jjaredsimpson

It's not an abstraction its a complete overhaul.

MFC is an abstraction to me.

Either take the time to contribute meaningfully or don't comment at all.

Anything else is pollution.

It sounds like you have said something objective. But really perception of time is a completely subjective phenomenon as well, constructed from unconscious processes which create conscious experience.

People in great fear report time slows down, but also top tier athletes.

Thinking hard about something is one particular kind of unified subjective experience.

you are doing x add Sy which isn't the same as Sy add x

        Number.prototype.add = function (y) {
          var x = Number(this)
          return x===0 ? y : (y+1).add(x-1)
        }

        console.log(Number(3).add(2)) // infinite

Base case is 0 add y = 0

Recursion is Sx add y = Sy add x

Which is of course _swap_

Shouldn't it be = S (x add y)

That indifference is a bug in our society. It allows this injustice to be farmed out to 3rd party law shops using a system designed by corporate lobbying dollars to harass powerless individuals. Walmart isn't indifferent and they are mildly evil so the world is made worse by their presence.

It seems more likely to me this article assumes zero sum competition where there are actually positive sum gains to be had. It's good Facebook wants to pay for PhDs to do real market driven work instead of these people starving as adjuncts somewhere.

America has a perverse relationship with politics, politicians, and governance. Politicians do some of the most important work possible in our society, but by underpaying you only attract certain types of people. Either those just hungry for power, using office as a stepping stone to wealth. Or those already wealthy looking to maintain existing structures and protect their wealth.

I don't mean to sound flippant. Our system of government is an evolved process settled on over millennia. It's really close to some local maximum.

My gripes are mostly centered around complaining that we "all know" there are obvious problems with the system but there isn't some obvious "continuous" path of from here to a better system.

If I were benevolent dictator I'd like to see something like futarchy. And even while saying that I'm not sure if it just appeals to my hyper rationalism or if it's genuinely better. I assume current legislator suffer from this same bias on all kinds of issues.

But if I have a business problem with a small enough epsilon you might not get sufficiently close with your worse techniques in a reasonable amount of time. And to stretch the metaphor even more you may hit an asymphtote and never supply a solution.

Doing something "right" isn't necessarily always slower. Sometimes it is the only path to an acceptable solution.

The canonical haskell compiler.

So the prisoner reasons: if it is thursday night, then being hung on a friday would not a be surprise. So I will not be hung on friday.

Then there is a kind of induction which further rules out each successive day. I think the thursday night argument is correct, but the induction argument is wrong.

      1 6
    1 1 6
    7 7 42
    1, 6+7, 42 = 100 + 130 + 42 = 272

      X V I
    X C L X
    X C L X
    I X V I
    I X V I
    I X V I
    CC LL(=C) XXXXX(=L) VVV(=XV) III = CCCLXVIII = 16*23=368

There's probably a way to formalize this with an entropy argument: that roman numerals are inefficient encoding. Because given some n-length string of numerals, firstly many are invalid encodings, and secondly among the valid numerals there isn't a uniform distribution from strings to integers. Something like that.

C Foo(A a) = ...

Someone then provides me with some not-A error value. What should I do? What do you mean by implicit.

This comment seems to hit all the bad rhetoric hot points. You've misrepresented parent's point, attacked a straw man, and also somehow made a slightly racist argument that Koreans are interchangeable with Chinese and Japanese.

The point is that banning pornography might be creating a niche market that bad actors are happy to exploit.

I have no idea if it's true. But the argument isn't saying the behavior is rational and there was no claim made about the deep biological needs for porn.

Please engage with good faith and measured tone.

Some governments seem to be quite bad at this though. States differ in pension liabilities and I haven't looked at the federal level.

If you want to say 'Santa Claus doesn't exist', you can't write a formula ~E x. x=Santa Claus. Because then you are conceding in your logic that some object Santa Claus exists.

So there is some connection between the structure of sentences we can construct in our logic and metaphysical claims. We should then try to understand differences in metaphysical claims by finding differences in logics.

The author then tries to show this for the metaphysical claim, 'Statements are true or false independent of whether they can be verified.' Instead of arguing about what is truth, what does it mean for a proposition to be verified. We can instead as about the differences in the logic. Because to even talk about truth and existence we need a logic first.

So don't think there is a claim that choice of logic forces claims about real world existence. I think is the more subtle connection, that choice of logic forces a choice about rules of inference.

Real world claims would need to be based on introducing propositions (which are independent of the logic?) and then using rules of inference (which are dependent on the logic).

During the lectures we learned facts and derived some consequences. But during labs we ran experiments, gathered data, and had to perform some regressions.

I'm going through the MIT OCW QM course and the instructor is motivating all the formulas given with experimental results from the 1890s thru 1920s to show how intuitions are violated.

I've never seen a single textbook or been in a lecture that was just piles and piles of formulas with no exposition or motivation.

The only time I've experienced this was outside of STEM. Every history class I've taken, prior to university level, was piles of births, deaths, wars, facts, ad infinitum.

I'm interested in QS, but the metrics aren't the ends they are the means. Increased subjective satisfaction is always my goal.

When I run I don't track pace but I do track time and I start each run with an idea of what my RPE for that run will be. My goal is to decrease time when RPE is fixed. So some days I run hard and some I don't because I'm not always trying to set a PB.

If metrics are guardrails that you are gonna crash into over and over while attempting to change behavior then you won't like QS. Not tracking your bad behavior doesn't make it go away. It just makes you ignorant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

It avoids the hard question grandparent asked. Legality only partitions behaviors into legal and illegal. Morality is more like a partial order which lets you compare behaviors.

Morality then is clearly more general and must inform legality not the other way around. Which is to say, just because you aren't breaking the law doesn't mean you are a good person. And further, how should we construct legal systems which are moral?