marcelluspye

Because "higher level people" are the ones who make the decisions to do things like this, and they nearly always get away with it. The engineers who added the system are responsible, too, but at the end of the day, if they had said no VW would have found someone else to do it.

When companies act against the interest of the societies in which they exist, it's at the direction of executives, managers, or other "higher level people." If they're caught, their punishments sometimes don't even negate their wrongdoing, let alone match up to crimes which are generally less harmful to the rest of the world. They get away with it, and when they don't, it's not that bad for them. The lack of justice is infuriating.

Based on this article, I would venture to guess that Axler is also not a fan of the cross product, though, so he wouldn't feel that much is lost. Cross products are practically a vector-calculus hack that lack generality and risk obscuring intuition at the mathematical level.

I'm not sure I understand the message of this article. Is it just that people in a (good) marriage have better (emotional, financial) support systems, and are therefore happier? The subtitle would lead me to believe that the article is encouraging founders who are single to seek out a marriage just so they can strain it in the name of their startup. Treating your spouse like a weird type of employee is all kinds of unethical.

Like, who is this article for? Are there single founders in committed relationships who aren't taking the next step because they fear they'll break the ranks of stereotypcial single founders? Founders in bad marriages (which I would believe make up a decent portion of them) know that their work isn't helping their relationship, and those in good marriages already know this.

It's only informative if you take what they said at face value.

>Among the very smartest people I know, I count both Trump supporters and anyone-but-Trump supporters.

Not the guy you were replying to, but I can't say the same. I know plenty of smart conservatives, and plenty of smart republicans, (some of whom may have voted for Trump), but of the very few Trump supporters I know, I would definitely not say they're among the smartest I know.

An even fewer number of times have I talked to someone with a MAGA hat, and every single one of those times the hat's owner has said something blatantly ignorant, racist or sexist.

Are there smart trump supporters? I'm sure there are some. Do I feel like I'm losing anything by not associating with them? No, not really.

I think a lot of people are going against the author's narrative because they don't agree with her conclusions based on the evidence she presents. I think even the people who sound like they're defending Mark would admit his behavior is inappropriate and immature. But this article started out with 'I've faced harassment constantly in my decade-long career, and this was far and away the worst of it.' The evidence points to the author dealing with a weirdo who's acting like a jackass, but equating that to harassment seems non-obvious to me (and a lot of the critical comments state as much).

On top of that, I think a lot of HNers see themselves as people who have a good idea and are afraid of being pushed out, rather than as people who push others out. So right off the bat readers from HN may think of the author as an antagonist, rather than someone to sympathize with, regardless of how justified the author is.

There was Joe Barton's summary paragraph edited to remove mention that he told someone at a town hall meeting to "shut up," and replaced with what was essentially an ad, which only cited his own website. Seems to have changed back, with the addendum that the guy told to shut up later said he "deserved it." :\

What I took away is that while plenty of poor people might believe/agree with thought leaders, it's the rich who enable them, by giving them a platform. I'd say the article is not so much academics vs. "thought leaders" as it is intellectuals (i.e. people who apply a critical lens to their chosen objects of study) vs. eloquent bullshitters (i.e. people who have one idea and dogmatically try to fit it to everything, and evangelically try to convince people that they're right. There are plenty of both inside and outside academia.

The only time I've observed people in real life acting like people in video games is at a chess tournament. Constantly trash-talking until they lose, then accusations of cheating. You certainly don't see this type at all (or most) chess events; I think the lack of entry free drew them out into the open.

I don't do my calculations/scratchwork in latex, but I know people who do, and take notes with it, etc. It's definitely got a learning curve, but once you've got it down it can be faster than writing by hand for a lot of things in mathematics (at least, according to some people I know).

For a good while, Yik Yak was very popular on my campus. Then when handles became mandatory, basically everyone stopped using it. Even after they back-pedaled, though, our feed was merged with several in the surrounding area, so we lost the sense of community we had with it on campus, and it never took off again.

I don't know about overall, but in my social microcosm yik yak was never able to recover its lost users.

>30 years ago there was no internet, no smoothy bar equipped fitness rooms, no pretty dorms and everything upscale.

How certain are you that these are the reasons school has gotten more expensive?

I'm a student at a school with a decent amount of cushy stuff and a high tuition, and I can't say it looks like that's where the money's going (or even being sunk). Housing got cushy once university policy stopped forcing us to live on campus, at which point it had to compete with surrounding options (before that we were charged through the nose for pretty tight quarters). The school-provided food options are, ... well, the university's definitely making money on those, and if they're not the company they contract out to is. I gotta say, I don't think paying for gym equipment has significantly held up salary increases on the academic side of things.

You might know better than I (and we're probably in different places), but looking around campus the things that seem to be sucking money away from paying the professors more is a) the ever-expanding number of administrative offices and b) the constant renovation/replacement/addition of buildings. I'll be the first to tell you my campus is an eyesore, but it feels more and more every year like they did that on purpose in the 70s so they wouldn't face much resistance in sinking a ton of money to replace it with a shinier one now.

I'm also not totally unwilling to believe the standard economic argument that gets thrown out all the time: with so many more people leaving school with advanced degrees, finding people to fill teaching positions is a lot easier.

