Phiwise_

That is a cut segment of a larger lecture, probably this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2LZLYcu_JY

Probably more than are going to end up finding one, unfortunately: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1hG1R

The implication here is to move to a non-user-hostile OS, but is irrelevant as no such system both exists and is currently well-maintained.

True, but sometimes the reader should be.

>You said the thing I disagree with in the place where you say things

This conversation is like pulling teeth. Fix this or I'm done wasting my time.

I'd guess this: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2046415-upgrade-button

And where did I make that error?

Did you not read the thread before commenting? "Down south" is relative to Canada, meaning the US in general. To agree with them, you have to assert Massachusetts is descending into "theocratic olligarchy". As for why, let's not pretend we don't probably know already; SCOTUS ruled states may set their own abortion laws, which again prompts the question of how Arizona's abortion policy, whatever it ends up being, makes Massachusetts life different enough to prompt this nation-scale hysteria.

Perhaps next time you should think this more careful assessment through instead of assuming the worst of my rebuttal to dismiss me.

Ten years and this is probably still the best layman-level explanation of P vs NP out there. It blew me away as my introduction to the subject at the time. Such a shame Hackerdashery didn't keep making videos, especially since the mathematical explainer segment was so much smaller at the time.

If you like this, you might also like his only other upload, on Haskell Curry'd book on mathematical philosophy and the foundations of set theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmySxYHqQCQ

>It's hard to reconcile how overly careful they are with the Wayback Machine compared to the carelessness of unlimited lending.

Is it really? The cynical side of me wonders if it just might be intentional. What if this is a nonprofit analogue to VC monetization? Do you dislike an existing law? Create a similar but legal service you know other people will appreciate, use donations to undercut competitors and become the defacto monopoly, ride the network effect to a large crowd that basically relies on you, then rugpull by tying their narrow, legal use to your crusade for a different legal system by infecting their data with illegal material and declaring the whole thing must sink or swim together. Now your users have to pay you to fight your policy crusade or they lose their already legal resource they value much more, and you can use your legal half as a moral shield to get approval from anyone who only had the time to read the headline when the prosecution inevitably shows up at your door. All you need yo hold the almost-grift together is to lie by omission about who instigated it all.

30% of parents are neglecting their child.

What classic errors?

You've missed my point. Why would anyone pay for it anyway, and is that greater than the opportunity cost of waiting? They already have many billions of unadulterated comments that would work great as training data. How is a couple more, that everyine here seens to think will be corrupted anyway, going to improve the value calculation? Reddit's in the business of running a business, not a public benefit time capsule. You can't criticize just one side of the balance without mentioning the other, so to speak. (And actually, that's worth asking, tangentially: Do you think reddit's already being contaminated by spambots, or that the only way this happens is if reddit itself joins it?)

As I understand it, reddit as it has been has never not lost money. What, exactly, makes switching from a burn pit business model to one thst actually makes money qualify as "a bit shortsighted"? They've been doing this for two decades already. How does going from X-ten(?) billion cat photo comments to Y-ten billion open opportunities worth more than the cost of waiting yet more decades to actually make money?

>Now consider a much more complex problem space

Why? It's neither the subject at hand nor have you expressed it meaningfully. I dismissed you because I'm optimizing for productive concrete discussion in the face of your social gaming, and you argued against me on the same grounds only because you lack the self-awareness to see that. Assuming conclusively someone is necessarily incorrect only because they were snarky when they ignored you is not an optimum strategy.

Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?

>cultural norms of "logic", etc

Your brain on logical relativism, I guess.

So? There's a real possibility DART has still saved its customers more money over its lifetime than GPT has, and odds are basically 100% that your yoga teacher and IT colleagues haven't heard a thing about it either. The general public has all sorts of wrong impressions and unknown unknowns of facts that I don't see why they should ever be used as a technology industry benchmark by anyone not working in the UI department of a smartphone vendor.

Why does this EU-associated(?) article on Croatian calculators want access to my camera?

>At surface level, the adage emphasizes the consistency that arises when information comes from a single source and points out the potential pitfalls of having too much conflicting information. However, the underlying message is to question the apparent certainty of anyone who only has one source of information. The man with one watch has no way to identify error or uncertainty.

This ambiguity between endorsing one or two is why I kind of prefer the version of this law Fred Brooks cited:

>An ancient adage warns, "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." The same thing clearly applies to prose and formal definitions. If one has both, one must be the standard, and the other must be a derivative description, clearly labeled as such. Either can be the primary standard. Algol 68 has a formal definition as standard and a prose definition as descriptive. PL/I has the prose as standard and the formal description as derivative. System/360 also has prose as standard with a derived formal description.

