solinent

This is straight from Saussure, and then Chomsky. You can read his first course in linguistics [1].

It was highly disputed in the 1800s.

I'm not an expert, but:

> Uh, what? How do you think we got more than one language in the first place?

We would compete for resources, new languages would be created rapidly from old languages instead of the gradual change we're seeing in the last 4000 years.

> How do you think we have entire language families with mutually-unintelligable members?

All language, like I said, is composed of many -emes. Chomsky's big discovery was that you can't seaparate syntax and semantics when it comes to any language.

> Or what about dialectal continuums? If anything, I would posit that we are closer to your statement now than at any other time, because the printing press calcified spelling -- which could vary quite a bit in the time of scribes. And radio and TV and the Internet have started spreading linguistic innovation faster.

This is the standard intuitive view with when one has no evidence. There is strong evidence to suggest that it is the individuals who mispronounce written words who cause this rapid change in language--they are mispronounced and then subsequently miswritten, and then their semantics are subsequently misinterpreted, so their syntax and semantics slowly change in this fashion.

Saussure, the founder of the modern linguistic tradition, has this all outlined in his book [1]. He outlines your view, and then shows you that it is in fact not true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_in_General_Linguistics

> You can walk or jog at an easy effort for a long time and eventually your muscles will get tired and sore,

Perhaps this is because your lungs are getting tired--I wonder if there's lactate buildup in the lungs. I'm no biologist, but my understanding is our muscles need oxygen, to get this oxygen we need to do many things--breathe more air (v02 max), more efficiently distribute the oxygen through the body (heart rate and stroke volume), and finally the oxygen is delivered to the mitochondria in our muscles, so increased vascularity (vein size), would help.

Our muscles also need other supplies of energy--glycogen to produce atp or ketosis. I suspect if we're glycogen dependent we get tired a lot faster. There are many hyper marathon runners that are in ketosis, like Goggins:

> He was able to run 101 miles in 19 hours and 6 minutes—despite never having attempted to run a marathon previously

I think if the heart gets tired, you die, so the brain probably stops that from happening. You can die of exhaustion, many atheletes just die early from heart attacks.

Anecdotally, if I don't get lactate buildup in my muscles, since being in ketosis I don't really get tired. I went from a 5 minute bike being difficult, to a 1 hour bike and not getting tired near the end.

Language is a social creature, you can't have language without society and social interactions, if you're not able to communicate with spoken word you simply can't work as effectively with others. Especially if you can't make connections with others.

In fact, most of history the etymology of words wasn't a huge topic because everyone would pronounce the words in their language similarly and thus language wouldn't evolve nearly as rapidly--the phoneme is as important as the lexeme when it comes to language.

The insert bridge here wasn't built in a day, with one person.

Yes, these trade sanctions will definitely cause these issues--if they operate a business or do any dealings with businesses in countries which are embargo'd they will lose their ability to sell their product internationally, since Microsoft also fulfills defense contracts it probably makes these obligations even stronger, though I am not a lawyer.

I think at this point Fossil is looking really really good.

Exactly: put quite simply the best mitigation measure is a mask, since it prevents most of the virus from getting into the air--the virus's primary medium of transmission.

Even simpler--don't wear a mask for yourself, but for others.

If you're below 50 your chances of dying after contracting the virus are similar to that of being in a car accident if you got in a car over the course of one year (I think a car accident is higher). https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se...

I'm not sure exactly how they evaluate risk, but they probably estimate the error based on populations where very few people are studied (probably most people below 50), so it's likely if you're below 50 the chances are actually lower, I'm not sure.

Risk factors for immune disorders and car accidents are probably similar if I were to conjecture (just in: sick people tend to die), so most people on this subreddit will just get the fever. 15% of people don't even present with a fever, so it seems like the immune system can typically fight it off.

Inflammation is an immune response, so it is required to keep foreign agents from spreading, essentially. My understanding is that immune cells can become damaged, when this happens they malfunction and inflame the system when it doesn't need to be inflamed.

