cokernel

The "note to the reader" clarifies things a bit -- he's aiming for requiring "no more mathematical knowledge than might be acquired from an undergraduate degree at an ordinary British university". Though he does not specify whether he has in mind a mathematics degree, I think this can be deduced from the fact that he indicates that the text developed out of a master's-level course.

I'd be interested in a citation for this, if you have one handy. I've read that he wrote about this in a letter but I haven't been able to find it. The closest I've been able to find is (via WP):

> The word [orangutan] comes from Bontius (1631, Hist. Nat. et Med. Ind. Orient.) who claimed that the Javanese had informed him that orang-utans could talk, ‘but do not wish to, lest they should be compelled to labour’.

Dellios, Paulette (2005). A Lexical Odyssey from the Malay World. The Proceedings of the European Integration-Between Tradition and Modernity Congress, Editura Universităţii "Petru Maior", Volume Number 1, 2005, ISSN 1844-2048, pp. 460-463. http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conf...

Bontius's book looks like the sort of thing Descartes would have read, so I'd be interested in reading his reaction.

Could you clarify the source of the 60ms figure for the iPad Pro? The review you cite says:

> After a few trials I measured an approximate latency for the iPad Pro of roughly 49ms or 3 frames of delay

I do not take a position on the accusation. The purpose of the comment to which you are responding is to support emmelaich's assertion that the accusation is mentioned in the article.

From paragraph 7: "He has been accused of taking credit for other people’s research and even using multiple aliases on Wikipedia to make it look as if people are agreeing with his posts."

It's not a good sign that it's classified as math.GM. One would normally expect a real proof to be classified more finely. To be fair, the lack of proper classification does not strictly imply that it's not a real proof.

There's a parody article from 2003 talking about this:

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/12/valve_unified_theory.html

Is that what you had in mind?

The article links to multiple studies, for example:

* Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/11/1716

* Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.full

* The Psychological Consequences of Money: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5802/1154

* Social status modulates neural activity in the mentalizing network: https://keelyamuscatell.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/muscatel... (from NeuroImage)

* Noblesse Oblige? Social Status and Economic Inequality Maintenance among Politicians: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

* Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior: http://www.krauslab.com/SESprosocialJPSP.2010.pdf (from J. Pers. Soc. Psych.)

* Class and Compassion: Socioeconomic Factors Predict Responses to Suffering: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4MZvkUMsuJ_dmtEZUxOaFJZaFU... (from Emotion)

I omitted the study in the Chronicle of Philanthropy from this list because I couldn't find the actual data.

It's tricky to win at SOLITUDE when the first deuce played to a foundation just disappears.

There's no contradiction; it's just not an entry-level job. (Someone could get work experience then a degree, or a degree then work experience, or both simultaneously.)

> punchcard error that leaves a man officially dead

This sounds similar to the Terry Gilliam film _Brazil_.

"When a fly gets jammed in a printer and results in the incarceration and accidental death during interrogation of cobbler Archibald Buttle – instead of renegade air conditioning specialist and suspected terrorist Archibald Tuttle – Sam is assigned the task of rectifying the error."

Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)

Thanks. I'm guessing that "Publication type: Application" in the header is the clue I should have noticed.

It appears that there is a patent (filed 2002, published 2003) on "blended toothpaste formulas and method for manufacture", claiming in part "A toothpaste as defined in claim 1 wherein the stimulant is caffeine".

https://www.google.com/patents/US20030147817

I don't know how to read patents, so I don't know if this is a relevant patent or not.

Futurama had caffeinated bacon and baconated grapefruit.

The ISS Source article appears to be a copy of the UCR press release: https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/39030

Here's a single mention of the DNC leaks on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/

Here's a single mention of the DNC leaks on Politico: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schul...

I couldn't in a brief search find a single mention of the DNC leaks on MSNBC specifically, but there's this from NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hacked-documen...

As the article points out, there is evidence from Norwegian experiments that "[t]eaching children to read first in their own dialects and then gradually introducing the standard language can speed and improve the acquisition of reading skills."

Further, "[i]n Oakland itself... it was found that teachers who condemned AAVE pronunciations [sic] and interpreted them as reading errors got the worst results in teaching AAVE-speaking children to read, while teachers who used AAVE creatively in the classroom got the best results."

