EnFinlay

I don't think the article is arguing that no one should pursue hard problems that have economic incentives to be solved, it is saying that when you are a non-expert, you should defer to popular opinion. There's nothing stopping people from pursing the hard (yet profitable pursuits), the article mentions people who make their livelihoods in these arenas and does not say they are wasting their time.

> He relies on examples that are not falsifiable. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In particular in his stock market example,

The article includes an counter-example, and we all know that they exist. People have bet against the market prices and come out ahead. The article is saying that such an event should not attributed to skill.

Dang give some more detail. This makes it sound like they gzipped the quantum states or something.

If Uber was based around this kind of thing then I would support them. Their current business model (for the most part) is one person going to one place. It's identical to driving everywhere yourself, without the hassle of parking.

Zero facts? The fact is that 3 people sold between the company finding out and the public finding out. In fact, there is only one fact missing which is evidence that they knew of the breach.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we have n-1 facts? (or n-3, one for each person)

Doesn't Toys 'R' Us sell the same "cheap plastic crap" as Amazon?

Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. The problem is it's easy to mistake un-supported conclusions for well-supported conclusions.

It's the bible for undergrand EE students. Highly recommend.

It's a subjective thing, but I feel that in the past GoT was a cake where the base was characters, dialogue, and world, topped with an icing of cliffhangers, sex, and subverting audience expectation. Now it feels like a lot of icing with too little cake.

Put differently, yes, those things were always there, but now they are ALL that is there.

He's not charged with anything related to the drug price increases.

Just because people care about efficiency doesn't mean they ought to work on something that lacks it.

This is exactly what I'm looking for, thank you.

Most refuse because it's copyrighted material. Some are also crazy expensive (Staples ~0.10/page)

Is there a legal / not crazy expensive way to buy humble bundle books and get them printed on standard 8.5x11, bound in a series of binders / duotangs / twine? I'm going to buy the bundle, but greatly prefer physical pages to reading on a screen.

Horrific is a major exaggeration since the weather is the least extreme of all major Canadian cities. Rain and clouds for months isn't horrific, it's bland.

Listening to The Dollop is a great reminder of how entirely fucked up things have been in America in the past. Last lobotomy? 1967. Last "vampire killed" 1892 (or 93). It gives me hope that no matter what madness happens in the present, it has been worse before.

The narrative around that is crystal clear. He filed a police report, and when the police went to Uber they gave incorrect information. They cooperated exactly like an accomplice giving a false alibi, actually.

One thing I've been confused about: didn't this whole thing start when a vendor sent an e-mail to Google that was intended for Uber, and the contents of the design in that e-mail were sufficiently similar to Google's designs that Google started this process. Was the design not similar enough to prove Uber's use of Google's IP? Am I remembering or interpreting that story incorrectly?

Feedback to the author. I found the writing style of the opening extremely choppy and without flow. Every paragraph was one or two sentences except for one which had 4 sentences (and only accomplished that by being super short, choppy sentences). Stopped reading :(

When did that comment say anything like that?

This link will be of interest to you: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/. It's a long read, but it's packed with ideas.

Well know I feel like a bit like an asshole with how abrasive my response was, sorry. Kudos to you for not escalating.

I agree that it resolves to how much it matters, and I guess I disagree with you on how much it matters. How it relates to the bike shedding metaphor is starting to feel like a semantic argument, which is not something I want to continue.

In response to your escalated names like PubesDB... my opinion is that I agree I wouldn't work with them, not because of any internal disgust reaction, but because the name signals a level of maturity that I don't want in my stack. Some people might have the same reaction to Cockroaches.

When people are bike shedding, they aren't doing it to waste time, they think that they are adding value because of `list of bad results of wrong colour here`.

So here's my question to you: could you be wrong about this having "concrete effects on adoption"? And if you are wrong, is this just bike shedding?

And to continue the bike shed metaphor, it's about people ignoring nuclear power plant design whose worst case scenario is nuclear meltdown. For CockroachDB 1.0, what's the equivalent, data loss? So are you discussing something technically trivial (colour is easy to understand) over the design (technically complex) that would prevent data loss? If the answer is yes, aren't you bike shedding like a champion?

tl;dr Bike shedders don't know they're bike shedding and think the discussion is very important.

What fraud are you referring to? The type where ads are reported as clicked, but advertisers don't see the user come to their site, or the type where influencers don't tag when they've been paid to promote a product?

Anyone else find the article hard to read because the excerpts from the podcast were too manipulative and earnest? It just makes my skin crawl.

A relative of mine is in a union. From what I've seen, it's mostly used to combat times where the management uses their leverage over individual people to get free / unfair work. I'm sure there's room for abuse, but it seems to act as positive force for both sides.

Reminded me of a really interesting "empty nose syndrome" article from a couple months back.

Article:

> and legal painkillers are still linked to most opioid overdose deaths.

Your comment:

> People wouldn't overdose if they knew exactly how strong the drugs they injected were

Is your comment a knee jerk reaction to an anti-legalization headline because it doesn't appear to be related to the actual content or points raised in the article.

I don't think this is restricted to SV, anecdotally from various stories I've heard this extends to most STEM disciplines.

I've always looked at internet conversations as gentleman's agreements in politeness and respect. What I mean by this is that any given internet comment can be a hate filled flexbox of bile and swear words, but most aren't, because that would be a violation of the agreement. But once the agreement is broken (or one of the tiers of the agreement is broken) then no subsequent discussion is beholden to that level.

So in this example, you broke the tier of "blunt criticism". Now that the tier is broken, all responses to your comment are not beholden to that implied agreement. And rightfully so, one of the comments bluntly tells you that you're the one with the issue. Then you said this was completely uncalled for even though a) you started being blunt and b) their response was less rude than yours.

So in summary. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

I would disagree with this. Facebook definitely has no problem creating an endless stream of content with >5% ad density.