Yeah I think you have to stem the tide to avoiding the "unpaid" shills. I've even seen people who shill in one direction just to be accepted by a community so they can troll them.

I hypothesize you could detect this type of stuff using semantic analysis of text if you check word order and frequency (or go ML with fastText or w/e) you could get maybe 90% accuracy at determining whether someone isn't a shill. There needs to be an investigative process which humans undergo after this. Then some form of identification would be required before any sort of ban (ideally you tell them, this only stops the false positives from rejoining) can be lifted, just incase any local laws are broken.

The shills all have some source material, so they should be closer to it language-wise than those that they teach/brainwash.

But hey, I wish I was paid to shill against other shills and detect them, it would be an interesting job.

Paid shills tend to have a strange effect where they polarize people in the other direction than intended since their arguments are not always well founded and honest, and they will always suffer from some form of groupthink. It's a slingshot effect--at first people fall for the farce, but soon they realize they have been mislead. It could even spoil the election and get some to vote in the opposite direction.

I think it's also pretty easy to spot these days and we're armed much better to fight it at the platform-level.

I don't think this will end well for Bloomberg, he has a long way to climb, and his name is literally associated with big money. He may have already reached saturation, and this is a dying move.

I remember learning this vaguely as well, it's just a relatively useful rule with lots of exceptions, but it is not a law--it happens even after extended isolation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_...

Some examples of hybrids without human influence (well that's arguable):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonicera_fly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf

The grand daddy of "hybrids" (twelve species):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celosia_argentea

from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Speciation

Also you can go beyond hybrids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy#Types

As an amateur I'd hypothesize if the species diverges and then relocates, but is subject to similar environmental pressure, the morphological changes won't be great enough to prevent the organisms from interfacing and then reproducing.

We've determined this through string similarity algorithms, so really I'd say we can't be completely certain here either.

Static HTML is also very secure. My personal sites are always static, it keeps server costs low and everything gets cached.

I've looked into this, and there's no great way to do so, becuase the concept of species really just means large morphological changes. We assume everything is taxonomized (a tree), but in reality there is no tree--sometimes there is cross polination after some time apart. Ultimately they have a precise set of morphological criteria for each species, and they arrive at this criteria based on a sampling of animals and associating their morphology with their DNA.

They also use string similarity algorithms to determine morphological order, so we don't strictly know the order at the most precise level.

Of course, this is all very controversial, some people think we're always changing gradually and some people think we always change rapidly. I think they're both wrong--sometimes organisms change rapidly, and sometimes they change rapidly, depending on environmental factors.

disclaimer: I'm no expert, I've just looked at it from an algorithmic view and read some taxonomical texts as I had the same question as you.

I'd say Facebook brings out the Narcissus in all of us. Narcissus was cursed by Nemesis to become a flower.

from wikipedia:

> One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread (mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted "Who's there?". Echo repeated "Who's there?" She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her. Nemesis (as an aspect of Aphrodite[4]), the goddess of revenge, noticed this behaviour after learning the story and decided to punish Narcissus. Once, during the summer, he was getting thirsty after hunting, and the goddess lured him to a pool where he leaned upon the water and saw himself in the bloom of youth. Narcissus did not realize it was merely his own reflection and fell deeply in love with it, as if it were somebody else. Unable to leave the allure of his image, he eventually realized that his love could not be reciprocated and he melted away from the fire of passion burning inside him, eventually turning into a gold and white flower.

Mine is a piece of paper. I can even write things to the side, draw diagrams in place, erase, create tables easily.

Paper real estate is also not nearly as limited.

I also use a bug tracker and sometimes a text file, but always have the minutiae on a piece of paper.

It's not in their best interest time-wise, unless they seek to employ you afterwords.

Strangely, I've always gotten feedback, or at least "we decided not to continue", which is better than nothing.