Not the poster above you, but the ACLU is pro-choice, and the comment you replied to sounds to be pro-life.

My experience with linux power management has been alright, or at least better than my expectations. I have an asus laptop that gets f*-all battery life under windows (either 8 or 10, though it seems to be worse now) but I can usually get at least 90 minutes more out of it under linux. It took some tweaking to get to that point, and I have no macbooks to compare it to, but I think the situation isn't as grim as I see a lot of people say it is.

The advantage of a swappable battery isn't having multiple charges worth of power on your person, it's not having to ditch the phone/potentially deal with warranty problems when your battery starts to go. It isn't about short term convenience, but removing a long-term point of failure. For people who aren't interested in shelling out for the latest device when they find their current one suits their needs (modulo hardware failures) this is (or, I guess, apparently only used to be) a selling point.

Administrators suck up a huge amount of money these days as well. That's the real scam, considering they only seem to make my life harder.

My institution has the added administerial tax of those offices inhabiting all the nicest buildings on the quad. Really drives home the totem pole of who's most important on campus.

I feel there needs to necessarily be a separation of the doing of mathematics and the teaching of mathematics in these kinds of matters. In the teaching of mathematics, especially in the more 'abstract' areas, there is not nearly enough driving of intuition, and the 'problems' students are given often are unrelated to the 'problems' the theory they are learning about was created to solve. Pushing things in the concrete direction is probably the right direction for pedagogy.

But in the doing of mathematics is where I think Arnold is looking back at the past too romantically. Prior to programs like Bourbaki, the lack of unity in mathematical notation, definitions, ideas in methods was very present. Often if you were not a student of one of the masters of the time, you would have an incredibly difficult time understanding their work. The tradition that has lead to an 'over-abstraction' of things, as Arnold would have seen it, also lead to a much more widespread accessibility of contemporary mathematics. when you can count Kolmogorov among your teachers, this is less relevant to you. But for the 'unwashed masses' of mathematics this has made a world of difference.

I don't think it was a case of abandoning equality, as much as it was about defering 'colorblindness' until there is actual equality. However, the people on the left espousing these ideas seem to have forgotten to tell everyone about this, and assumed the rest of society would figure out what they meant. They haven't, and I think that's where a lot of the problem is for them.

While possibility is another question entirely, from a design standpoint I can definitely see why an app might want to bundle the font together with the rest of the package. It guarantees a homogeneous user experience.

How old is older? There are a lot of distros designed with the purpose of making old hardware useful, up to definition of old.

I'm confused by this response (not the OP). Do you think that they were saying Clinton's being a woman would make her a worse president?

I took it to mean that there are a decent-sized group of Americans who do believe that (probably not including the OP), and as a result nothing she could have done would have won her those votes.

I don't know how many people voted against Clinton because she's a woman, but I guarantee you it's not 0. As a result, it needs to be talked about. While it'd be a better world if people didn't focus on such irrelevancies, the fact that some do means we can't act like it's non-existant.

>SO isn't dying any time soon, and the content is still good.

While I'd say this is currently true, answers on SO tend to stick around for a long time, and the 'marked as duplicate'-heavy behavior means that even if the best practice to solving a given problem changes, the top SO google result won't. While this isn't a _huge_ problem right now, with the way the site is set up I only see it getting worse, to the point that some years down the line I imagine many SO answers will either cease to be relevant or push people down the wrong path when solving a problem.

There's a relationship between the incompleteness theorems and the halting problem in that no turing machine can decide whether an arbitrary statement in a logical system where the incompleteness theorems apply is derivable or not. Equivalently, there's no turing machine with input 'statement in the logical system' and outputs a proof or a "unprovable".

However, once you already have a proof, checking is much easier (at the formal level). Modern mathematical proofs, however, are not generally written in a fashion in any way similar to how the formal system operates, so applying this in practice is non-trivial.

Well, for one thing, you have to define 'true'. The incompleteness theorems don't have anything to do with what's 'true', they have to do with what's 'derivable'.

It's a consequence of the completeness theorem that every consistent theory has a model. Furthermore, in any incomplete system whereby a Godel sentence is useful, there are necessarily models that differ on the satisfaction of the Godel sentence.

Well, it doesn't really emulate the gameboy game either, so noone wins.

I'm pretty sure everyone's aware of the stated purpose of the section. It's not like there were a bunch of execs and lobbyists sitting around going "there's too much creativity in the world."

But the intentions of the legislation don't change its consequences.

I remember showing some of my A.V. club buddies my Note 2 not long after it came out and getting laughed at. "It's like holding a magazine to your head!"

Without changing phone size, most of my friends now have bigger or equal sized phones, and I've gotten at least one 'you told me so' since then.

This doesn't seem quite right either, though. People had been talking about 'virtual reality' for a long time, but only recently has there been so much activity in trying to make available to consumers. It's true that a non-trivial amount of people experience motion sickness, but I'd hardly call the people who use it without such issues the 'lucky few.'

It's a reaction to the question, "can bootcamps replace a CS degree?", to which these people would say, "no."

On the question, "are bootcamps good or bad?" I think most people would tend towards good, though exactly how good is another matter of debate.

I have a really hard time believing they had to triple the number of administrators due to government regulations.