In this context, the reader can be much more trusted to see that one chrono beats out two only by being cheaper (which might be worth it for short voyages), and one description beats out two only by being unambiguously the standard (which might be worth it for small or exploratory projects).

Probably not at least until we know for sure what the hardware of the human brain is architected like. So not for quite a while, still.

It's really a tragedy he died before The Nature of Order could break into the architectural mainstream. It's chicken soup for the aesthetic soul every time I see yet another terrible new project go up.

Perhaps someone should spin up intellectuallyinteresting.ycombinator.com?

>But Hunter wasn’t just a reporter, objectively chronicling conditions in China. As he told the assembled senators, he was also an anticommunist activist who served as a propagandist for the OSS, or Office of Strategic Services—something that was considered normal and patriotic at the time. His reporting blurred the line between fact and political mythology.

Err...: http://jmc.stanford.edu/commentary/progress/venona.html

I get that expecting truly quality research work from Technology Review is an eggs-in-moonshine level fantasy, but it'd be nice to employ literally one editor who has read literally any of MIT's greatest researchers with all the ivy league cash they spend on fancy robots or buildings or whatever else.

>My mind is craving ... seriously legitimate academic right wing thought leadership to expand and challenge my thinking about the world. I honestly don’t know where to find it.

No offense, but I just don't see how I can believe you, to believe any statement like this in this technological era. When I felt the same way when I started becoming politically active in my teenage years two decades ago, I went to this cool not-actually-new thing called an internet search engine, looked up right-(and left)-wing thought leaders/authors, think tanks, columnists/commentators, university researchers and etc. These people, just like all other political persuasions of public intellectual, have made website pages, books, papers and journals, conferences and expos, broadcasts of roundtables and interviews, and introductory infotainment pieces specifically for people like you, all in every format and length you can imagine.

All of this at least hundreds of hours of content put together over time is either directly accessible online for free or as easily purchasable as any other product on the web today. If it is true that your teeth are falling out because of low vitamin c, it's because you keep trading the orange in your rations for more hardtack. They're not any more difficult to get than whatever else you're reading right now, you just choose to put something else into your url/search field whenever you are in the mood to read. Right-wing intellectuals even happen to have terms for this phenomenon: "Stated preference" and "revealed preference". You state that you'd prefer to read a balance of political media, but someone observing you would reveal you only ever put the thirty seconds of effort it takes to open media on your computer into material that echoes what you've already read in the past. They point out that, as someone with a stated preference is observed over and over to act differently than it, the odds that the stated preference is a better description of their general mentality due to experimental variation than the preference that seems to be revealed by the observation approaches zero.

If you ever change this preference, though, the mentioned thirty seconds of googling got me these pages of Wikipedia's articles on ideology and activism groups in the united states (where I live, since I don't know where you do) categotized by general philosophy [1] [2]. Whenever I want to know what some corner of the political landscape thinks about current events, I follow some of these articles to their orgs' home page and read their recent materials.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_gr...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_organizatio...

I am well aware of this ongoing persecution complex in wikipedia form. I avoid linking it to anyone who does not cite it themselves to keep from strawmanning them, as in this case where it is not the same as what was said.

You know, I think you might be onto something here. Surely this cannot just be a shorting of "campaign staff of the drmocrats" and "campaign staff of the republicans" that just looks a little weird before you think about it grammatically. No, there's clearly a multimillion dollar right-wing extremist conspiracy afoot to affect a slight change in noun phrases that will have zero impact on any policy or office.

Edit: And my typo of "democrats" as "drmocrats" clearly reveals I'm in on the vicious plot of persecution via zero impact phraseology! Probably getting a check straight from the Kochs, even.

Ah yes, because no young woman has ever fallen for a beauty goods ponzi scheme, or older man or woman ever raided their savings for a get rich quick stunt or 419 scam.

Business Insider is such clickbait trash these days.

I was referring to desktop. Youtube shorts does not allow you to change the volume of the video on desktop, forcing you to open the volume dialog box and either turn down your whole computer or every window in your browser.

Oh, this got even worse than I expected. Let me show you another graph, then. This is FRED's official price index, which is the source of the blue inflation line in that graphic. I've overlayed two red lines for its value in the eleven years from Aug 1972 to Aug 1983, plus two orange lines comparing its value now (Mar 2024) to Mar 2013, also eleven years. Notice how the gap between the red lines is a price rise of $58.2 on a 1982/84 $100 basket, while the gap between the red lines is a rise $79.948, which is significantly higher: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=1327450

Now imagine how much worse this would get if we did these calculations with the yellow line data instead, which is essentially the same in the 70-80s but much worse today. (Or maybe also imagine how much worse the past ten years could be five years from now if we got a second inflationary spike like the 70s-80 did, making this a more apples to apples comparison!)

>I never said "sell the cake instead of eating it", I said "eat cake, then sell it".