gbjw

The author is Grant Sanderson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Blue1Brown) who has an undergrad degree in math from Stanford and worked at Khan Academy before starting his YouTube channel 3Blue1Brown. Also, the student who is mentioned in the video (Lisa Sauermann) as having solved this problem at the 2011 IMO (and attaining the only perfect score) just recently started as a Prof. at Stanford (http://web.stanford.edu/~lsauerma/) as a 27 year old.

1500 tech employees (out of 15000 total).

Oh, I have fond memories of the H320 (it was released right around the time of the click-wheel iPod with the grayscale screen). I could watch movies on my portable music player in colour! My friends' minds were blown.

To add to this, there is also another line you can draw: do not eat anything which requires killing (not just harvesting from) another living thing. This is basically the line drawn by Jain vegetarians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism). This allows one to eat milk and dairy but does not allow one to eat root vegetables that require you to kill the entire organism to eat it (and potentially other living beings that live in the soil).

You can make concrete changes now. Vote with your dollar. Do not support industries that flippantly disregard the beauty and sanctity of life in its many forms.

Also related: Thomas Nagel's 'What Is It Like to Be a Bat?' (https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/hum... ) wherein he argues that subjective experience transcends objective materialism.

What does this even mean? How can we not be 'really' conscious? How can I deny my own 'qualia'? I think you cannot explain subjective experience as a vector in latent space because it transcends any space in which you 'project' it in. My subjective experience is that which experiences that latent space, not identical to it.

This is basically the take-away of much of modern philosophical thought (absurdism/existentialism). Existence precedes essence... we are thrust into the world with no 'idea' of what's meaningful or important. People gravitate to those who have well-defined vision since working towards something (even if that thing is ultimately flawed in some way) feels better than idly spinning your wheels waiting to die.

Come to Toronto - they never left! (and have their own set of problems)

Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Which 'dimension' are you exactly putting a 'high bar' on? How does one measure 'quality'? How do you know the 'quality' of what you consume until you consume it (reviews? how do you trust the reviewer? also a 'high bar'?)?

I strongly believe that you need to consume and produce a wide variety of content before you can even form a consistent notion of what you consider 'quality'.

What's wrong with being hit on (assuming that it's not sexual harrassment)? What's wrong with taking a risk and setting up two friends? Why do we have to segment all life into easy-to-classify pockets of time: 'work', 'dating', 'getting groceries'? Does this not remove some element of spontaneity and joie-de-vivre that makes life thrilling and make one feel human (and not a finite state machine)? While I think the dating apps can certainly facilitate the meeting of two people who otherwise would never meet, I worry about this general attitude.

And (minor detail) she won the Nobel Prize in Literature.

There were actually two AoA sensors (on either side of the aircraft) each connected to different sides of the panel. The issue was/is what to do when they disagree (with respect to MCAS).

EDIT: Source: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/61011/how-many-...