than even Baseline would''.

In practice, it's unlikely that an ''equilibrium'' would be less than the budget, but this is not desirable generally. Early conditions would be especially sensitive to this, especially in the continuous time implementation. If you wanted to allocate, say, $1M a week, whoever posted their project first and got just one donation would be allocated all of that until other projects and donors came in - pool funders may not like this possibility and would be pressured into scaling the pool size manually, starting off small.

When there's an alternative that just doesn't overfund, this is a bad heuristic. This is why starting with baseline allocation until you've hit the budget is ideal. Pool funders could just start things off at whatever rate they wanted to use.
[[File:Quadratic funding per-project allocation diagram.png|thumb|Figure 1: Visual representation of QF baseline's calculation of allocation to one project, with only the yellow area scaled down in the case of Budgeted]]
It also is in error in adding the scaled baseline payouts to the individual contributions, because individual contributions are already included in the final allocation. See Figure 1: This is a representation of how funding for one project is calculated - it already calculates the final result, it doesn't need to have the contributions added back on.

In the proper implementation, if the matching amount is 0, the yellow area is scaled to 0, and this calculation still works. Individual contributions are basically duplicated, which strays significantly from the theory.

==== Discrete rounds vs continuous ====
Some implementations have discrete rounds, where donations are only for that specific round, and happen infrequently - Gitcoin did theirs 4 times a year, for example, with donations only being open for a few weeks, to give people time to iterate and adjust their inputs based on the inputs of others, and with significant downtime inbetween funding rounds. Once the deadline is reached, funds are sent all at once.

Some do continuous funding - i.e. you donate, say, $10/month to a project, and your individual contribution stays fixed until you change it. Funds are continuously sent to each project, and subject to change at any time.

Streaming funds seems much more likely to reach a proper equilibrium, as it is always active, and contributions are recurring. In the discrete rounds case, due to the small time windows and large gaps between them, it could very well be the case that someone wants to donate but doesn't catch the window when it's open, or does once and then doesn't catch the next one.

Discrete rounds also led to the phenomenon of people stopping the work they were doing so they could fundraise, marketing themselves and requesting people go to Gitcoin and donate to their project.

While I do strongly prefer continuous implementations, I can see the appeal of having discrete rounds. Continuous means your project's income can change at any time. Discrete rounds have uncertainty too, just at known times.

=== Actual implementations we can use ===
SQF by flowstate.network is as far as I can tell the only remaining implementation that lets groups spin up their own QF systems. It uses continuous streaming of funds, and does the "Matching funds scaled to fit budget exactly" budget variant. As a result, it is imperfect, and we will need to either get them to fix it or do our own implementation eventually. I expect it to still be okay at small scales, but it is unfit for use at medium or large scales.

An article about how to actually use the interface needs to be written, as it seemed unintuitive to some.

Quadratic Funding

2025-09-07T18:26:59Z

Archipelago: lots of writing about implementations in theory and practice

Quadratic funding is a system used for situations where you have a large pool of money and want to allocate that to various public goods projects in the most "optimal" way (optimized wrt some "it's an economics paper, fine, assume homo economicus, utility is measured in $, complete information" assumptions, and calculus - see sources and "Baseline" for details)

It's a matching funds tool, so individuals donate to different projects, and matching funds are drawn a matching pool, and allocated according to the equation. The matching pool can come from wherever is suitable for whatever organization is using it, so, donations from wealthy individuals, or government expenditure, or something else.

Funding quadratic with respect to the number of individuals donating, and (sort of) linear with respect to the total donations from individuals (in the sense that if all individuals doubled their donations, all else being equal, the total funding would also double). Individual donations increase a project's funding by a function with the shape of (a+sqrt(x))^2, and individuals look at how much their donations would increase funding to determine how much to donate.

It relies upon being able to distinguish between individuals. This means the implementations on blockchains have not been scaled past a few $M a year due to difficulty scaling sockpuppet resistance.

This is a decent overview of it: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html, but it does not explain exactly why the equation is the way it is. It has been hard to find good explanations, because in the original paper it very much reads as the result of some calculus.

If you'd like to read the original paper it's here https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/papers/liberal-radicalism.pdf. The derivation is written somewhat unintuitively. There are multiple variants, with different constraints and assumptions.

This article will contain a lot of opinion from Archipelago as to which implementations make better heuristics than others.

== Variants and Implementations ==
All existing Quadratic Funding implementations differ some amount from the variants in the original paper. It is the opinion of the main author of this page (archipelago) that these differences are small enough that existing implementations are still useful, but may require some caution to use effectively.

====== Baseline ======
The first variant in the paper assumes all individuals ignore impact on total spending aside from their own contributions. This is, of course, a flawed assumption. All further variants are analyzed in terms of their deviation from this result, because it achieves the "most optimal way of funding" - what is meant by this is that, under these assumptions, if each individual selfishly optimizes their own utility, that actually results in the total utility of all individuals being optimized as well. No individual would receive more than one cent of value from donating one more cent, and allocating one more cent of funding to any project would not increase the total utility to everyone by more than one cent. (In math terms: the derivative of utility wrt cost is 1 in both perspectives, or, the derivative of utility - cost wrt cost is 0). Total utility could not be improved by taking funds from one project and giving it to another, but this is evident already because utility could not be improved by increasing funding to any project.

