> Don't choose any pattern of numbers
...unless that pattern of numbers wins...
2,395 karma · joined September 6, 2014
...unless that pattern of numbers wins...
I made it painfully clear that I would still much prefer a SNES, and wasn't so bothered about a PlayStation.
It turned out that they had already bought a PlayStation before asking me (I'm sure they were sold out everywhere when I was asked), and so I got a PlayStation for Christmas.
Which was great! In theory.
But, overall I felt such a desperate disappointment that I hadn't been listened to.
ah ok: that's not what I understand from how governments are reporting it.
My understanding is that it's the (best estimate) of how virus cases are spreading today.
Since the graph of cases for today tells you how the virus has spread in the last two weeks, that's not the same information.
If you claim that R is only estimated from the historical number of cases, then R is not giving you information that you couldn't technically identify from this graph, I agree. However, R could be estimated using other information.
R tells you: the graph is likely to keep going up (or will peak and go down). Policy makers should care about this more.
It has become more difficult to underestimate the popularity of e-bikes, now that I get overtaken by a steady stream of pensioners every time there is a slight uphill.
> Can you change that?
I also find these very blunt - this is what I would say if the person I was exerting my authority and the person I was talking to really had no choice, but I was being polite about it.
I would soften them a lot if I wasn't in a position of authority, or if I wanted to genuinely engage with that person.
Also in any case, I would say precisely what it was about:
"Can I give you feedback about X?" so that it doesn't induce anxiety and the person has a realistic idea of what they are being asked before they decide, and,
"[You're doing good work, and] it would be better if you did Y" to reiterate and reinforce the goal.
That the public might be likely to observe more thoroughly makes it less of a coincidence.
That doesn't seem right.
I don't think this is the exchange you are making, though.
The money you save here is no different from couponing: it's a way for retailers to price differentiate and charge the other customers more.
You are being charged a fairer price (still profitable for the retailer), for actively paying attention to what's cheaper; that'll be unrelated to the price or value of your data.
I've heard most of them said to be unique to humans. (the most insightful comment in the article is e.g. "There is very little data on mammalian defecation.")
My conclusion is: we like to study ourselves, we are not that bothered about studying other creatures.
It's a benefit that online shopping has provided, which Amazon has monopolized, partly via suppressing competition and exploiting labour (which society has to pay for in other ways).
Bezos's wealth is already effectively unbounded. He has the same wealth as ~50% of the population of United States altogether. That won't immediately change if you uplift poor people's income (since income is not wealth). Why is it important to consider his right to get even richer?
If you raised everyone's income above a minimum threshold, that would reduce income inequality by almost any measure.
Gini coefficient (the most commonly used inequality measure) effectively uses logarithms in its calculations: so raising incomes away from zero is the most effective way of reducing inequality by this metric (and most other metrics, and, I think, in most people's minds).
[Edit: are y'all down-voting because I said something technically wrong, or because you disagree in your mind? I'd like to know.]
It's somewhat out of fashion because a good sense of number is just as useful for dividing by hand, and more useful for understanding what's going on (plus, you do now always have a calculator in your pocket).
The curriculum has too much influence from adults whose goals (sometimes openly stated!) are for a compliant labour force with a reduced training cost on particular work-focussed skills.
That's at the expense of (for example:) relationship and mental health education, creative arts, critical thinking skills, financial education, talent development, practical entrepreneurship, and the idea that children can have and create value in their own right.
As such, this is regularly a complete mismatch to what's going to be useful to kids when and as they grow up, and kids often know it: even while they don't have the political power to make change.
Those skills are not always in alignment - I've worked happily with great written communicators who couldn't spell for shift.
"Both Willy [a wizard] and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures."
is very comparable to your completely hypothetical example above.
So, if a paragraph of cherry-picked, high-level description are the only identified similarities, there is no case in copyright law.
Disney's lawyers are famously litigious. I'm not clear that they would win a case here. (Although they might have success with this HN comment as evidence)
The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: Livid Land (1987) has a similar high-level of comparison to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000), and that case was thrown out.
Duality in mathematics is in general a principle that objects in one category can be mapped onto another category (and vice versa), that two objects are reflections of each other in some abstract sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(mathematics)
It most often appears as a principle in geometry. Looking at or working with the 'dual' of something can give additional insight or allow another way of working. For example, Fourier Transform can be considered a type of duality.
I'm not clear what computational techniques are expected here - I personally don't think it's a very well-formed problem.
It's almost never a good medical strategy to intentionally get ill.
Pox parties are extremely dangerous.
If you generally live by your own values, and act according to them, then (in my opinion) you should rarely need to apologise for that.
Why did you need to do a lot of apologizing, I'm curious?
If I think of particular people I personally know who frequently apologise, it often seems to me that they are doing that to centre and prioritise their own experience ahead of other people's - which perhaps was exactly the problem in the first place. That type of apology can taste slightly sour.
I find that listening is a more important aspect of apologising than talking.