bjl

There's a distinction between personal property and private property. My house, bed, toothbrush, and computer aren't private property, they're personal property.

Basketball.

You're correct. The photon and the Z boson are each their own anti-particle. The rest of the force-carriers have distinct anti-particles.

Lorentz and Minkowski were developing special relativity at the same time as Einstein (albeit in a mathematical context). And Hilbert arguably produced general relativity prior to Einstein as well.

Well, I was trying to make two points.

1) Arithmetic (number theory) is far harder than most people realise, to the point that its considered one of the most complicated mathematical disciplines.

2) Most subject areas in math bear little to no resemblance to arithmetic, so it doesn't make sense to call all math 'Fancy Arithmetic'.

Actually, the opposite is true. If you dig deep enough, it turns out that arithmetic is far more complicated than most other areas.

Hebrew is already quite widely used in certain fields (specifically set theory).

In higher level math symbols are definitely used for their expressive power.

Having a severe narcissist as CEO is hardly 'meaningless'.

> How does that work?

Because most of HN have bought Musk's PR persona hook, line, and sinker.

Why is the fact that they wouldn't have existed if not for our desire to eat meat a justification for their continued mistreatment?

This is completely off. At the college level physics is almost completely math. Linear Algebra, Functional Analysis, and Abstract Algebra aren't exactly 'measurement-based' subjects.

> loosening housing regulation is effectively a tax on the current, extremely productive people that live in the Bay Area.

That's an utterly ridiculous claim.

> Mostly they were moved to small/half abandoned villages out of sight.

That's not a whole lot better.

> There are no bums in Belarus. Why? You aren't supposed to ask, they won't tell you.

It sounds like you're advocating for killing homeless people.

If you have more than 50% market share in a given market you're considered a monopoly. Although practically, these type of actions aren't usually taken until around 75% market share.

> But I don't buy that they can't do what they want in their own store.

Then you're unfamiliar with anti-trust law.

To my knowledge it hasn't. But that's irrelevant.

The specifics are unimportant. What matters is that Google was using its dominance in one market to gain an advantage in a different market. That has been illegal for a long time.

Once you gain a certain amount of market share you no longer have the right to engage in certain kinds of anti-competitive actions. There's nothing extreme about that; the laws have been in place for over a century.

Basically, its illegal to market exotic investment opportunities to unaccredited investors (for good reason IMO). Same reason only accredited investors can invest in things like CDOs and weather derivatives.

I don't think there's anything he can say unless he knows a spell that will take him back in time and un-harass those women.

> You will find no practical solution to this problem other than starving the beast (decentralizing power away from government)

All this will lead to is dictatorship by the wealthy. I much prefer our current system, as flawed as it is, to corporate fascism.

Knowingly providing incentives for people to do something unethical is itself unethical.

The corporations aren't blameless here.

Crony capitalism is not a misnomer, its the endgame of all capitalists. When people have the resources to buy a regulatory advantage, of course they are going to do so; that's just capitalism at its 'finest'.

Visual Group Theory by Nathan Carter is a great introduction. There's a free preview online with the first few chapters, and you can find the whole thing for free through the usual channels.

The government is at least nominally controlled by the people. That's a helluva lot better than dictatorship by corporation.

Allowing multinational corporations carte blanche to disregard any law they want is not a precedent I want our society to set. Even if it worked out in this case (which is very debatable), its a very slippery slope.

All of those things could have done without systematically breaking the law at every turn.

We shouldn't let corporations unilaterally decide which regulations they want to follow; if they think some laws are unfair they should work to change them through the democratic process like the rest of us.

Why shouldn't we insult myopic, damaging worldviews like the OP's?