aminorex

Please do then. Explain it without math, I mean.

Super high burn rate. 200k is a slave wage in Manhattan, or in SFO bay for that matter.

Valuation isn't, however, a matter of fact, but of values. We distinguish descriptive facts from prescriptive valuations. It is an important distinction, lost on many Rijksbank "Nobel" prize-winning economists.

Keep in mind that index funds will probably decline by about 3-4x over the next 10 years on the demographic cycle.

Income is superfluous if you have enough to burn for a hundred years or more. For me, it was as simple as buying some monero and relocating to a lake home: No city burn rates, and my stash rose 12x so far, with another 50x foreseeable in the baseline scenario, 10000x in extremely low-probability tail scenarios.

Given that I am ignorant, it looks like a conspiracy.

It is a very convenient app, except that if you say the wrong thing, they imprison you, or just kill you.

Or perhaps: "too many rich people".

Or just work.

Average is not mean, it is ambiguous. For that matter, so is "income".

Nor is the footstool problem a terribly hard one. The challenging bit is integrating the many and various point-solutions into an adequately coherent assembly.

You could not attend half of the tech meetups in NYC. Columbia, NYU, CUNY, Cornell, SUNY Stony Brook -- Boston is a 30 minute shuttle flight from LGA -- indeed the whole Ivy league plus CMU, MIT, Northeastern, BU &c., are handy, so a lot of innovation is going on. And most of the money is here.

That said, Seattle has to be in the running.

You've illustrated the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive definition nicely.

More pragmatically, we should not accept scientific publications and conferences which do not publish negative results and disconfirmations.

I have often seen people putting in extra hours with negative productivity. One small error can result in days of lost time.

She was attacked by a cop. Happens all the time. The only reason it was news is that she was a sympathetic victim. A healthy black man? Forget about it.

A third and equally useful possibility is that we might learn to correctly and productively apply the current theory in a situation and configuration where previously we did not know how to do so.

If a device doesn't work for the purpose for which you built it, then you built it wrong. I can't help with that. What I can potentially help with is finding the purposes for which the EM drive mechanism can be useful, but I'm not there yet: The phenomenon is not yet understood well enough to determine those purposes.

In that model, our model is the universe.

Reward is finite. Risk is infinitesimal. No-brainer.

A third option, of equal merit: We may learn to apply existing theory more correctly and more adequately in a novel configuration.

Once having studied, for example, rational arithmetic, or predicate logic, it is difficult NOT to think in those languages. Yet we are perfectly capable of performing rational or predicative inference if we have no knowledge of those languages, if less precisely. Presumptively this is due to the abstraction of rules from experience facilitating a branching sequence model for abstractions and hypotheses represented during inarticulate thought - abstractions being holographic summary statistics of concepts derived more directly from the sensory manifold.

There may be more usefully discriminable levels of abstraction than those. Where to draw the line between thought and unthought? It seems an uninteresting question to me. Should I draw a line between the United States of America and the people thereof? They are distinct, but the latter is a part of the former, and without their aggregate the former would not exist.

Usually I equate thought and consciousness, but perhaps there is a useful distinction there?

In mammals sentience precedes consciousness precedes sapience. In machines the necessity of the linkage is not clear. We can imagine sapience without consciousness, at least, but consciousness without sentience seems more questionable.

It noths. With vigor.

This is what happens in every ecosystem as the available energy sources become fully exploited. Featherbedding and cronyism are the parasitic vines which strangle enough trees so that when the next lightning strike comes the conflagration is inevitable. They cannot exist without the forest. When the forest grows to maturity they become inevitable.

EM drive is not an argument such that it might be refuted. It is a device. As such it has fitness for purpose, which depends entirely on the purpose at hand.

Snarkiness << skepticism.

I have had close friends killed by grossly incompetent diagnosticians, and seen numerous botched and often superfluous surgeries. Completely anecdotal, but evidently typical of rural environs.

Do please keep in mind that on September 10th, 2001, the secretary of defense reported to Congress that the department could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars of spending.

"Some" is a gross understatement of the treatment's efficacy and import in the cases where it is effective.

By design seems more correct, given the pecuniary interests of the designers.