cleansingfire

He authorized one calendar, one year. I've always loved and respected that he was able to stop & let the strip be the amazing thing it was. He declined astonishing money, for enough.

Sounds like Swiss trains need a single axle connector to ensure all trains have an odd number of axles.

You're right, of course. Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking particularly of the comment about the behavior with arbitrary initial numbers. Start with 1, 5000, and it still converges quickly to the golden ratio, as the parent comment mentioned. I enjoy watching the initial constants disappear.

This seems like a pretty basic calculus problem. Constants become irrelevant at the limit, so that the relationship (ratio) is all that's left.

CA used deceptive practices to collect user data, & downloaded personally identifiable information for u users and their friends without notification or consent, unlike NYU. Those are significant differences.

There's no 1/4 here. (1/2) (99/199) = 99/398 First ball removed changes the odds for second draw.

Yes, this tool seems ideal for the people who unintentionally create databases in excel. I realize this sounds insulting, but providing tools to the people who know their business is useful. Perhaps you could brand it as MaxS?

This is really exciting to me, and I'm glad to see a new review. I was introduced to open-endedness as a motivator for interesting behavior by this Ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/alex_wissner_gross_a_new_equation_...

Edit: Adding relevant phrases, oddly absent from the O'Reilly article.

The Equation for Intelligence F = T ∇ Sτ

"Intelligence is a physical process that resists future confinement."

That sounds just like the (very generous interpretation of) Yelp business model. Automated systems that are as effective as elevator door close buttons, & human support available only to paying customers.

I think the origin of this wasn't even originally sinister. It's just that "free" services aren't willing to provide human support, so youtube, gmail, etc. rely on automated systems. Ultimately, only paying customers get human support, and that simple system (even assuming all actors behave well) progressively skews to the advantage of paying customers. The house edge is small, but cumulative.

You've described the process: When the Vendor misses the bogus return, it's sent back to another sales bin, and resold. Next, the Customer accepts it, or returns it again. At this point, the loop should exit, but we already know the Vendor is imperfect. I've wondered how often this iterate before exiting. The worst case is fun to speculate on, since both are motivated to pass that hot potato.

Emotions are in the most primitive parts of the brain, so I'm afraid this is exactly backwards. I'd suggest that our privilege as humans is to take our intellectual ability and use it to enrich our emotional lives. Cultivating empathy, expanding our sense of family, retraining cruel impulses and such. Loving well, so that love becomes more than lust and comfort. Take comfort that animals live rich emotional lives. Pets are a joy for the general authenticity of their feelings.

I agree. I think this is one of the hardest problems of dealing with addicts. I had a friend who would drink and go on crying jags. I took it as cathartic, & was loving & supportive, but after the same emotions & expressions came out many times with no sense of progress or change I realized there was no growth coming from it. I wasn't being supportive, but enabling. The crying stopped when I stopped participating.

That's what I find striking. With all their experience & expertise, the major studios spend a tremendous amount of money and consistently produce a surprising number of failures. Personally, I like the wider seeding creatively in general (as you describe with Netflix.)

Like the sun and your closed eyelids. Light transmission goes up with wavelength https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biome... (see figure 5.) To speculate, perhaps we have evolved to benefit from closing our eyes in the sun.

I would like to see the breakdown of individual positions on James Damore versus Captain Crozier. I suspect very few people have consistent views (I do not) in spite of exactly the same arguments being made on both sides. Essentially: Should have known it would become public, or too important to keep silent. That tells me the real disagreement isn't in those arguments, but in the values behind them.

Sports betting is less deterministic than cards, since odds are set relative to popularity and past statistics. Sports bettors would make money by recognizing when the odds are unrealistic (e.g. popular team is favored too highly) but these markets are efficient. Think of the parimutuel pool as the original crowdsourcing of wisdom.