As someone who uses vim consistently, I hope I'm not a life-long vim user, I plan on at least a short retirement ;)

To elaborate, the filter also may not improve the accuracy, just the perceived accuracy.

To be correct but one second late is to be completely inaccurate. The system is trying to estimate the current position of the car, but also predict future positions.

So a little bit of imprecision is fine since it improves accuracy related to predicting the future positions of the cars. A slight move in one direction may indicate a lane change, so it is always useful to be aware of that so as not to accelerate past a car whose measurement appears to be more inaccurate, since they actually might be moving. If you did the same thing with a human's "sixth sense" perception of the positions of the cars, you'd definitely find that they move a lot compared to their actual positions when the head is turned since our ability to merge our vision and our inertial sense is not very good for the most part.

The same issues arises with AR/VR, it's useless to know a more accurate position of the user if it's not the present position, because then that will definitely lead to motion sickness.

I have no idea what the kids are reading these days, I've since ceased my aspirations towards pure mathematics.

These words all change meaning over time, mathematical definitions change, old words are used to describe new objects and new words are used to describe old objects. I'm using the word integer with it's archaic meaning here for rhetorical effect, but I'm probably being too obtuse ;)

To clarify, we used to think of integers as just the natural numbers. Integer was a colloquial word meaning "whole, entire", so there was presumably a discussion about how negative numbers were whole or entire, though I vaguely remember this historical story. My point is just that at some point negative numbers were seen as a advanced extension of the natural numbers. Even zero was seen as an unnatural extension, which is why there is a confusion to this date as to whether "natural" numbers include zero.

ref: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57212.html

Not the best reference, but I've read it elsewhere, so maybe it's a myth, but someone can trace it to the source if they want.

> We don't call them "real" numbers outside of math circles anymore.

I mean laypeople don't know what the real numbers are in distinction to the rationals, for example.

It's just semantics: what you call the generalized cross product, I call the cross product.

We used to think as negative numbers being a generalization of the integers, so that's some food for thought. I'm sure once quantum mechanics dominates solving eigenvalue problems will be a high-school level problem, so we'll end up having complex numbers losing their complexity. We don't call them "real" numbers outside of math circles anymore.

To say that the cross product itself is a hack is a bit of a stretch though, it can easily be generalized and I think it's quite natural.

This is incorrect, if you read Spivak, you can define and (n-1)-ary product which generalizes the cross product. You give it (n-1) vectors and it gives you a vector orthogonal to all of them.

Whether you call it the cross product or not is just semantics, but it does exist in terms of the exterior product.

It's difficult to find online, but it's constructed directly in Spivak. A quote:

"It is uncommon in mathematics to have a "product" that depends on more than two factors. In the case of two vectors v,w in R^3, we obtain a more conventional looking product, v X w in R^3. For this reason it is sometimes maintained that the cross product. can be defined only on R^3" - Calculus on Manifolds, pg.84

Most graduate students read this (or did five years ago).

The exterior/wedge product is actually very closely related to the cross product, and works to generalize the cross product to n dimensions. You can read Spivak or Munkres, "Calculus on Manifolds" and "Analysis on Manifolds" respectively.

One of their main uses is to prove the generalized Stokes theorem in n dimensions.

3D rotors are isomorphic to quaternions, so go ahead and rename your variables :).

There are some optimizations Fortran compilers can make which C compilers cannot, though we can use the "restrict" keyword to allow C to make the same assumptions Fortran makes for aliasing pointers (ie. there are none).

However, in order to support all existing C programs I believe they still can't make the same level of optimization as Fortran does. It'd be nice to see this gap merged, in fact.

C++ can actually do better with some numeric code since commonly used libraries perform expression optimization at compile-time using Eigen for example.

> You won't have $1000/mo for food when your landlord raises rent by $1000/mo.

You would if you're homeless and can't pay the rent because you need food to survive.