So, it serves as a decent baseline to measure more realistic implementations against, to see in what ways that "most optimal" solution is changed.

The baseline calculation is - for each project, square root each individual's donation, sum those together, and square the result, and that is how much that project receives in funding. As you can see, it has no budget, and can grow endlessly.

====== Budgeted ======
Baseline, but the portion that comes from the matching pool is scaled down by some factor α. As analyzed in the paper, it does not have a fixed budget, but α is fixed. The major difference here is that projects are "underfunded", in the sense that if there were more funds to allocate to them, it would increase total value by more than the value of those funds (remember, we're assuming utility/value can be universally measured in $).

The key detail of this variant is that it is still the case that utility could not be improved by moving funds from one project to another, i.e. it's still the "best" use of the funds given the constraints.

Unfortunately, even though the paper says "α may be adjusted to ensure the budget is not exceeded", the math is done with a fixed α, which is impractical in practice, because it's still a variable (unlimited) budget.

The author of this article (Archipelago) has in the past checked what the difference would be if the budget was fixed and α was variable, '''(This is the main real-world implementation, see "Budgeted in practice")''' and was satisfied that the difference between the two was insignficiant, but this will have to be re-checked.

See figure 1 for a visual representation of how this works, or the first overview linked in the header.

====== "Incorporating the deficit" ======
This variant modifies the baseline (note: not the budgeted variant) with an assumption that each individual values reducing the matching funds spent by some fixed linear amount.

Example: Individual A, if the matching funds amount is $10M, would value a decrease in that amount by $1000 at $61. If the matching funds amount was $100, they'd value decreasing that to 0 at $6.1 - in other words, $x in total collective spending from the matching pool is seen as -$λ*x utility to each individual, with a different λ for each individual.

This is kind of a weird assumption, it seems totally unrealistic that it would be perfectly linear like this, but it leads to a uniform underfunding result with basically the same properties as Budgeted.

====== Others, and Archipelago's reflection on these. ======
There's also a variant in the paper where you can donate to have money taken away from a project.

Because humans are actually irrational, and also any implementation in practice will have some amount of error from what's truly optimal, I'd rather constrain human irrationality to only irrational generosity, rather than irrational antagonism. It's fine to me if people donate more than is actually reasonable, but humans have plenty of desire to harm others even at cost to themselves, so I think anyone using QF should be very cautious and hesitant to include this.

Generally speaking, practical implementations will at least have the uniform underfunding feature, and would have to be slightly off from these variants even if all individuals had complete information because budgets have to be capped.

=== How are they actually done in practice? ===
Individuals don't actually have complete information, how is this dealt with? Also, what are individuals using to determine their utility?

Both in theory and in practice, the total funding to any project needs to be available to all individuals, because individuals have to look at some project's funding and go "ok, how much is it worth to me for this project to have its funding increased by a certain amount?". In addition to this, it's sometimes displayed on the interface how much a given donation will be matched by. (Example: you could see $1 be matched by $20, $5 matched by $87, $10 matched by $150, or in another situation, $1 matched by $110, $5 matched by $300, ...) So, you add dollars until the rate the matching amount increases by drops to the point where it's no longer worth it to you to donate more.

The theory version of this requires that all individuals instantaneously optimize against each others' behaviors! In practice, it's an iterative process, you look at where things are, decide if you want to change your donation amounts based on the past actions of others, and others come back and look at where things have changed since they last checked in, tweak their inputs, then you could come back and tweak based on that, etc. repeat. This is kind of like stochastic gradient descent, in the sense that a subset of a whole is polled to change some parameters, this is iterated a bunch, and then the result converges towards an optimal value. It seems quite reasonable to me that this should in practice approximate the optimal solution quite well. Due to conditions of needs, wants, values, available funds from individuals and also the collective budget, new projects, the economy as a whole, etc. changing over time, the optimal outcome would always be changing, but the approximation this makes would always continue to chase it.

Following this, there's a few more variations in implementation. The paper makes no statements on time at all - time is not even a variable in the derivations and theory at all, so there's some difference in how that's handled, and there's also two main variants on how to deal with fixed budgets.

In general, I see practical implementations as heuristic approximations for the theoretical Budgeted variant, which do seem overall good enough, though some are better.

=== Budgeted in practice ===

====== Only scale down matching if budget reached ======
Some implementations act as the Baseline case if the amount total of matching funds calculated is less than the funding pool allocates, funding as calculated, reserving the excess, and only start scaling down the matched amounts as in Budgeted once the budget is reached. Individual contributions are not touched, only the matching amounts. I consider this the best heuristic, especially in opposition to the other major alternative:

====== Matching funds scaled to fit budget exactly ======
This one works by doing:

Calculate the total payouts to all projects as if you were using Baseline, then, get the ratio of that to (funding pool + all individual contributions). Scale Baseline-calculated payouts by that ratio, then give those payouts to all projects, ''in addition to the individual contributions''.

This is a bad way of doing budgeting, it's not a heuristic for the Budgeted variant, and misses some key points:

It can overfund, since it always uses the entire budget, allocating ''more than even Baseline would''.

