alentist

> the Spanish sacrificed millions.

Source?

Not at all [1][2][3]. Why do you think the surrounding tributary city-states allied with the Spanish? Though human sacrifice was common in Mesoamerica at the time, under the Aztecs it took place at an unprecedented scale.

I'm curious, though, about why you'd make such an implausible claim without backing it up with any evidence.

[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/feeding-gods-hundred...

[2] https://www.history.com/news/aztec-human-sacrifice-religion

[3] https://www.ancient.eu/Aztec_Sacrifice/

You absolutely did not, because it very clearly states it's not just about hotel consumers: It's about the welfare effects on hotels, travelers (including those who otherwise wouldn't have been hotel consumers), and hosts [1]. Why do you keep mischaracterizing it?

The EPI thinktank report you linked to simply states the costs outweigh the benefits without any numbers to support that conclusion. This paper, on the other hand, does look at the numbers. I appreciate the reference, however.

[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w24361.pdf

I don’t think you read the link before downvoting it. It’s about the effect on the hotel industry as well as consumers and hosts.

You also haven’t provided any evidence to back up your claim. I’d be curious to read it, if it exists.

> AirBnB is one of the poster children of VC backed companies extracting profits at the cost of society

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Because hard data shows exactly the opposite: https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/beyond-bls/how-airbnb-has-...

Why aren’t you disclosing that you’re working for Google?

> Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to

...criticize them on HackerNews.

Time is not exactly on an equal footing with space. It has the opposite sign in the metric signature, which is physically significant.

The differences boil down to the fact that the Lorentz group is O(1,3) whereas the (homogeneous) Galilean group is R^3 x O(3), both 6-dimensional.

Why do you agree with the editor’s censorship? Also, you say he’s “a creepy misogynist”—what’s your evidence for that claim (genuine question)?

In a way. Consider a Turing machine that enumerates all proofs in ZFC and halts iff it finds a proof of 0=1 (i.e. a contradiction). The statement that this Turing machine halts (like the statement that any given Turing machine halts) is what’s called a Sigma_1 statement, which lies at the bottom of the arithmetic hierarchy (right above bounded-quantifier statements). ZFC + ~Con(ZFC) is consistent but Sigma_1-unsound and therefore omega-inconsistent [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ω-consistent_theory

> willing to completely gut the Internet (net neutrality)

Oh please. The internet hasn’t been “gutted”. Far from it. It’s getting faster. It’s getting cheaper. It’s becoming more widely available. Do you have any evidence, anything at all, that the internet has been “gutted”?

And you’re going to tell me with a straight face that the internet has been “gutted” for the vast majority of its existence? Don’t be ridiculous.

It says scarce resources are pricier. Welcome to the real world!

No, you’re just upset they didn’t vote for your preferred party.

> It's a rather big philosophical stance to say that the 'truth' of these propositions can be determined outside of the axiomatic systems.

I don’t think so. ZFC is either consistent or it isn’t. That is, a Turing machine enumerating all theorems of ZFC either produces 0=1 or it doesn’t. This is, however, independent of ZFC (if the latter is consistent) by the second incompleteness theorem. See https://mathoverflow.net/a/332266, in particular Nik Weaver’s comment:

> I think the strongest argument in favor of the definiteness of ℕ, and against the idea that PA, or any other axiomatization, is the be-all end-all, is the evident fact that we have an open-ended ability to go beyond any computable set of axioms, for instance by affirming their consistency. If you accept PA you should accept Con(PA), and the process doesn't stop there: you can then accept Con(PA + Con(PA)), and so on. This goes on to transfinite levels. If our understanding of ℕ really were fully captured by some particular set of axioms then we would not feel we had a right to strengthen those axioms in any special way; the fact that we do feel we have this right shows that our understanding is not captured by any particular set of axioms.