I couldn't find evidence in the article that anyone was telling young black Americans that they could talk like "hoodlums" and expect to get ahead in life.

I believe the article links directly to a PDF copy of the USA v. Matish decision housed by the EFF: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/06/23/matish_suppression_edva...

Riley v. California: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf

I think our experiences may differ. Just looking through stories I've seen on the front page recently, there's the following:

* A slave in Scotland

* They knew it was round, damn it

* Two hundred terabyte proof is largest ever (granted, the 200 TB is not what's really interesting here)

* How the ArXiv decides what's science

* Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

* Hiroshima (1946)

This seems like a healthy mix of topics, and they don't seem to have been deemed worthless.

I have noted a certain amount of hostility to philosophical topics, but I would venture a guess that there's been hostility to philosophy in general at all periods in history.

I expect to see a certain percentage of comments in an HN thread about how the topic is presented. Everybody's got to let off some steam sometimes. I made my initial comment because I was surprised at how many comments addressed only how the topic was presented rather than that and the actual content.

This essay is about the need to think and argue mindfully rather than "with glib allusion".

It's disappointing that the early comments here were all focused on issues irrelevant to the content of the essay, issues that moreover would be easily avoided with wget or curl, or even just turning off JavaScript and images in any common browser. The essay's right in the HTML with zero obfuscation applied. Yes, there's cruft there, too. Such is life.

While I've been writing this comment, the distribution of comment quality has changed, which is somewhat heartening.

This is part of a three-part series of posts, one focused on education, one on work, and one on marriage. The author talks about marriage here:

http://www.demos.org/blog/12/4/15/promoting-marriage-has-fai...

Here's Ivan Andrus's (the creator's) explanation of it: https://irandrus.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/the-periodic-table... It's worth taking a look. (Well, I make no guarantees.)

It's possible that a mathematician with philosophical commitments is more likely to be a Platonist than a formalist, but I suspect that most mathematicians are neither ("Philosophy is for the philosophers"). The so-called "naive" view that most mathematicians may be described as having ("I'm discovering something real when I prove a theorem", "Mathematics is objective", and so on) certainly sounds similar to the language used by Platonists, but I have yet to run into a mathematician who is comfortable with the logical conclusions of a strict Platonism. In particular, there are epistemological problems with Platonism (how can we know anything about non-physical entities?) that cause problems in the justification of mathematics and would be nice to be able to ignore.

Could you clarify who "Captain Obvious" is?

A disclaimer: I am not currently a fictionalist, but I find it remarkably interesting to consider.

Fictionalists are not making claims about mathematical truth; they are making claims about philosophical truth. When Colyvan (who I believe is not a fictionalist) describes fictionalism as an error theory of mathematical discourse, he does not mean that mathematicians incorrectly assign the label of mathematical truth to statements that are mathematically false, but rather that it is an error to conflate mathematical truth ("true in the story of mathematics") with philosophical truth. In other words, you and the fictionalists are in agreement on your first point.

I don't quite understand your second point, or its justification. For example, would you consider the statement "All even primes greater than 2 are divisible by 1001" to be true, false, or meaningless? I think most people will agree that even primes greater than 2 do not exist. Fictionalists would assert that this statement is false; with my background in formal logic, I tend to believe that this statement is vacuously true. I would be interested in seeing an argument for the claim that this statement is meaningless.

I suspect that there is a tendency for people to use the term "tl;dr" when what they're looking for is "abstract". But I don't know if that's what EliRivers had in mind.

I thought the point of the post was that it was "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil" for developers to contribute to the success of an environment with such user-hostile terms. Am I reading too much into it?

The function eval[1] evaluates a string as code. The special variable $_GET[2] contains HTTP GET variables, which may be freely set by a remote user.

So if your PHP file executes eval($_GET['code']), then arbitrary folks can submit whatever code they want as a parameter -- as in /index.php?code=blah -- and have your webserver run it for them.

[1] http://php.net/manual/en/function.eval.php [2] http://php.net/manual/en/reserved.variables.get.php

Does Rosetta Code count?