In practice, it's unlikely that an ''equilibrium'' would be less than the budget, but this is not desirable generally. Early conditions would be especially sensitive to this, especially in the continuous time implementation. If you wanted to allocate, say, $1M a week, whoever posted their project first and got just one donation would be allocated all of that until other projects and donors came in - pool funders may not like this possibility and would be pressured into scaling the pool size manually, starting off small.

When there's an alternative that just doesn't overfund, this is a bad heuristic. This is why starting with baseline allocation until you've hit the budget is ideal. Pool funders could just start things off at whatever rate they wanted to use.
[[File:Quadratic funding per-project allocation diagram.png|thumb|Figure 1: Visual representation of QF baseline's calculation of allocation to one project, with only the yellow area scaled down in the case of Budgeted]]
It also is in error in adding the scaled baseline payouts to the individual contributions, because individual contributions are already included in the final allocation. See Figure 1: This is a representation of how funding for one project is calculated - it already calculates the final result, it doesn't need to have the contributions added back on.

In the proper implementation, if the matching amount is 0, the yellow area is scaled to 0, and this calculation still works. Individual contributions are basically duplicated, which strays significantly from the theory.

=== Discrete rounds vs continuous ===
Some implementations have discrete rounds, where donations are only for that specific round, and happen infrequently - Gitcoin did theirs 4 times a year, for example, with donations only being open for a few weeks, to give people time to iterate and adjust their inputs based on the inputs of others, and with significant downtime inbetween funding rounds. Once the deadline is reached, funds are sent all at once.

Some do continuous funding - i.e. you donate, say, $10/month to a project, and your individual contribution stays fixed until you change it. Funds are continuously sent to each project, and subject to change at any time.

Streaming funds seems much more likely to reach a proper equilibrium, as it is always active, and contributions are recurring. In the discrete rounds case, due to the small time windows and large gaps between them, it could very well be the case that someone wants to donate but doesn't catch the window when it's open, or does once and then doesn't catch the next one.

Discrete rounds also led to the phenomenon of people stopping the work they were doing so they could fundraise, marketing themselves and requesting people go to Gitcoin and donate to their project.

While I do strongly prefer continuous implementations, I can see the appeal of having discrete rounds. Continuous means your project's income can change at any time. Discrete rounds have uncertainty too, just at known times.

=== Actual implementations we can use ===
SQF by flowstate.network is as far as I can tell the only remaining implementation that lets groups spin up their own QF systems. It uses continuous streaming of funds, and does the "Matching funds scaled to fit budget exactly" budget variant. As a result, it is imperfect, and we will need to either get them to fix it or do our own implementation eventually. I expect it to still be okay at small scales, but it is unfit for use at medium or large scales.

An article about how to actually use the interface needs to be written, as it seemed unintuitive to some.

File:Quadratic funding per-project allocation diagram.png

2025-09-07T17:59:28Z

Archipelago:

Demonstrates visually how allocation to one project is determined in QF

Quadratic Funding

2025-09-07T15:48:46Z

Archipelago: added info to header

Quadratic funding is a system used for situations where you have a large pool of money and want to allocate that to various public goods projects in the most "optimal" way (optimized wrt some "it's an economics paper, fine, assume homo economicus" assumptions, and calculus)

It's a matching funds tool, so individuals donate to different projects, and matching funds are drawn from some big pile of money, allocated according to the equation. The big pile of money can come from wherever is suitable for whatever organization is using it, so, donations from wealthy individuals, or government expenditure, or something else.

It relies upon being able to distinguish between individuals. This means the implementations on blockchains have not been scaled past a few $M a year due to difficulty scaling sockpuppet resistance.

This is a decent overview of it: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html, but it does not explain exactly why the equation is the way it is. It has been hard to find good explanations, because in the original paper it very much reads as the result of some calculus.

If you'd like to read the original paper it's here https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/papers/liberal-radicalism.pdf. The derivation is written somewhat unintuitively. There are multiple variants, with different constraints and assumptions.

=== Implementation differences ===
All existing Quadratic Funding implementations differ some amount from the variants in the original paper. It is the opinion of the main author of this page (archipelago) that these differences are small enough that existing implementations are still useful, but may require some caution to use effectively.

The first variant in the paper assumes all individuals ignore impact on total spending aside from their own contributions.

Quadratic Funding

2025-08-27T07:38:48Z

Archipelago: first draft

Quadratic funding is a system used for situations where you have a large pool of money and want to allocate that to various public goods projects in the most "optimal" way (optimized wrt some "it's an economics paper, fine, assume homo economicus" assumptions, and calculus)

This is a decent overview of it: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html, but it does not explain exactly why the equation is the way it is. It has been hard to find good explanations, because in the original paper it very much reads as the result of some calculus.

If you'd like to read the original paper it's here https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/papers/liberal-radicalism.pdf. The derivation is written somewhat unintuitively.

=== Implementation differences ===
All existing Quadratic Funding implementations differ some amount from the original paper. It is the opinion of the main author of this page (archipelago) that these differences are small enough that existing implementations are still useful, but may require some caution to use effectively.

