peterweyand0

When someone says "an institution needs more diversity" they mean that given two people for any job in the industry the minority should be chosen for diversities sake. They want women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities and religious minorities to be more qualified for available jobs for the sake of being rarer, as opposed to true equality. It's nonsense. And I say this as a weird person - me being weird shouldn't make me more qualified for any job in which my weirdness is orthogonal - nor should any non-job related uniqueness qualify anyone else.

There are too few (good) jobs and too many qualified people, so it's a kind of gatekeeping. College is similar for the most part, but they do you the favor of teaching you something (while fleecing you at the same time, but that's another issue).

Trust in journalism, television and the news has never been lower, especially among Republicans and independents. And now for the good news -

"And distrust in traditional institutions could force them to reckon with institutional problems, like a lack of diversity."

I don't even know what to say, I'm shocked by the complete lack of self introspection.

Even three lines up we have -

"Data and experts suggest the public struggles to distinguish fact-based journalism from opinion content online."

So I guess a gay black man would be able to somehow report facts better? The entire article is baffling.

I like the minimalist layout design and the transitions when clicking through to each of the sections.

The link to codeblog.app doesn't work. Maybe hugged to death?

Oh I know. I just thought that more people would be excited about this and maybe point out where engineering applications might be possible if at all.

Can anyone give a little insight into how some of these discoveries can have engineering applications? There are some abstracts, but has anyone looked at this and seen potential uses in computer science? I'm surprised there aren't more comments on this on Hacker News considering it's the Fields Medal.

Raise your hand if you would be willing to lower your standard of living, voluntarily, in order to stave off global warming. Sell your car. Stop buying anything made with plastic. Stop using electricity.

I don't see many hands.

The author uses several analogies which are rather cutesy, but doesn't address the main issue in a salient way.

All consumption comes from some combination of raw resources and the addition of technological input. In real prices, as the cost of raw resources increases over time, this means that technological innovation is not making up for how much of those resources are being consumed as compared to the population as a whole.

At it's most basic we can calculate the rate of change as the amount of time it takes the average worker to buy a gallon of water or food and shelter for a single person. These are resources that aren't substitute-able, and are required for life. Other costs are rather nebulous (how much does a college education cost and what does this say about society now versus how much technological innovation is necessary for the continuation of the species)?

So then the question then becomes, does the real rate of return for any particular company or the stock market as a whole assume that a potential future exists in which that real rate of return is actually possible to exist?

Let's assume, in a model as simplistic as possible, that there is one stock (or market) that represents all of the world's companies that has a real rate of return of 2.5 percent per annum that is compounded once per year. As a sum total of world wide growth this would seem rather modest. The worldwide initial capital we'll assume is $100.

So the growth rate is given by A = P(100 + r/n)^(nt) which would be in our case (for an investment of 100 dollars) -

100x(1.025^10) = $128.

So for the real capital stock of $100 to increase to a real capital stock of $128 some combination of things must happen - the amount of capital stock in terms of raw resources must increase in real terms and the amount of technology must increase in order to make the use of these inputs more efficiently.

If technology remains constant then there must be an increase of 28% over ten years of capital. If capital remains constant then technology must make the current use of capital 28% more efficient.

Compound return over time is concerning in the long run, and hand waving it away is either ignorant at best or disingenuous at worst.

And capitalism is still the best distribution system we have come up with. Most of the world is working with a single overall social model, because it has been so successful, and we don't have a backup that's been shown to work in practice. My concern isn't in favor of Das Kapital or Marxism - who owns the product of labor and historicism over labor rights isn't as concerning as compound interest over all.

Most economists I've worked with don't seem to think that this is a problem or that technology will magically free market a utopian future of plenty for all. This is an article of faith.

The idea that cellular automaton can form a foundation for physics that mathematics can't seems incredibly unlikely. Mathematica is a useful program, but his claims are a bit over the top compared to the critiques from fellow scientists.

So does it produce more energy than it takes? From what I've read that's extremely unlikely.

So, if someone could explain this to me, I don't understand all the particulars.

From the article -

The attacker used hacked private keys in order to forge fake withdrawals.

The validator key scheme is set up to be decentralized so that it limits an attack vector, similar to this one, but the attacker found a backdoor through our gas-free RPC node, which they abused to get the signature for the Axie DAO validator.

Can someone explain what happened here? How were they storing the keys in such a way that they were accessible from the internet? Namely, is this a problem with how crypto is designed itself, did they mishandle their architecture (so presumably if they organized their containers in another way then a hacker wouldn't have access), or did they just put the keys in a file that said KEYS.pem with open access?

Does this have implications for blockchain as a whole or was this company just dumb? Ideally, you shouldn't hold 650 million in one wallet, but if the promise of crypto is supposed to be secure then it shouldn't matter.

PS:

If anyone would loan me 650 million dollars I promise not to lose it and would take only a small percentage of the total to pay rent and continue to exist.