davidivadavid

If to you relations exist in nature therefore they are physical, there is a physicalist assumption in there which doesn't go without saying.

Now, I happen to have sympathy for that position, but it's hardly as straightforward as you seem to imply.

Where it does have a lot to do with Platonism is that positing that relations are not abstract things but physical entities presumably entails that you can show what a relation physically is. And an instance of a relation isn't the relation. As soon as you go into "for example", you're not talking about the object itself anymore.

(To better see that relationship, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/)

So what kind of physical object is a relation?

In what sense are they physical? Can you point to one?

She's probably fuming right now that you dared ask her a concrete question about what she wanted.

They sure do, much like words correspond to physical things, but words are still "abstract objects" (if you subscribe to Platonism, that is).

I think he confused his trip to the Apple store with a riddle at a Google interview. I'll second that that made him sound like a complete dumbass.

Or any non-STEM field...

Yeah, this looks like a typical case of the "XY problem" where it's really hard to tell if the person making the request is framing that request wrongly/with unnecessary constraints to satisfy what they actually want.

How are qualia necessary/sufficient for consciousness? Seems more related to the subjectivity of perception, which in itself doesn't require consciousness (or does it?)?

That's kind of a cop out, though. Relations are presumably abstract objects, too?

No, but it might change your perspective on things and lead you to explore a different set of ideas (something that may end up being quite important when doing scientific research?).

I would also characterize myself as more of a pragmatist, and to me, the pragmatic version of that debate is around a reframing of the question, which becomes the classic: "Why is mathematics so (unreasonably) useful?" I.e. why does math work at all?

Certainly looking at what mathematics is or could be in relation to the rest of the universe looks like a legitimate research area to then potentially guide the evolution of our mathematical tools.

I'm particularly interested in how one can reconcile naturalism/physicalism/materialism/monism with non-platonism/nominalism, i.e. if there is no such thing as Platonic ideals, what's the "physical" nature of math?

(Using lots of quotes here because I'm being lazy and not super careful with the terms I'm using — I'm aware.)

You're misusing the term affordance (not blaming you, Don Norman himself has written about how it's constantly misused).

You can wave your hand over anything (unless something is blocking your way or is too far, etc.), therefore most stuff affords being waved over.

A mug, with or without a handle, affords "being held with your hand"(although more or less comfortably).

What you're talking about is a signifier.

Quoting from a random article:

As Don Norman explains it: “[…] although affordances make sense for interaction with physical objects, they are confusing when dealing with virtual ones. As a result, affordances have created much confusion in the world of design. Affordances define what actions are possible. Signifiers specify how people discover those possibilities: signifiers are signs, perceptible signals of what can be done. Signifiers are of far more importance to designers than are affordances.” [Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition, 2013, pXIV-XV]

If a CEO is in a position where they could hire Jony Ive but don't know Jony Ive, the CEO probably has someone working for them who knows who Jony Ive is and can pitch him internally.

No one's confused. Saying something is simple and very hard at the same time helps people make exactly 0 progress.

It just comes off as pedantic/dumb well-actually-ism.

Yeah, fat people know about calories in/calories out. That in itself doesn't make them slimmer.

Pretty low-effort blog spam stroking developer ego about being (yet again) the smartest people in the room and everyone else being monkeys. The inferiority complex is kind of tiring.

Around 250.

That's moving the goal posts.

Of course you'd rather have good than bad lead qualification/generation. But you still need calls to action to collect those leads somewhere, which was the parent's point.

Yes, many companies have bad lead qualification and try to sell their product too early. But that's orthogonal to the concept of having a landing page or a call to action in itself.

The problem is not having or not having calls to action, it's to figure out which call to action is relevant at what step of the funnel.

It tends to be easier to give advice based on concrete elements than abstractly.

Other than that, I compiled a list of tips a while back that should help you get a better intuition of what you need beyond the mechanics (sure, you need a headline, but what makes it good?):

http://yourlandingpagesucks.com/startup-landing-page-teardow...

If I tried to boil it down to the basics, it's mostly about trying to put yourself in the shoes of a potential customer with very little time to waste:

* What's in it for me? => Value proposition / claims

* Prove it => Proof

That's funny, I didn't have nearly as bad eye sight, but also distinctly remember first noticing leaves on trees when I got my glasses around that same age.

If you're not with a team you don't need the enterprise license and can use everything for free.

His point is probably along the lines of "any machine emulating a Turing machine can compute all computable functions." Which of course doesn't mean that there aren't uncomputable functions.

Not that there's no valid discussion to have about growth as an objective per se, but this is a particularly weak rebuttal that hinges on a narrow definition of (material) growth. Economic growth is first and foremost about the value of economic exchanges. Not about the amount of stuff we make.

Apple's 2020 revenue was 274 bn $, and on track to substantially increase in 2021. Tim Cook's compensation is about < 0.3% of that revenue.

Then again, I'm not sure it makes more sense to compare stock-based compensation with revenue than with market cap.

Yeah, I stopped reading after making roughly the same assessment. Article is just one giant straw man. And I'm not a particularly staunch AGI proponent.

Right. As soon as some form of curation occurs you're being suggested something. What the parent might be trying to say if I steel man it is that he's still making a choice between the options that he's being suggested. Which, yes he is, but you're still making a choice between suggested options. These things are not mutually exclusive.

You type a keyword... somewhere? On Google maybe? And then what? Pick the first movie listed? What about actors? Do you watch all of their movies? In random order? Do you do it chronologically? Why?

The only way you could watch movies without it being the result of a suggestion would be if you had a random list of movies (preferably of all movies ever made) and picked at random in it. I think it's safe to assume you're not doing that, so you're being suggested movies.

Here's a fun test: try to think of what you watched that was not suggested to you one way or another. Think of what it would even mean.

Yeah, none of these logos, human- or AI-made look usable (unless you don't care about logos, in which case why even bother).

Something is usually "compelling" when it reaches the level where the customer can figure out the story themselves. Story doesn't equate pablum/obfuscation. It's a narrative presentation of the vision of how the product will impact the customer's life.