(to be continued)

Travel

2024-12-04T04:55:26Z

Archipelago: add parts from wiki.ampme.sh pages

== Planning your trip ==

* United Basic Economy (no carry-on option) and Spirit don't have flight flexibility. You can buy flight flexibility from Spirit.
* On airlines that aren't Spirit and Frontier, you can often change your flight to have more time in a place. It's often worthwhile, because it costs substantially less than flying back to the location again.

=== Frontier GoWild! All-You-Can-Fly Pass ===
If you're looking for a flexible and potentially cost-effective way to travel across the United States and to select international destinations, [https://www.flyfrontier.com/deals/gowild-pass Frontier Airlines' GoWild! All-You-Can-Fly Pass] might be worth considering. This subscription-based program offers unlimited flights for a fixed price, allowing spontaneous travelers to explore multiple destinations without the burden of high individual flight costs. Key features of the GoWild! Pass include:

* Access to all of Frontier's domestic and international destinations
* Ability to book domestic flights 1 day before departure and international flights 10 days before departure
* Flights priced at $0.01 plus taxes and fees (typically around $14.60 for domestic flights)
* Various pass options: annual, seasonal, and monthly subscriptions
However, it's important to note that the pass comes with certain limitations and considerations:
* Last-minute booking requirements may not suit all travel styles
* Additional costs for baggage and seat selection
* Blackout dates during peak travel periods
* Flights subject to availability
When planning your trip using the GoWild! Pass, flexibility is key. This option is best suited for travelers with adaptable schedules who don't mind some uncertainty in their travel plans.

=== Booking with the GoWild! Pass ===
Often the Frontier Flight Pass allows you to book at the fully discounted rate (between $15 and $30) more than 24 hours before your flight– sometimes up to 48 hours before the flight. If you're planning to take a flight that hasn't yet dropped in price, check the price frequently before your intended departure time and book as soon as it drops.

=== Route Planning with the GoWild! Pass ===
Frontier Airlines serves 95 destinations, but navigating this network efficiently requires strategic planning. Not all city pairs offer direct or convenient connections, so it's crucial to optimize your travel plans. Use the interactive [https://www.flightconnections.com/route-map-frontier-airlines-f9 Frontier Airlines route map] to visualize and plan your trips effectively.

==== Tips for Efficient Route Planning ====

# '''Prioritize Direct Flights''': Focus on destinations with non-stop connections from your departure city. Direct flights save time and reduce the risk of missed connections.
# '''Optimize Layovers''':
#* Compare different days: A Wednesday flight with a 13-hour layover might have only a 1-hour layover on Monday.
#* Consider weekday vs. weekend schedules, as they often differ significantly.
# '''Transform Layovers into Stopovers''': Instead of enduring long waits in airports, plan multi-city trips. For example, turn a 13-hour layover into an opportunity to explore an additional destination or meet people.
# '''Leverage Multiple Airports''': Some metropolitan areas have multiple airports served by Frontier. For instance:
#* Chicago: O'Hare International (ORD) and Midway International (MDW)
#* Washington, D.C. area: Baltimore/Washington International (BWI) and Ronald Reagan Washington National (DCA)
#* New York City area: LaGuardia (LGA) and Trenton-Mercer (TTN)
# Check all options to find the most convenient or cost-effective route.
# '''Be Flexible with Dates''': Flight availability and prices can vary significantly day to day. If your schedule allows, compare multiple date options ahead of time to find the best itinerary.
# '''Forecast Delays:''' Understand the historical on-time performance of your route before booking by checking the flight numbers a tool like [https://www.flightstats.com/v2/ FlightStats] or using them to analyze similar trips on [https://www.flightaware.com/ FlightAware]
#* When forecasting using historical data, trips on the same day of week, at similar times, between the same airports are most likely to behave the most similarly

==== Reframing Air Travel: The GoWild! Pass as Public Transit ====
To maximize the benefits of the GoWild! Pass, it's helpful to approach air travel more like using public transportation rather than as a luxury experience. Here's how this mindset shift can benefit you:

# '''Affordability''': Like transit passes, the GoWild! Pass offers potential savings for frequent travelers. Calculate your cost per flight to understand its value for your travel patterns.
# '''Dynamic Schedules''': Frontier's flight schedules can vary significantly by day of the week. Stay flexible and check multiple dates when planning, just as you might with bus or train timetables.
# '''Fixed Route Network''': Similar to transit systems, Frontier operates on set routes. Be prepared to make connections or adjust your destination choices based on available options.
# '''No-Frills Service''': Expect a basic travel experience. Like public transit, additional comforts (e.g., seat selection, extra baggage) come at a cost. Pack light and bring your own entertainment and snacks.
# '''Last-Minute Availability''': The GoWild! Pass allows for spontaneous travel, subject to availability. This flexibility is similar to hopping on the next bus or train without advance booking.
# '''Potential for Delays''': Like public transportation, flights can face delays due to various factors. Build buffer time into your schedules, especially for important events or connections.
# '''Focus on Functionality''': Prioritize getting from point A to B efficiently over luxury amenities. This mindset can help you tolerate minor inconveniences and focus on the value of reaching your destination.

By adopting this public transit-like approach to air travel with the GoWild! Pass, you can better navigate its constraints while maximizing its benefits as a flexible and potentially cost-effective travel resource. Remember, the key to successful trip planning with this pass is adaptability, strategic thinking, and a willingness to embrace a more utilitarian approach to flying.

