archontes

This is what I kept trying to explain to the freshmen and sophomores I used to tutor. The physics is easy once you learn the conservations: energy flows and transforms, can you see where it goes and add it up?

The math is hard.

Same deal in calculus. Conceptually very easy, you can determine the total by adding up the amount in the slices. Calculus is easy, algebra is hard.

For anyone out there beginning their journey reading this, there is nothing I would recommend more than this: do the work; chew the pencil; become very good at algebra.

I was enthused for wave. Too bad.

I want a science/engineering Shift key.

I want to hold down RShift and get greek and mathematical symbols.

There's one more thing, though. This does not meet the legal definition of firearm, and thus could be made fully automatic. I think this adds to its potential for absurd joy.

Admittedly, it's hard to kill another person by voting, or receiving due process. And we do restrict speech when it verges on violence (imminent lawless action, fighting words).

The federal application for a Federal Firearms License, the license needed to be a firearm vendor, not the (as far as I can tell) non-existent federal license to own one?

Ultimately, the economics of every one of the states depends on the federal government. The government creates dollars in locations like vector field sources, and creates sinks by way of taxes, thereby setting up flow, motivating activity. For the federal government, the vector field is non-conservative.

States, however, don't have a money printer. Every dollar they spend, they do have to tax or borrow.

Some questions arise in my head: If local infrastructure isn't being maintained, is it because it's not worth maintaining? How would we measure that? Does the stochastic nature of the problem make it intractable for local/state governments?

For example, if I have 4200 bridges that are in need of repair in such a way as I can expect two to fail this year, and I am unable to predict which two, does preventing two collapses necessitate addressing all 4200? Is that scale entirely too large for my local government? If it is, is that because those 4200 bridges serve too few people? If not, is that situation unprecedented (can the local government adapt to address a problem that it hasn't had to before)? What if the local government is unhealthy (ideologically opposed to service, disenfranchised citizens, perhaps a southern state)?

You don't think there's a first amendment argument for mining bitcoin?

Could the government legally restrict me from solving a math problem?

If mitigating the CO2 produced by using some energy isn't priced into that energy, that's the fix. We absolutely need to incorporate externalities into prices.

I doubt very highly it would be able to sit at a game of commander. Four players with 100 card singleton decks would be an absolutely enormous space to operate in.

I'd like to piggyback and say that increasing the surface for nitpicking and criticism is exactly why OP should release his code. It improves the world's ability to map data to the phenomenon being observed. It becomes auditable.

Certainly don't clean it up unless you're going to repeat the experiment with the cleaned up code.

Literally everything. Harmonic oscillators all the way down.

I suppose they're the plurality rather than the majority.

Probably longer than the other, insolvent states.

"You shouldn't want that thing that you want."

No.

If I type eba{Tab}query, firefox should search ebay for query. If I have to go to settings once and tick a box to enable this functionality, I will. I won't stop wanting what I want.

The substantial difference that I experience is that it is incapable of utilizing hardware acceleration for youtube videos using an nvidia graphics card in a linux environment, and that I don't get tab-to-complete search in the bar.

I'm curious if you can elaborate on, "they're living creatures, shouldn't we care?".

What about them being living creatures "ought" to lead to that? Why do you think that the base assumption is caring?

A wealth tax is both tidy and more general.

My taking loans using his stock as collateral, he then gets to claim the associated expenses as losses while claiming no gains.

See: http://archive.today/j4vAG

As opposed to those verified and completely unfabricated events that a US presidency ravaged the US with for 4 years...

You're missing the point... completely. Until unethical behavior doesn't pay dividends, people will engage in that unethical behavior. Ostracizing them to any degree less than the sex offender list offers fails at 'making it not pay dividends'.

Snide comments are useless, and posting a snide comment in response to a post literally saying that snide comments are useless is hilarious and ironic.

Yeah, I have a Sony X800H, and I foolishly installed an update early in 2021 that added irremovable ads to the home screen.

I haven't figured out how to roll the firmware back, but I have blocked basically all of the domains it accesses with pihole, and after a cache clear, it only displays default messages imploring the user to check out youtube and other google products. It's inoffensive enough that I haven't continued exerting effort to quash them.

Could you not make an argument that you're merely taking people up on their offer to the letter, making the earnings essentially an expensive bug bounty?

They have no legal obligation to pay anyone back.

Ponzi schemes aren't often as forthright that they're promising vapor.

No. This: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/29/22699914/valve-deckard-st...

I had a similar experience at 12...

To their credit, my punishment was brilliant. I was removed from computer class and placed in gym.

A gentleman's cane used to be a bludgeon in addition to being a fashion accessory.

Video games are the furthest thing from physical defense. They're amusement. Do you really think that playing video games leads to increased skill and confidence when engaging in a fistfight in the street?

In schools in the US, children are punished for defending themselves in a fight. There is a vanishingly small percentage of people who have the practical experience to be comfortable physically battering a stranger on the street corner to a reasonable degree.

I imagine that description will evoke the thought in your head that there is no reasonable degree, that physical violence isn't the answer, and that the right thing to do in a situation where you're physically accosted is to leave the area or call for security. Yep. That's what we're talking about. There's an amount of security provided by a man who's comfortable slapping another man in the head because the other man is being aggressive, if only because that comfort is communicated in non-verbal ways which subsequently make it unnecessary.

This and the existence of commons are the primary issues with libertarianism.

If you want to build a system as large as 300,000,000 people, you need some way to control the dynamics of that system so that outliers don't cause catastrophes, and the larger the system, the more extreme the outliers you'll encounter.

This list is identical to an analysis I once read investigating reasons women choose to go into tech less than their male counterparts.

Thanklessness and the existence of better options were chief among them.

We regulate things that can harm people. If your body can harm people, it's subject to regulation.

We regulate your ability to punch, to bite, and to infect. Simple as that.

And this last was formally established by the SCOTUS 116 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts