conjectures

I worry this will have an effect on equality of opportunity in the not-too-distant future. There will be some parents who understand this, and some who don't - or can't afford to do anything about it. It's a big swath of options those people will miss out on.

There are prima facie limitations to this, otherwise lobotomy victims would have naturally recovered.

Something like this is the obvious real-world solution. Combined with a 'nuanced' understanding of frequency, placement and eligibibility.

There is a shedload of good music out there, but the distribution mechanism has changed. If you actively look on Spotify, you'll start to find things. That is unless it's a simple case of the music in [decade I was 13-23] was the best!

Try underworlds ;)

“Intellectual freedom depends upon material things. (...) Women have had less intellectual freedom than the sons of Athenian slaves. Women, then, have not had a dog's chance of writing poetry. That is why I have laid so much stress on money and a room of one's own”

― Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own

> This way of writing Haskell, from my experience, results in write-only code.

That's fine because you can enter zen state and refactor it using compiler hints ;)

> People have been doing this exact thing for two decades at least but obviously with less computing power.

Here's an analogy which shows how the cynicism here isn't actually useful wisdom:

Lee Sedol lost at go.

Kasparov lost at chess two decades before.

The Kasparov loss was 'exactly the same thing albeit with less computing power'

It's interesting how the value the owners get from HN is more kudos and relevant discourse.

I'm finding it hard to think of other domains with succesful quasi-public institutions run by for-profits without monetization. Are there other examples?

Yeah, this would be the consumer flipside of everything looking something like a subscriptions model. If the vendor wants to force obsolescence it should be on their own assets.

There's truth to what you're saying; assuming one knows where relative medium term peaks and troughs are in multiple asset classes. That's a whale of an assumption. As is the assumption that fossil fuels are going to be higher growth rate over the medium term. Your strategy also requires attention and likely incurs more transaction costs if executing it yourself.

I thought I would do a ballpark check. Random first index of oil & gas I found was FTSE 350 Oil & Gas. Start 2010 value: ~7914. Start 2020: ~8253. Return: 1.043. General FTSE350 at the start of 2010: 2718. Start 2020: 4311. Return: 1.59. So we'd have done better buying a fossil fuel divested index 10 years ago. I see no reason to think this trend will reverse.

The fundamentals to me are that fossil fuels are likely only see more regulation, divestment and less importance to new technologies. While the upside wildcards in energy are most likely not in fossil fuels.

This. Suppose the goal is to buy and hold some index for your pension in 30 years time. It's hard for to imagine that fossil fuels are going to grow faster than the other index components. So I'd rather cut them out.

Can we not use the word 'passion'. In a world where subway job applicants need to have a passion for sandwiches the word has long since passed its sell by date.

To put a lower bound on how much these things can cost. The Kent Fitness League (UK) runs an old school cross country event. It costs two pounds (2015).

You can find more effective charities at givewell.org

"everyone would think I was a nice person doing nice things for people in need"

Notwithstanding effective altruists.

That aside, when I spent more time doing running & triathlon there was an unspoken rule that people don't ask the group for charitable funding for these things.

A large number of charity marathon runners will be effectively buying a place in a race they did not good-for-age qualify for. There's nothing wrong with that and cool that a proportion of the ticket price goes to charity, but it would be great if more people could just own it.

The general rule is don't ask other people to pay for your fun adventure activities.

Because it's not a standard convolutional net by the description. The difference is:

A) Studying an existing technique with math.

B) Coming up with a new technique.

You could get a modern engineering consultancy to review your steam engine, but it would still be a steam engine.

Cowen is something of a libertarian AFAIK, and seems to be hard to predictably position. So...

This. Unless the Guardian is doing a big disservice to the underlying material, this sounds like sloppy science.

Sad to say it, but a bunch of code from a failed startup is probably nearly valueless without context. I think that motivates an answer based on extracting value from it combined with the context on it that a founder has.

Some support for this:

1. Brain development of teenagers is not complete.

2. Information available to sub college age kids is not perfect.

If you don't believe in free will, the only question is what combination of mechanics and information serves to produce the observed outcome.

Who is complaining about SpaceX? The point is challenging a particular confusion which seems prevalent round here.

Suppose SpaceX had used a very similar prototype, but some process or engineer had caught the fault. Few here would be taking the lack of an explosion as evidence that SpaceX are not innovative. Instead, if anything, they would be praising the superb processes in addition to the cool prototype.

So, there is always room to improve. The reaction to this essentially anodyne point here has been really interesting.

So if this prototype had not blown up you would now be complaining that SpaceX is not sufficiently innovative?

On the other hand, perfection looks like nothing ever blowing up while job always getting done.

"Windows has better IDE support"

Why would having better IDE support make for a better learning environment? It masks what is going on, and complicates it (for the benefit of people doing much more complicated things). But if you're bashing out helloworld.py you've just made it hard to disambiguate what the file is doing, what the runtime, and what the IDE.

Bayesian Data Analysis by Gelman et al (author of the linked blog, as it happens).

I read comments here, I watched the video. I still have no idea what this is actually for.

There is chat app, maybe someone can see your screen. I don't know.

This does seem like the meta solution to most tests, particularly standardised tests :)

This is also what I would expect the reality of the situation to be, regardless of policy.

Guy detects bullshit from one headline.