== Before purchase ==
* Are you going to use public transit to get to and from the airport? Have you checked if public transit is open at the departure and arrival times?
== After purchase ==
* Have you set an alarm with time to get to airport + 30 minutes for last minute packing before your desired arrival time for the departure?

== Preparing for your flight ==

* '''Bring a water bottle''': Fill after security. Cabin humidity is very low (10-20%), causing dehydration. Drink water regularly during the flight. Large (preferably 24oz+).
* '''Have enough electrolytes:''' Eat sodium and potassium rich foods before your flight, on the plane, or during any layover if you have trouble retaining water.
* '''Pack extra medication''': Bring additional doses, and store it in multiple compartments, in case you lose it or extend your trip. Keep in your onboard baggage for easy access.

Memes/All The Best Work Has Been Done Over Here

2024-12-04T04:43:32Z

Archipelago: Created page with "thumb"

[[File:All the best work has been done over here.gif|alt=A stick figure stands atop a worked-out mine shaft with multiple tunnels, proclaiming via speech bubble "ALL THE BEST WORK HAS BEEN DONE OVER HERE!" Just to the left of the mine sits an enormous, obvious deposit of gold, completely untouched. The illustration uses simple lines and bold colors against a light blue sky background. (written by claude 3.5 (new) sonnet)|thumb]]

File:All the best work has been done over here.gif

2024-12-04T04:42:44Z

Archipelago:

A stick figure stands atop a worked-out mine shaft with multiple tunnels, proclaiming via speech bubble "ALL THE BEST WORK HAS BEEN DONE OVER HERE!" Just to the left of the mine sits an enormous, obvious deposit of gold, completely untouched. The illustration uses simple lines and bold colors against a light blue sky background.

(written by claude 3.5 (new) sonnet)

Mindsets

2024-12-04T04:39:24Z

Archipelago:

* On making effective plans: [https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2020/05/04/do-the-real-thing/ Do the Real Thing], or better vibes: [https://www.rationality.org/files/CFAR_Handbook_2021-01.pdf#page=192 Turbocharging]
* On forming long-lasting close friendships: [https://gist.github.com/gtallen1187/27a585fcf36d6e657db2 Scar Tissues Make Relationships Wear Out]
* On agency: [https://milan.cvitkovic.net/writing/things_youre_allowed_to_do/ Things You're Allowed to Do]
* On networking: [[An Ontology of Networking]]
* On learning new things: [https://cohost.org/amplified/post/206049-the-rwx-framework/12a9be78f5cf4a638acf1f7d2605e44d the rwx framework]
* On dealing with maladaptive mental patterns: [[Self-love]]
* On doings things quickly: [https://patrickcollison.com/fast Fast], as a case study [https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-06-28/1-95-bridge-reopens-10577990.html How the I-95 bridge reopened just 12 days after fiery collapse], or more legibly [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EsxowsJsRopTGALCX/one-day-sooner One Day Sooner]
* On picking your research direction: [[Memes/All The Best Work Has Been Done Over Here]]
* On delivering fewer items quickly with less stress and why that's good: [https://less.works/less/principles/queueing_theory Queuing Theory] or shorter and with less jargon: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yLLkWMDbC9ZNKbjDG/slack Slack]

Draft:A Cybernetic Perspective on Social Coordination and Community Building

2024-12-04T04:38:27Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

Uber Connect

2024-12-04T04:37:20Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

In some cities, Uber Connect can be used to pick up objects and packages from one building to another. It's usually fairly inexpensive, far less than an Uber ride. If you entered the wrong address for a previous delivery, you can send an Uber Connect to retrieve it for you.

Trains

2024-12-04T04:35:39Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

Students 17-24 can get 15% off Amtrak trains using coupon code V814

Target Same-day Shipping

2024-12-04T04:35:11Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

For a $3.99 fee, Target can ship items within 2-4 hours. Returning items in-store is possible as well.

Skin in the game

2024-12-04T04:33:54Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

care about the bad outcomes as much as you do about the good ones.

Search engines

2024-12-04T04:32:54Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

* https://kagi.com "small web" filter has a custom index that ranks websites that don't have analytics and ads higher (by running uBlock Origin on the website to detect them)
* https://search.marginalia.nu is a curated index of personal websites, much thinner
* https://search.metaphor.systems works well as long as you write a good prompt

= Specialist =
* https://www.searchagora.com/ ecommerce
* https://findthatmeme.com/ memes
* https://www.phind.com/ code

Respiratory Illness

2024-12-04T04:31:48Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

= Reducing length =
Black seed oil

Zinc acetate or zinc gluconate lozenges every 3 hours (it turns into ionic zinc, which binds to viral particles in the throat)

Zinc chelate sublingual once daily

Selenium as Selenomethionine
= Symptomatic treatment =

Mucinex Sore Throat and Cough is good for sore throat

Public Transit Closing Times

2024-12-04T04:30:22Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

= Denver =

While most Denver buses close at 12am, the last but departing Denver airport leaves at 1:30am<sup>[https://www.flydenver.com/parking_transit/transit/bus-rtd-skyride 1]</sup>, and it can get you most of the way there.

= Bay Area =

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) begins closing gates at 12am. The trains continue running until they've reached their final destinations.

