tw1010

Second thing that's felt like a genuine, useful, innovation coming out of the last wave of AI hype. (The first being deep-fakes.)

Devil's advocate:

Some argue (not necessarily me) that Google isn't necessarily purely optimizing for quality using that 20 year click-and-search log, that they're accepting some inefficiency by biasing for political (left-leaning) gain or "censorship by obscurity". If competitors could more easily build alternatives, which, say, didn't have those biases, then arguably that'd put more competitive pressure on Google to not use their monopoly for bad stuff.

I thought it was Rumsfeld. (Not joking.)

In what sense is geo-arbitrage associated to Tim Ferriss for you? Genuinely curious. I've listened to a lot of his podcasts but can't recall that ever really coming up.

What's wrong with internally putting an asterisk on their success and moving forward with your life, maintaining diluted self confidence?

Could you expand on that please?

Sounds like it's just a problem of identifying arbitrage opportunities then. I.e. the problem isn't actually that there isn't enough places to put money. The problem is identifying systemic biases in the investor landscape (e.g. a bias against diversity, as just one potential example).

But there's clearly a lot of people who still seek funding but can't find it, so how does that mesh with the idea that "there's too much money and not enough places to put it"?

He's aged remarkably well for 53.

This was likely posted because Michael Nielsen linked to it on his twitter, just for the historical record.

Personal experience.

It's insane to me that Sapiens seems to make up the entirety of many engineers' humanitarian education. And not only that, that you're basically shamed if you haven't read it, but on the other hand seen as overambitious and/or not interested enough in tech if you've opted to read a more traditionally accepted scholarly tome instead.

Page 15 in the proof for lemma 8.4.

What a weird theory.

Sometimes it's hard to disentangle if a conversation is having an upward trending trajectory, or if you just happen to pay attention more to the links that mention some subject you happened to have caught an interest in.

History is filled with re-discovery and explanation of things that were blindingly obvious to the generation that came before.

In that thread someone says that Tao created his own lecture notes for a linear algebra course he was doing[1]. But that page is marked as coming from "2002", which would make him 27. But surely Tao didn't first take linear algebra at 27?? Can anyone make sense of this for me?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772019

I would love you if you sent me that ebook (email in bio).

Could you give a few hints on how to find the information though? I'd also love to hear more on the specifics of the incentives.

I've been thinking recently about just building businesses on reducing information asymmetry. Feels like you can't really go wrong there if all you want to do is make a few bucks. (Who wouldn't want to buy that?)

Please please could someone recommend two or three books to get a more in-depth understanding of the history of mortgages, similar to what this (awesome!) video only briefly touched on.

Guys, just start reading fiction. It's like having a conversation with someone super smart and super relatable. You'll get hooked once you find something that fits your subconscious, but don't settle until you do. (I've been really digging Richard Yates and Thomas Mann lately, so maybe start there if you need inspiration. Murakami is also a famously great read if you need a companion.)

Ugh, I don't understand why people keep recommend the Pinker book about writing well. Pinker has the most formal god awful style I could imagine. There are so many better writers to learn from. Don't fall for mimetics guys.

Ok but how do you know which perspective/interpretation of things is the 'correct' one? Or are all correct and you just have to hold them all in your mind at the same time?

(This is a question I'm struggling with for real right now so if I could get some kind of answer to this it would ease a lot of my brain pressure. I never used to have this problem before I learned how to 'generate' new perspectives by 'thinking with words'. It always used to be just one perspective, just one identity.)

Philosophical thinking has its own kind of structure which is very lovely but quite distinct from the rigorous logical way you learn by studying mathematics. I learned the latter in school and the former after. (The former is a lot about 'thinking with words' in a very long attention-span manner, and about holding multiple perspectives in your head at the same time and refining analogies by slowly making your ideas clearer and clearer. Very unlike the intense intuitive sort of thinking done in maths.) Both are very useful but I feel like totally different people when I apply one or the other to making sense of things, and I'm still not sure how to mesh them together into one brain-tool. Maybe one day with enough practice will brain-plasticity make me enlightened, or maybe I'm too old and cemented for them to merge.

Alan Edelman has done a lot of talks, so if I had to guess, he mentions it somewhere in one of those. But I have no actual clue.

Quality schmality. Many books I read do little more than just enumerate facts (e.g. history books, especially the dry ones). The reason I remember the facts I read in books and don't remember a lot of the random bits of knowledge I've seen on "history of ancient rome" twitter accounts, or whatever, is because I set aside large blocks of undistracted time to read, where I allow myself to imagine the scenarios described (without feeling pressure to get back to work, nor have some "hey I wonder what casey neistat is doing"-type voice distracting me from really absorbing what I'm reading) and think a lot about how what I'm learning connects to what I've learned before.

Another kinda big reason I can find it harder to learn via the internet vs books is because there's so much deception online. You get primed to always think and try to figure out "ok, how much of this is marketing, or signalling, or the author just spewing BS, and how much is something I can rely on", which takes away cognitive resources from what otherwise could have been spent on building a rich and secure knowledge-base.

Try only learning things with books for 4 months and then tell me it doesn't work.

I tend to notice that learning from books get a lot harder if I allow my brain to be flooded with whatever chemicals are released when I watch youtube or game of thrones. If I avoid those for a while, and avoid sugar etc, and if I work out every day and get enough nutrients etc, then my ability to learn via books is no trouble at all.

Sounds like I'm telling you to just eat your vegetables, to do what your parental archetype is already screaming in the back of your head to do, and hence might you feel like not doing it in rebellion, but it's totally true based on my experience. I used to be the biggest youtube nerd/"I only learn with video"-type around. But now I only learn via books and I feel a lot healthier as a consequence. I finally feel like my brain is functioning like it's supposed to.

You make it sound like this is a trend, but this article is the first instance I've ever heart of the concept of a universal SIM?

Slow carb is a pretty good alternative if you don't want to be as strict: https://medium.com/@erinfrey/everything-you-need-to-know-abo....

There's no need to go hungry while doing keto. Once you realize this it becomes a lot easier. Just eat when you have cravings (but stick to low-carb things), that's it!