What I've Learned from Hacker News (2009)

paulgraham.com

5 points·belter··5 comments

> Indeed, [footnote 2 is] the intellectually honest argument for not discriminating between various types of people. The reason not to do it is not that everyone's the same, but that it's bad to do wrong and hard to do right.

Amen. Hopefully this wont stop me from trying to classify PG as lion or fox or mongoose .. (i cant remember what it was anyways… fox with lion skin?)

[“Why do I have a reason for keeping people in cardboard. Because it’s there” — Not George Mallory]

[“Climbing Jungfraujoch barefoot is fun!” -its Not about RPF its about me!]

TIGR: traits for designori, for inclusion in a NE-type test

(Today I Got Reminded)

keeping people in cardboard? Is that like singing under plywood?

If you're barefoot, far better to pass under Steghorn and Daubenhorn. Even Ötzi had grass-insulated moccasins: https://exarc.net/issue-2023-2/at/reconstructing-otzis-shoes

Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWOUi0PVTXw

(does discriminating by ranges of continuous spectra instead of at monochromatic points bring us back to Banach?)

“Cardboard”: looked in vain for the uncountable singular of “boxes” (/“categories”)

Also: “cardboard” as a metaphor for the inevitable reduction in dimensions (here, of “personalities”)

Banach: if you mean the eponymous space, yes, are you returning to the county in “quantum-gravity”? Or maybe you refer to the theorem with Tarski?

Banach space, yes, but I'm returning to knowing only the name :)

Cardboard as box (and as space filling surface?) is a very nice interpretation; I'd been thinking of "singing to a backing track/lipsyncing" in which phonogramma gets shortened to phanera which machine translates for me as "singing under cardboard"...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com