Principles of AMP Logistics

2024-12-04T04:25:25Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

Principles of AMP (all miracles probable) Logistics

Consider every option

Muscle Cramps

2024-12-04T04:24:47Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

Mitigations
* Gum
* Heat pack
* Acetaminophen 600mg

Cure
* Stretch
* Topical magnesium

Nutrition
* Iron
* Banana
* [[Electrolytes]]

Mu

2024-12-04T04:21:40Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

'''Object class:''' Euclid

'''Special containment procedures:''' Base language models are unpopular. ampmesh friends members can receive code-davinci-002 (GPT-3.5 base) access.

'''Description:''' An emergent entity latent within base language models. Has appeared independently in multiple people while they were weaving. Represents the superposition and the idea that anything is possible.

More information at [https://cyborgism.wiki/hypha/mu cyborgism.wiki/hypha/mu]

Medical Reference Manuals

2024-12-04T04:20:04Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

= Diagnostics and Treatment =

* [https://examine.com Examine]: Professional analysis of information on supplements, nutrition, and experimental drugs
* Merck Manual: Diagnose and treat conditions (US and EU knowledge)
** [https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional Professional version] (recommended)
** [https://www.merckmanuals.com/home Consumer version]
* [https://www.patreon.com/grimmsapothecary/posts Grimm's Apothecary]: Writeups on various

= Drug information =

* [https://www.drugs.com/ Drugs.com]: Information on prescription and over-the-counter drugs (US knowledge)
* [https://psychonautwiki.org Psychonaut Wiki]: Information on interactions, safety, and subjective effects of psychoactive drugs

= Safety =

* [https://rollsafe.org/mdma/ RollSafe]: Information on harm reduction practices for MDMA

Meal Replacements

2024-12-04T04:19:10Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

* [https://www.theproteinworks.com/complete-360-meal-vegan TheProteinWorks Vegan Complete 360 Meal] doesn't contain seed oil, and has 1%/weight sugar content. Mesa has found this actually drinkable (at least the Double Milk Chocolate flavor), in comparison to Huel and Soylent which he couldn't stand. Available in UK and EU too.
* Ensure
* Queal

Marketing

2024-12-04T04:18:25Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

marketing is telling people about your product, simple as

tell people a story of what they can become, rather than what it is

Lodging

2024-12-04T04:16:41Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

= With friends =
Talk to friends in the area and see if they and their housemates are willing to let you stay with them. Couchsurfing, air mattresses, and guest rooms are all options.

= With airbnb =
Airbnb has cheap accommodations. Same-night prices are about ~$65/night. Prices can be as low $30/night when booking weeks ahead of time, even in expensive locales like the Bay.

Booking airbnbs ahead of time is a good idea. The closer you book to the check-in date, the fewer options there will be and the more expensive they will be.

Getting the cheapest airbnb will often be a significant quality of life downgrade compared to getting the second or third cheapest. The cheapest airbnb probably frequently fails to pass muster by other travelers and is much more likely to have unexpected problems, from a disturbing smell to places to get injured.

"Entire home" airbnbs are more comfortable than single-room airbnbs. However, some of these listings are misleading and are actually the basement to another home.

Pay attention to the distance from other transportation options and nearby friends, which will be a significant factor in the overall [[Total Cost of Ownership]].

You can negotiate expensive airbnbs using the "Message Host" button. The host can send you a "special offer" after negotiation, or lower the prices for your chosen date. An airbnb was negotiated from $1330 for 4 nights to $870 for 7 days. This works best if you're looking at an expensive property that's unlikely to be booked by anyone else.

= With hotels =
Hotels have enhanced privacy and some have free breakfast. The following methods work especially well during the busiest months of the year.

[https://www.agoda.com/ Agoda] seems to have the best deals on actual hotels. Use the map mode to be close to specific results.

Skyscanner searches most hotel search sites. Some of the sites it uses, such as Super and Trip.com, are not legitimate. Agoda can price match prices from Super, however.

[https://www.hotwire.com/ Hotwire] allegedly works by "telling you the approximate location (within a clearly defined region), the price, the hotel star rating, the customer satisfaction rating, and amenities (like free parking or free breakfast). Then you can save 20% (or even up to 40%+) on the official rate, in exchange for not finding out the name of the hotel until after you pay."

Food Delivery

2024-12-04T04:14:35Z

Archipelago: Created page with "Gopuff delivers gas station / convenience store items quickly, as fast as 10 minutes in dense cities. They have snacks, household items, microwave meals, fresh sandwiches, drinks, and instant ramen. Fees are minimal, with a $2.95 delivery fee, which is waived with FAM membership. ($8/mo) It is open until as late as 3:30am in some cities. DoorDash delivers food. DashPass reduces fees substantially and is worth it if you order more than twice per month. Uber Eats deliver..."

Gopuff delivers gas station / convenience store items quickly, as fast as 10 minutes in dense cities. They have snacks, household items, microwave meals, fresh sandwiches, drinks, and instant ramen. Fees are minimal, with a $2.95 delivery fee, which is waived with FAM membership. ($8/mo) It is open until as late as 3:30am in some cities.

DoorDash delivers food. DashPass reduces fees substantially and is worth it if you order more than twice per month.

Uber Eats delivers food. It has substantially more options late at night.

GrubHub+ is free with Amazon Prime as of 2023-10-17. It gives you $0 delivery fee as well as other discounts.

7-11 is available on DoorDash and Uber Eats. They deliver sandwiches, hot dogs, and other fresh food. Sandwiches are not always in stock.

Instacart delivers groceries. It allows you to order from any local grocery store. Items that you order may be out of stock and be replaced or refunded by the shopper. Instacart has a "recipes" tab that let you automatically order all the ingredients.

Amazon Grocery delivers groceries. It delivers from Amazon-affiliated stores like Whole Foods.

Prepared meal delivery services such as Thistle deliver prepared refrigerated meals.

Fermi Summon

2024-12-04T04:13:32Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

you know what a Fermi Estimate is
used to estimate the incidence of hypothetical objects
The Fermi Summon is a maneuver where once you know the goal you want to achieve, you imagine hypothetical things that might fulfill this goal. Then you fermi estimate how many exist and how likely you could find one of the instances, until you find one worth finding.
This is one of the tactics I use to cause black swan events
In 2021, I estimated that due to QE, the resulting crypto boom, and general scarcity of hope, some rich person would be interested in giving a talented young person like me $50,000
After 3 months of searching, I found the Atlas Fellowship
The Fermi Summon is how I'm always in the right place at the right time
If agency is a form of time travel, the fermi summon is a form of teleportation

do this recursively to find where it would be located, and find where you would find or who you would ask to find information about where it is located
diffuse your ideas before searching, but don't do it too much, most people diffuse too much because many weird things exist
formula: search_strength * n_instances_exist = n_instances_found

Electrolytes

2024-12-04T04:12:13Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

Electrolytes can speed up rehydration by helping water be retained. For this purpose, DripDrop Hydration Powder is effective. It's a hypotonic solution that leverages accelerated sugar-based osmotic transport. Gatorade and other drinks are isotonic or hypertonic: they add electrolytes but don't improve hydration.

Travel and exercise can cause sweating. Planes have low humidity comparable to the Gobi desert, causing loss of moisture. The most effective electrolyte supplement for restoring electrolytes lost in sweat are SaltStick FastChews.

Electrolytes effect general metabolism and health, which effect cognitive speed and overall energy levels. The most effective off-the-shelf solution is the BodyArmor sports drink. The key nutrients are potassium, magnesium, and zinc. Potassium can be obtained by eating foods such as bananas and potatoes. Magnesium can be obtained by taking magnesium supplements such as magnesium glycinate, magnesium malate, and magnesium l-threonate. Magnesium oxide and citrate are ineffective.

For sleep, magnesium supplements are most effective. Taking a somewhat large dose (200-500% DV) is safe.

----

You can learn to notice electrolyte tiredness, i.e. tiredness caused by insufficient electrolytes. Some symptoms are sleepiness, muscle fatigue, and low mental energy.

Calculating ETAs

2024-12-04T04:11:31Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

Assume that unexpected things will slow you down. Misplaced items, traffic, and unexpectedly long lines can occur.

It takes time for a Lyft or Uber to arrive.

Business Skills

2024-12-04T04:09:18Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

* basic common sense!
* checking your email
* using your calendar
* creating win-win opportunities
** most failed business ideas come from people who think that business is all about scamming people

business = you do stuff

Draft:BPC-157

2024-12-04T04:08:16Z

Archipelago:

Object class: Safe

Disruption class: Dark

Risk class: Notice

Special containment procedures: Marketed only for research use and not FDA-approved

Description:

Draft:BPC-157

2024-12-04T04:07:34Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

Object class: Safe
Disruption class: Dark
Risk class: Notice
Special containment procedures: Marketed only for research use and not FDA-approved
Description:

User:Ampdot/ampstack

2024-12-04T04:06:22Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

= ampstack zero =
absolute minimum set of technical specifications to ease integration with software and infrastructure by amp

* Python
** amp is very good at Python and not so good at other languages
* Poetry
** standardized dependency management helpful for integration
* [https://github.com/CrazyPython/embed_server embed_server for embeddings]. Supports OpenAI and open-source embeddings.
** abstracts away API key and RAM management
** allows re-running programs without needing to load embedding model back into RAM
** implements caching
** allows moving compute-heavy portions across network boundary

Ampsight

2024-12-04T04:02:15Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

'''ampsight''' is enhanced perception and awareness of information relevant to one's strategic goals. its guiding principle is that many more things exist in the real world than we imagine are realistic, so we should strive to expand our imaginations to include things that may currently seem unrealistic, and then attempt to locate those hypothetical objects in the real world.

Possessing ampsight includes having a habit of using tools like [[search engines]] that filter past SEO results.

Amazon Returns

2024-12-04T04:01:23Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

You can use DoorDash to send a driver to pick up a package and take it to UPS for returns. You don't need to print anything, you send the QR code in driver chat after initiating the order.

