cambalache

> Part of what makes the Louvre or other museums special is being in a beautiful and decorated historically important space.

This is true in theory, in practice you will meet arrogant and unhelpful museum guides, tons upon tons of people not respecting all the basic rules (no flash, be relatively quite, etc) and a labyrinthine place which can give you anxiety if you are just visiting one day and want to see as much as possible. I went there like 8 years ago in very low season I cannot imagine how it would be today in a post-covid summer with all the instagramers and tik-tokers. So in the meantime I would enjoy all those marvels a my leisure pace in my computer. There are million of things we cannot experience directly and they are still worthwhile to see in original or imagined illustrations, from celestial bodies to ancient civilizations.

The original article compared Erdos to Euler. They are comparable only in sheer number of publications. Erdos was a nice and eccentric fellow and a competent mathematician who liked to solve specific problems with other colleagues . Erdos is not in the same universe of not only Euler but of any Fields medal winner. His made claim to fame is his "number", but so is Kevin Bacon's.

No. Are YOU kidding?

Here it is the list of Erdos papers:

https://users.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/Erdos.html

Please list which papers would you put at the same level of the work of Grothendieck, Poincare, Cartan, Banach, Kolmogorov, Goedel, Schwartz, Perelman or Tao?

Wikipedia explains it better than me:

" Erdős was one of the most prolific publishers of papers in mathematical history, comparable only with Leonhard Euler; Erdős published more papers, mostly in collaboration with other mathematicians, while Euler published more pages, mostly by himself.[37] Erdős wrote around 1,525 mathematical articles in his lifetime,[38] mostly with co-authors. He strongly believed in and practiced mathematics as a social activity,[39] having 511 different collaborators in his lifetime.[40]

In his mathematical style, Erdős was much more of a "problem solver" than a "theory developer" (see "The Two Cultures of Mathematics"[41] by Timothy Gowers for an in-depth discussion of the two styles, and why problem solvers are perhaps less appreciated). Joel Spencer states that "his place in the 20th-century mathematical pantheon is a matter of some controversy because he resolutely concentrated on particular theorems and conjectures throughout his illustrious career."[42] Erdős never won the highest mathematical prize, the Fields Medal, nor did he coauthor a paper with anyone who did,[43] a pattern that extends to other prizes.[44] He did win the Wolf Prize, where his contribution is described as "for his numerous contributions to number theory, combinatorics, probability, set theory and mathematical analysis, and for personally stimulating mathematicians the world over".[45] In contrast, the works of the three winners after were recognized as "outstanding", "classic", and "profound", and the three before as "fundamental" or "seminal". "

That is very relative, coming later there is a lot more fruit to pick

Even more impressive for Euler. Most (not all) of Erdos work is considered of very limited quality, a little better than solving quirky problems in number theory or combinatorics. Euler on the other hand is a class on his own.

Just look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Leo...

And as mentioned in the article and known by every mathematician there is a long list of things that were discovered by Euler but were named by the first person who re-discovered/popularized them after him.

John is fantastic, not only a nice person with absolutely zero ego, he has brain and heart and he has such a deep love for science, a funny writer too. Anything that he writes (TWIMP,his diary,his blog Azimuth, n-category cafe, his book ) is highly recommended.

This is a must read for the aspiring mathematician or physicist:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html

Bonus points for being the nephew of Joan Baez.

> This article attributes the transistor to Shockley, but this is incorrect.

The article does not claim such thing. John writes

" After many further developments, in 1948 the physicist William Schockley patented transistors that use both holes and electrons to form a kind of switch. "

Which it is correct as you can easily check here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US2569347

This not the case of a PHB robbing all the limelight from the engineers. Shockley was kinda of an asshole and had a big ego but he was a great scientist. And the junction transistor he individually designed and patented (see above) went on to be more successful than the point-contact transistor developed by Brattain and Bardeen. The Nobel prize was fairly awarded to the three of them.

That's 90% of the submissions here. Last time I said that I was scolded because "This was precisely the objective of this site"

> Once that's over (thinking in the larger timescale of things) and it becomes a brown dwarf,

Our sun will never become a brown dwarf. Stars have their life-cycle and nomenclature. You cannot made your own willy-nilly.

He can decorate his walls with printouts of the articles for all I care. The point I made is that the magazine is not longer a high-level general scientific magazine (what OP thinks about that publication), it has become a new Scientific American.

I suspected so. But all those objects are in this solar system.Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar bodies.

It means OP does not have the slightest clue of what he is talking about. I hope he is talking about trans-neptunian objects in THIS solar system.

> love that there is a publication with a significantly higher reading level assumed than most pop science content

Well I am not sure about that.As it happens with most pop-sci publications the quality has taken a nose-dive.

For example:

> A new thought experiment indicates that quantum mechanics doesn’t work without strange numbers that turn negative when squared.

I am not saying is a "bad" magazine per se, all I am saying is virtuable indistiguinshable from your SciAm, New Scientist and Discover. Some good articles and plenty of fluff.

The level you want is in other places like:

-https://www.ams.org/notices

- https://physicstoday.scitation.org/journal/pto (free access to the 73 year archive)

- https://inference-review.com/issues (Ignore the 2014 crackpot articles)

Well I happen to agree with OP, and I found your "big dick, thug of this street" energy off-putting.So there is that.