I honestly may have been unclear, so I apologize. It's directly related--these are the extra dimensions not accounted for in the criticism of this game theorist's analysis, which supposedly affect the outcome.

So if you can refute my argument, you can easily say that this criticism of this game theorist's analysis is valid, but as I said, my experience does not lie in this field at all, so you probably won't find any difficulty in doing so. It's just pretty obvious to me given my mathematical background that this criticism is meaningless without an understanding of the reasoning behind how the dimensionality was reduced. My point is just that such arguments are easy to make and probably easy to prove as well.

In any case, it leaves room for increasingly complex models to disagree with the results of this one.

> We can't accept any model we're presented with just because it's possible that it's correct.

I agree with this completely, but it doesn't refute this particular reduction of complexity either, which is the point of my post. I may have been too verbose.

> In the game, fantastically rich people never contributed to the public pot; in real life, most fantastically rich people toss piles of money at public goods like hospitals, schools, and charities.

It's easy to make an argument that this is negligible, and far more experienced people can make this argument quite well. The money should trickle down, but I think it might help if we had more wealth to trickle down in the first place.

Many contribute to charities do this to avoid taxes, I've had first-hand experience with this type of "charity". The people who actually want to help tend to want to pay taxes, in my experience.

So who is really donating to the charity ultimately?

I'm not saying these benevolent people don't exist, it's just that if you distributed all of Bezos's wealth to each person individually it would only be ~1000 per person once or less, a meager stimulus package. How is that wealth going to trickle down fast enough to have any meaningful effect? Money tends to accumulate towards those who value it the most, but perhaps more wealth could be accumulated if more of it could flow through the system without being trapped only in the wealthy hands.

It could be a win-win, or a win-lose, but it's not a lose for the rich at all if they can now select from a much larger workforce--charity money rarely reaches those that need it most. Just like how many homeless on the street aren't in a desperate situation, and those that are probably can't monopolize those good street corners.

Ultimately there's a feedback loop between supply and demand--any incentive to increase either helps the majority.

> So you're taking a high (100s-1000s) dimensional problem and projecting it onto a 2-10 dimensional space where your conclusions are based on a form of clustering which itself is purely dependent upon your (probably ideologically driven) assumptions. In such drastic oversimplifications it is extremely east to paint whatever picture you want, even unintentionally.

It's possible there are only a few main dimensions which matter for showing the majority of the benefit, with the error being negligible. For example, in computer graphics, to solve the rendering equation you're sampling an infinite dimensional space (all paths a photon might take), but you can do it with one dimension (direct bounces from light->surface->camera + deterministic shadow) and the error is almost negligible depending on the application, because most photons get absorbed after the first bounce.

> Case in point. Those evil fat cats simply hoard stolen money and don't interact with greater society in any other way, right? Nevermind driving social policy, producing jobs, and building indirect relationships where large and small actors do benefit from cooperation. Those evil tech CEOs wouldn't have any cash if there wasn't incentive for the poor exploited proletariat to spend their money on goods and services, and offer their time to provide the same.

Perhaps these effects are negligible? If you consider the worst case with one person hoarding all the money, it certainly would be unless he distributed it equally through the means you mention.

I'm not disagreeing with you however, you could be right. It's hard to tell without a large number of empirical studies to be done. The gain from such a change could be worth it, or the effects might be negligible.

> Saying that "every man, woman and child" would be lining up is a straw man also. "Every man, woman and child" does not currently line up at soup kitchens.

It's also a strawman because not everyone would be lining up for potatoes in this instance, presumably some people can afford to eat in this free suds world. Maybe we'll even have a post-potato society eventually, when everyone decides they hate potatoes after they all get jobs (probably not).

$1000/mo buys (some) food, $0 does not

It was obvious to the ancient Greeks, we're still getting there today. The Hollywood stereotype perpetuates the split, which definitely exists today, but also the advantages of economic specialization kind of limits you to one or the other these days.