solveit

Yeah, for game exploits "haha I can't believe you can do that, that's hilarious, now let's patch it out" is the norm. Exploits that make the game richer and gain wide acceptance are very much the exception.

You are absolutely correct that the other guy doesn't understand basic economics but this comment is needlessly aggressive.

Sounds to me like they're deciding what to do with the land, and then taking on the risk for whether the developed property is economically viable. They should be taxed for the value of the underlying land, but they are absolutely not useless middlemen.

Because you're fourteen, those randos are your peer group, and you're stuck with them all day. Also, you're fourteen so you haven't quite figured out whose opinions should be important to you, and also you're wildly insecure about your position in your world.

But I absolutely don't want Twitter to decide which organisations are like the NAACP and which are like the Klan. This is regardless of who runs Twitter.

They don't not bother. They just do it by gut feel without writing anything down about how they're doing it. Admissions counselors at elite high schools "network" with admissions offices at universities to benefit their students in this process. This is common knowledge in the industry to the point that foreign elite high schools, which have a harder time getting name-recognition, spend a pretty sum of money periodically sending their representatives on month-long US trips to go around, say, the top 30 US universities to market their brand.

This points to the real problem with GPA. The institution assigning GPAs to students have a strong incentive to inflate GPAs. If colleges only looked at GPAs, high schools would inevitably give in to the temptation to give away perfect scores like candy, and students from schools retaining some shred of dignity would suffer for it. Standardized exams, for all their faults, are standardized, and don't have this problem.

Yes, let's solve the problem of skewed student assessment by solving inequality. Your solution is far less tractable than the problem!

People justify conscription all the time, which is a particularly bad form of slavery. There is a difference between someone being evil and someone being wrong.

> Is the axiom of choice "true"? Does it make sense to say that it has a truth value? Is such a truth value amenable to human discovery?

I imagine PG would say that these are not purely mathematical questions, but rather metamathematical questions. Theorems remain theorems regardless of whether the axiom of choice is "true", although one may contend that theorems assuming that the AOC is false (or true) are vacuous. Aliens would surely agree with us on statements of the form "working in first-order logic (or whatever) formalized in XXX way, assuming axioms YYY and ZZZ, we may prove that...".

> Keep in mind that this is the same person who called people who handed over their data to him as dumb fucks.

In his defense, he was absolutely right. People shouldn't hand over their data to random websites.

> nothing anybody says after this will make me think

This is clearly wildly emotional and (hopefully) hyperbolic.

As usual, this stops the conversation cold, because it doesn't fit anyone's narrative. Free speech advocates want to claim that the marketplace of ideas will lead people to good ideas, while people for restricting speech want to claim that it's possible to restrict speech without going full-on totalitarian dystopia. The case of religion shows quite starkly that both narratives completely fail to describe a central example with great historical and current relevance.

Free speech is a good idea for game-theoretic reasons. That's it. Free speech lets people fight it out with only the occasional riot and attempted overthrow of the republic. That's better than the alternative.

Imagine that the status quo was that everyone lived forever. If someone suggested that we should kill literally everyone to solve overpopulation or rich people or meaning of life or whatever, they would rightly be called batshit insane.

> no longer be allowed

Who's talking about allowing anything? The debate is about whether these people will be subsidised.

Good to see they know what they're doing.

Actually saas is about providing services for money.

I am instantly skeptical that the first thinker to understand some complex topic produced a book crisply detailing the irreducible core of the idea rather than spending six hundred pages flailing around trying to gesture at the good stuff they only vaguely see and don't have the vocabulary to express. First iterations are rarely good and never sleek.

If the donor is making a statement, it would be strategically best if the money could be proven at the donor's convenience not to be stolen.

You seem to be going so far out of your way to be uncharitable that you've stopped caring about whether your statement makes the slightest bit of sense. Surely there's still some form of mindless consumption available that would provide more entertainment than donations to FOSS projects? It's not a very high bar to clear?

I agree that Tether has certainly been pumping BTC with money they don't have, but

> if you look at recent (~1.5 years) sudden spikes in BTC price, they correspond almost always to a new supply of USDT being released by Tether.

is what you would expect to see even if Tether was 100% legit. As you say, most BTC liquidity is in USDT, so people buying Bitcoin would first buy (mint) USDT from Tether, and then use that to buy BTC.

Yes, you need a very high EQ to understand why that wouldn't work./s

That sounds like a complaint that online IQ tests are bad, which is obviously correct but also not really relevant to IQ as studied in psychometrics.

The complaints I hear about IQ are completely opposite! People dislike standardized exams, including IQ tests, because of their standardization! That is, the need to assess everyone the same way precludes assessment specific to the individual being assessed. Detractors of IQ, insofar as they would like assessment at all, would prefer a more holistic procedure where the characteristics and capabilities of the assessee are analysed with due attention paid to the specific life history of said assessee.

If only there were half a century of research into exactly what IQ does and doesn't correlate with! Anyhow, my lukewarm take is that no level of "social and emotional intelligence" will allow you to assess the likely effectiveness of a political system, because why in the world would the built-in intelligence for interacting with a couple of hundred people be any good at predicting the aggregate behaviour of billions of people.

Instead, we have more general problem-solving skills that allowed us to develop things like statistics and economics and political theory. I leave it to the reader to determine how much social and emotional intelligence is required to excel at those. (As opposed to the merely analytical intelligence that IQ measures, I suppose. I have yet to see a definition of social/emotional intelligence that is coherent enough to be measured, and also actually meaningfully exists when measured.)

Or in programming, the people who first swoop out a more-or-less complete program that's closer to pseudocode than something that's meant to compile, and then fix things until hopefully the program works, versus the bashers who only write mostly correct code.

If you define 'leading countries' narrowly enough, everyone in that category becomes a random edge case.

Less flippantly, you should expect people running high-variance strategies to be overrepresented at the top. The people leading countries may go to school and get law degrees, but if they stay the path of doing what everyone else does but better, they end up an unremarkable partner at a law firm or something, not POTUS or Bezos or Musk. They don't have to literally do life-threateningly dangerous things (although I'm sure the propensity correlates and that's what the previous poster was talking about), but they do have to be willing to risk the comfortable life that was all but guaranteed for them.

Can you recommend a book that you think presents,say, calculus, significantly better than the books commonly in use?

Not just legs but skulls too! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/peru-elongated-sk...

Sorry, my comment was overly brief and flippant. I see this change as a net positive for privacy, and the fact that it's of only limited benefit for people who are less scrupulous about privacy is unfortunate but I am still pleased on the balance.

I'm fine with only privacy-conscious people getting privacy.