but you can pledge the debt itself.
5,626 karma · joined October 6, 2015
A really entertaining podcast has actually done a series of episodes on the depositions in the case. If you are curious about the facts heres a list of those episodes:
https://knowledgefight.libsyn.com/size/25/?search=Formulaic+...
Be warned they are...long and detailed.
If they get it less, later, or more chaotically, or if that was the intent it is.
Again, maximimum value not cash.
The judge seems to take Jones, the guy who lost the auction, as the arbiter of what happened. That is a problem and not just because of the strong potential for bias, and not just because the trustee would be a more obvious source of truth - because he ran the auction. Its a problem at a deeper level because the judge seems set on taking Alex Jones as a good faith actor. Every step in the court process has shown that not to be true. We aren't here randomly and this bankruptcy doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Even setting aside that nonsense. THe judge seems confused on the difference between money and value. Thats the type of thing an undergrad gets wrong.
I think it is a growing, and problematic, misconception that science is about just reporting facts. It is about adding knowledge...soemtimes that is new facts, but more often it is theories, observations, and questions increasingly at the margins of randomness and probability as our species grows and learns.
the prevailing argument against using AI is its current lack of potential.
Those things are inherently in tension, think of it as hiring a new employee straight out of undergrad. You are hiring them based largely on the employee they will become...with increasing expectations over time balanced against increasing variability in outcomes over time. However, if one year in that employee continues to suck at their current job, their long term potential doesn't really matter. Moreso, the long term potential is no longer credibly evidenced by the inability to progress at doing the current job.
This is an investment gone bad in the current state of things. It doesn't matter what might happen it matters what did. The investment was made based on the perception of astonishing velocity, and it seems that we may need to calibrate our spedometers.
One of the things I used to see pushed back on, but it seems to have gone by the way side recently, is not citing the original source but rather citing the someone saying something about the source. Its increasingly pervasive in all types of research adn contributes to a giant and slow moving slide of meaning creep.
The OP mentions that reviewing the history would inform the discussion. You dismissed being informed and simply provided a truism - specifically accepted a truism common from oen side. If the issue is confidence in integrity, but there never was an integrity issue, then fixing an integrity issue is neither possible nor a solution to the confidence problem.
Again, I see this everywhere - from polite conversation to academic discourse adn it troubles me about the larger state of knowledge and knowing in the world.
Dentis A says tooth on the left side needs a rootcanal.
Ask Dentist B for a second opinion on the tooth on the other side of my mouth.
If they 'agree' I probably don't need either one.
I doubt any of the people who actually write the code would stand by when that claim was made and not clarify it to 'we only found one bug'.
I consulted for a company for a while where the 'sysadmin' was the owner's mother - who bought laptops from walmart. Not only could she NOT have approved updates like this, even if she could she would have she wouldn't have had any knowledge whatsoever with which to make a determination if it worked.
In an abstraction, the problem really is with externalities. These approaches to updates exist because people who CAN'T do what you describe are likely a more dominant part of the threat model than this happening to people you do describe. The resulting fix, as we're seeing, is very reliable until it isn't...and if the isn't is enormous in scale the systems aren't setup to fail gracefully.
If you want to make a rule...require graceful failure.
900-1000 calories might mean that in is optimal - but think about eating a full meal from mcdonalds every hour while massively extering yourself.
Training your gut matters and I've never seen anything that suggests much beyond 400 calories per hour is possible during meaningful exertion.
When I started the general guidance seemed to be about 200 calories (50g of carbs) per hour during training and races. I followed that or a little above for a long time, and constantly had problems both physically and cognitively near the end of races.
It took about a year to get used to fueling heavier (for me...about 400 calories per hour or 100g). Lots of figuring out digestion and timing and sources and other factors. But once I got there it was transformative...I could push much harder for much longer without a deep bonk and recovery was faster. More importantly, my ability to think/plan/make decisions at the end of races was orders of magnitude better.
I'd bet if you went to an aid station around 80 miles on a 100mile ultra marathon you could pretty reliably identify who had been on the 200cal end of the spectrum and who had been on the 400 + end.
Another framing is that we now have a larger and more formalized structure for trials that we perceive as more fair because it is more structured.
After to many of these we just have a family policy that we are the final arbiters of a reasonable and fair medical bill given the error rates in billing. We have a high enough credit score that collections doesn’t scare us.
In academia, faculty functionally ARE HR people - with significant power
Maybe put some value and engage with someone's articulation of their personal experience as opposed to simply dismissing it because it does not comport with your world view.