386 karma · joined November 7, 2007
https://querysprout.com/what-oil-does-mcdonalds-use/#:~:text=For%20some%20people%2C%20it%20may,of%20its%20main%20cooking%20oils. when did neil armstrong set foot on poopShows are like startups. The payoff is a very skewed distribution, i.e. median and mean are vastly different. After one season, I'd argue you have a pretty good estimate of the earning potential for a show. Maybe you're even off by a factor of two or three, but since the goal is to find a show with 10x or 100x the viewership, you're better off canceling a show with median success.
Actually it's probably a lot easier to predict the payoff for a show after one year, than for a startup. Startups can take multiple years to find product-market fit; shows rarely pivot dramatically.
[Update: I got the facts wrong with the following example, as someone nicely pointed out below! I think the general principle still stands.] Tuca & Bertie, for example, was canceled after one season, but the same people went on to make Bojack Horseman, which was a much bigger hit. Bojack would not have happened if Tuca were renewed, and Tuca would never have gotten as popular as Bojack.
I don't understand how you can be so confident about attaching a utility function to latency.
Such bullshit. Yes, they are symbols, but "just" symbols? They don't approximate reality at all? If so, how would he even know?
Edit: Let me elaborate. Yes, it's possible the world is just one big movie set, and nothing is remotely what it seems to be. It's possible everything is just a dream. But this is among the most banal of ideas. We have only made progress as a species by identifying deep, universal consistencies that have proven more reliable than anything else we know. Various scientific revolutions do not change the fact that the game is the same: to account for our observations parsimoniously. Now this guys says, it's all "just" symbols. Such bullshit.
Edit: Blame rests with my crappy Comcast connection, not with the website.
These parents doubtless believed they were virtuous in rejecting the culture of the times, but they went quite a bit farther and were basically delusional. People like that should not homeschool.
The United States while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none, it being a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, so war is better than tribute.
It seems to me that the biggest advantage to being a generalist is that as parents, we can identify what a kid is good at, and can start him down that road. Things go wrong when a parent is not himself enough of a generalist to figure out what the kid likes, and just pushes him toward something random or prestigious.
As for those that object to what you say, I wonder why they insist on putting words in your mouth. Perhaps they don't believe that a young kid could be interested in any deep topic without coercion; which relieves them of the responsibility to try to find what this topic could be. But my attitude is that as a parent, I may not find it, or maybe it's not there, but the potential upsides are large enough that I will keep thinking about it.
^((xx?|xxxx)(\2{7})?)(\1{63})?$No, it's not.
A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is to assert that X causes Y _solely_ because X and Y co-occur. Philip asserts that doing the Ph.D. caused him to be wiser, savvier, etc, but he did so on grounds other than just citing their co-occurrence. Much of the rest of the article explained _how_ X caused Y, i.e., how doing the degree resulted in this or that bit of wisdom.
On a broader note, it really bogs down a discussion to point out 'logical fallacies' when they aren't there. Ideally, we'd all go out of our way to try to see another person's point, even when it's poorly made, but the antithesis of that is to criticize a point on technical grounds, when those technical grounds aren't even there.
Small correction: survival to time t under the lightning bolt scenario follows an exponential distribution. A Poisson distribution, besides for being discrete, has factorial decay, not exponential decay.