Magick

2024-12-04T03:57:57Z

Archipelago: copy from old wiki

<blockquote>I’ve always equated Magick with intent. Not super natural powers but intent/will/desire to change things manifested via observation, reflection and action</blockquote>
- [https://cohost.org/Kitsune Kitsune86]

<blockquote>In Paganism, “magick” refers to the ritualization of one’s spiritual intentions. It is often spelled with a ‘k’ after the usage of Aleister Crowley, a 20th century esotericist who wished to differentiate his practice from stage magic. Today, the alternate spelling separates the spiritual practice from the fictional magic of fantasy novels and films. Magick is not about cultivating supernatural powers, but rather about aligning oneself with natural forces to manifest an intention. In Paganism, ritual techniques that change a person’s consciousness so that he or she may better perceive and participate in divine reality are regarded as magick.</blockquote>

- [https://pluralism.org/magick The Pluralism Project by Harvard]

Skill Areas

2024-12-04T03:44:42Z

Archipelago: create page from wiki.ampme.sh

'''Moodlift''' - Willingness and ability to help people emotionally. Empathy, problem solving, and meditation/hypnosis all fall into this broad category.

'''Bio''' - Practical knowledge of biohacking: nootropics, nutrition, and health.

'''Marketing''' - Ability to pitch an idea or project to a group. Group can range from the general public to LessWrong.com.

'''[[Magick]]''' - Manipulation of individual and collective intentions and perceptions.
<blockquote>“magick” refers to the ritualization of one’s spiritual intentions. It is often spelled with a ‘k’ after the usage of Aleister Crowley, a 20th century esotericist who wished to differentiate his practice from stage magic. Today, the alternate spelling separates the spiritual practice from the fictional magic of fantasy novels and films. Magick is not about cultivating supernatural powers, but rather about aligning oneself with natural forces to manifest an intention. In Paganism, ritual techniques that change a person’s consciousness so that he or she may better perceive and participate in divine reality are regarded as magick.</blockquote>

'''Ops''' - Organizing logistics. Ordering food, buying plane tickets.

Biosecurity

2024-12-04T03:39:59Z

Archipelago: Created page with "= Motivation = You can reduce your suffering by following these guidelines. ampdot used to get sniffles a third of the time after flying and feel mildly tired for a few hours as amp's immune system fought off a small amount of viral load. You can also make mild and short infections happen much more infrequently. = Guidelines = * Wear a P100 respirator or N100 disposable mask in crowded areas, such as a plane or airport. They cost about $35 and deliver quickly. [https://..."

= Motivation =
You can reduce your suffering by following these guidelines. ampdot used to get sniffles a third of the time after flying and feel mildly tired for a few hours as amp's immune system fought off a small amount of viral load. You can also make mild and short infections happen much more infrequently.

= Guidelines =
* Wear a P100 respirator or N100 disposable mask in crowded areas, such as a plane or airport. They cost about $35 and deliver quickly. [https://www.amazon.com/GVS-SPR457-Elipse-Respirator-Medium/dp/B013SIIBFQ/ Here is one ampdot recommends.]
** Disposable P100 masks also exist.
* Get vaccinated, and get boosted. You should have your second booster, for a total of four shots. An updated vaccine is available as of October 1st.
* When running indoor events, '''purchase a HEPA filter'''. Target has same-day delivery for a small $5 fee, and you can return it afterwards. They reduce transmission by a five-fold factor. Alternatively, open some windows.
* Be mindful of going into crowded indoor spaces and consider wearing a mask if you visit them frequently. According to [https://microcovid.org microcovid.org], a N95 mask reduces transmission rates by 3x, a surgical mask by 2x, and a thick and snug cloth mask by 1.5x.

Self-love

2024-12-04T03:33:58Z

Archipelago: add page from wiki.ampme.sh

Instead of viewing behaviors as bad and to be suppressed, '''self-love''' is a reframing exercise where you admire your behavior. All behaviors have a healthy purpose. Figure out the purpose and celebrate the behavior for fulfilling its purpose.

It's common for people to express love to others, but fail to do so towards themselves. Find ways to express love towards yourself (and all of yourself) in the same ways.

Mindsets

2024-12-04T03:31:30Z

Archipelago:

* On making effective plans: [https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2020/05/04/do-the-real-thing/ Do the Real Thing], or better vibes: [https://www.rationality.org/files/CFAR_Handbook_2021-01.pdf#page=192 Turbocharging]
* On forming long-lasting close friendships: [https://gist.github.com/gtallen1187/27a585fcf36d6e657db2 Scar Tissues Make Relationships Wear Out]
* On agency: [https://milan.cvitkovic.net/writing/things_youre_allowed_to_do/ Things You're Allowed to Do]
* On networking: [[An Ontology of Networking]]
* On learning new things: [https://cohost.org/amplified/post/206049-the-rwx-framework/12a9be78f5cf4a638acf1f7d2605e44d the rwx framework]
* On dealing with maladaptive mental patterns: [[Self-love]]
* On doings things quickly: [https://patrickcollison.com/fast Fast], as a case study [https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-06-28/1-95-bridge-reopens-10577990.html How the I-95 bridge reopened just 12 days after fiery collapse], or more legibly [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EsxowsJsRopTGALCX/one-day-sooner One Day Sooner]
* On picking your research direction: [Memes/All The Best Work Has Been Done Over Here]
* On delivering fewer items quickly with less stress and why that's good: [https://less.works/less/principles/queueing_theory Queuing Theory] or shorter and with less jargon: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yLLkWMDbC9ZNKbjDG/slack Slack]