> and The Economist Leaders.

That's fine but that will give you an extremely limited vision of the world. The technocratic, slightly anarcho-capitalistic, American-knows-best, social liberal world view.If you choose that way at least go to https://www.project-syndicate.org/, with a little wider spectrum (With actual good economists and not the stenographer of the day) Too bad the redesign is totally crap.

Hey but google put a rainbow on its webpage and a BLM banner so that is the only important thing

Or you can just stream the movies with less friction more options and a wider catalogue. People thought netflix would en being the spotify of movies. They were wrong, so now watch a robust pirate scene to re-flourish.

90% of my Google queries is "Search terms + Reddit".Usually I end up with better quality info. Reddit is missing a great opportunity there, especially because its search engine sucks (They should use algolia or something). If they were more visionary they could use their internal search as a starting point for a generic web searcher.

Exactly , on one hand you have an age when most humans are capable of conceiving and have fully developed secondary sexual traits (nature's way to say a person is sexual mature) , say around 14/15 and on the other hand you have the age of a fully "developed" brain, around 25, when at least in theory a person is mature enough for all intents and purposes.

18 tries to establish a sensible balance from both extremes, but there is nothing magical or moral about it when compared with 17 or 19 or whatever in than range.

The technology is being commoditized. That brings good and bad things with it.

Was he being an actual child-predator, was he sharing child porn?

Suppose some guy (Stallman or not) argues that the age of consent should be lowered to 14. Now you are in your right to oppose to that proposal or even be disgusted by it. What you dont have the right to is to silence and ostracize the guy or even suggest that opinion must have any type of consequence , be it legal or moral.

Agree. Now save that reply for the next time the democrats/republicans/sjw/faang employees/the media say the world is going to be over every time a group of people do something kinda shitty.

" Grothendieck's mathematical education changed radically by his arrival, in 1949, to the Cartan seminar hosted at the *Ecole Normale Superieure". As Grothendieck himself confessed(reference), he had not heard by then about topological spaces, groups, rings,modules, homology!!. The astounding capacity of Grothendieck is revealed in the giant mathematical leap achieved between his naive ignorance in 1949(in Paris) and his spectacular technical nous in 1953(in Nancy). At that year he finished his doctoral thesis about "nuclear spaces" and had become according to Schwartz in "the number one worldwide specialist" in the theory topological vector spaces.According to Dieudonne, Grothendieck was author by then of a life work "only comparable to Banach's"

A rough translation from https://www.pesmm.org.mx/Serie%20Cursos_archivos/smm2018Curs...

Either you believe there is no such thing as mathematical talent and you and me are in the same caliber of Grothendieck or you have to accept there are people with inborn qualities to excel way above the average human in that area. Same for Kasparov in chess, Mozart in Music, Jordan in BB. Blank-slatism will be the death of western societies.

I am going to be honest, these kind of articles are useless.

1. Make sure you understand the concepts

2. Mark what you dont know clearly

3. Write down what you know

4. Use 3 to find out 2.

Oh gee, thanks!

This is a more realistic approach.

1. Have a reasonable amount of mathematical talent

2. Study materials appropriate to your current level and mathematical maturity.

3. Work hard at it.

4. Ask for help when you are stuck

There.

I dont know if it is depressing or encouraging that a team of learned guys who get paid mid 6-figures come up with this kind of strategy.

My rule of thumb is that anything title "...for Hackers" is crap.This link was not an exception.

> Since the relative error is invariant under scaling (x↦αx)(x \mapsto \alpha x)(x↦αx), we will mostly be interested in relative error.

No, No, No, No. This is very much dependent on what you are measuring/modelling, what is the tolerance you are willing to accept, the consequences and so on.

A 1% of error in the change the cashier gave you back maybe is not a big deal. That same error in the national budget is equivalent to 2X the NASA's budget.

No, the onus is on you to demonstrate why there is a statistical significative difference between the countries. It seems you are an expert, could you tell me why Costa Rica is number 7 and T&T number 37? Why does Uruguay do that Chile doesnt which justifies all that difference? What Argentina must learn from Burkina Faso to rise up to that level?

You have 0 idea, guess what? me neither, that's why you know the ranking is bullshit.

I have lived in 4 of the countries mentioned above, they have wildly significant difference in rankings. My subjective take on the freedom of the press in those places?, it is very much the same.

They seemed OK like this chart? https://www.ghsindex.org/

No offense but you are exhibiting the classic case of western arrogance and ignorance. You are in no position to actually assess from 4 random picked countries in the world (Say, Bulgaria, Chile, Israel and Malaysia) who has more "freedom of the press" and by how much). Your unique rule of thumb is that you expect rich,white,western countries on top.

Are they?...Take the girls from BoutineLA (an Instagram account), give them some training and send them to sell B2B, I would bet easily on their potential returns

There is a closing window of opportunity to make bank creating machine-learning generated girls and a farm of onlyfans accounts. Plenty of young (and not-so-young) men are paying to simulate even the slightest semblance of a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. In 10 years or so when distinguishing fake from real will be almost impossible expect the value of those accounts to plummet and a return to more ancient forms of transacting beauty and sex for money.