mathgradthrow

What do you consider "absolutely true" or "in general" to mean?

That's not an aside. The quote is pernicious because of its attribution to Ben. People invoke it without ever asking themselves if its true because they think of it as the hard won wisdom of a great man.

A tariff can only cost as much to the consumer as an embargo.

Von Neumann was a mathematician, thank you very much.

So, is cloudflare just becoming proof of bloat?

Something tells me you aren't exactly steelmanning your opponents here.

You are literally comparing the US to China on censorship in this sentence.

Food is wayyyy better in America than Europe, are you kidding? Why do you think we're so fat?

Meanwhile, tracking consumption involves error bars that span a factor of 2. Go figure out how many calories are in an avocado. Is that per gram figure amortized for the weight of the pit, or is this just for the flesh?

Counting calories precisely was invented by the processed food industry.

>The US government has decided that it is anti-Europe.

Is it actually anti-europe to ask europe to meet its NATO obligations?

I don't think you would know a well researched paper if it bit you. Legal cases are only evidence that there is money to be made in litigation.

>The problem is that you stopped there, you haven't even made any attempt at reconciling them with the original claim.

What are you talking about? I've done all the diligence that is due. If you want to convince me, you have to actually present your evidence. When you do present evidence, I'm free to assume that the evidence you've presented is your best evidence.

The article starts with a story about an 83 year old farmer with Parkinsons. I'm not going to continue reading after that point. An 83 year old with Parkinsons is not an anomaly, his existence is not evidence of anything. I'm not required to look beyond this point, and I'm absolutely free to comment about that. This is reasonable skepticism. I am not claiming evidence of absence, I'm claiming absence of evidence.

But fine, if you want to look for evidence of absence, then as you say, We need look no further than a random country where paraquat is banned. Paraquat is banned in germany, and there are 80 million people in germany, go google how many of them have Parkinson's disease.

If you are trying to convince me of an effect so small that you cannot even come up with one anomalous Parkinson's case to write a story about, then I don't care.

I drastically underestimated the number of farmers, who skew older. This is very unlikely to be anything.

There are hundreds of pictures of the Loch Ness monster.

1 in 400 US citizens is diagnosed with parkinsons, if by "thousands", this headline means 5000, then 1 in 2000 US farmers has Parkinson's. Stop it.

>Is it "signalling" when the left's change was for an accessibility reason, to enable more people to be able to easily read?

Uh, yes.

Here's the actual memo, in case you want to read it yourself and form your own conclusions:

https://daringfireball.net/misc/2025/12/state-department-ret...

Ok, I still contend that this is not a ZKP without the hashing scheme, but I agree that with the hashing scheme, it is.

Ah, I see. This is not an example of a ZKP, because you are relying on a third party who has full knowledge of the coloring, which is wherever you have drawn your coloring.

can you explain this a little better?

>An answer usually contains more information than just that one bit.

Isn't the point to ask yes or no questions?

Nothing avoids rounding.

If this article broke some loop, you could answer my question and tell me one thing you got out of it. What's a manifold?

What a terrible article. Can anyone who is not a mathematician tell me one thing they learned from this?

The naked term "manifold" in its modern usage, refers to a topological manifold, loosely a locally euclidean hausdorff topological space, which has no geometry intrinsic to it at all. The hyperbolic plane and the euclidean plane are different geometries you can put on the same topological manifold, and even does not depend on the smooth structure. In order to add a geometry to such a thing, you must actually add a geometry to it, and there are many inequivalent ways to do this systematically, none of which work for all topological manifolds.

they will pry my 2014 MBP from my cold dead fingers

The more language is allowed to drift, the harder it becomes to read old language. I think this is a particularly silly case, but in general, the complaint that people are misusing words shouldn't be met with "It's impossible to misuse words", which this argument implicitly is.

Is this a rhetorical question? Obviously Steve Jobs died.

An Arxiv paper listing 70 different definitions of intelligence is not the evidence that you seem to think it is.

Empirical arguments do not apply to asymptotics anyway.