squaredot

I was about to post that... nice website indeed!

I completely agree with you. I point you to this interesting article from which I usually get my arguments

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/11/hyd...

When the subject arise I usually point at the following interesting article

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/11/hyd...

> All programs require user documentation, otherwise they are not understandable.

Maybe not all types of programs. When I download an App on my smartphone, I never look for the documentation.

I guess this all problem is almost as complex as people.

> Eventually this number will be infinite

I would say that by adding finite numbers you never reach infinity. You are not even approaching it, since your are always infinitely far away. Infinite sums need a special treatment, they can be tricky.

I quite agree with the author, I can see how the code can contain some logic that is more explanatory than simply expanding the data.

I have the impression that often when people design a system, the data you save in the database is never meant to be explored directly. Although I don't think that this assumption corresponds to the experience of the most.

> Spain will scrap the value-added tax on basic food items for six months

Clickbait title.

I didn't expect to be surprised by this! After thinking about it, it reminds me that game about reading some color names as fast as possible, where the names are painted with another color.

> Even more effective than manual options, though also more expensive, is the electric toothbrush. After years of studies showing no significant difference between the two, a number of meta-analyses have found moderate levels of evidence that electric toothbrushes are more effective in removing plaque.

For me the biggest step forward has been the electric toothbrushing: an small change that can be easily be incorporated into your daily routing without effort.

Where I live we have a very capillary public transport. The time to get to it and to get from it to the specific place where you have to go, is often the biggest time consuming part of the travel, and that is far from ideal

I don't understand very much the appeal of lifetime licenses from the point of view of the seller. If you believe that your product will be good over time, you should only sell time-limited licenses. Am I missing something?

I hope that in the future, with autonomous public transportation service more like cabs, we can lessen the impact of cars in cities.

Currently I can imagine that it is not always easy to solve the problem with one solution, as people tend to change jobs more often than they change homes, and sometimes connections by public transportation are very inconvenient.

I know a lot of people who are passionate about board games, I hang out with a group of board game players from time to time, and I am quite an enthusiast myself. The complaint about prices is relatively recurring, but I don't think it's justified most of the time. People complain that some games are expensive, often referring to the quality of the material they offer, for the finishes, comparing it to other similar games, $100 seems to be a hard barrier to digest psychologically. When you buy a game, you buy an idea, a design. The cost is in the design, in the innovative mechanisms in it, and also a little bit in the illustrative art, but I think only secondarily. If a game costs me $120 but I play 20-30 games with three or four other friends, is it really expensive? If a game costs $30 but after 2 games I have already exhausted the game strategies and mechanics, was it really a good purchase?

P.S.: The fact that many buyers use the appearance of a game to judge the appropriateness of its price leads to a very unpleasant consequence: manufacturers, in order to justify the price of a game, produce it in a box that is twice as big as it needs to be, because if the game is big it justifies a higher price, and so we end up with libraries infested with games that take 2X or 3X the space needed.

  The truest and most horrible claim made for modern transport is that it “annihilates space.” It does. It annihilates one of the most glorious gifts we have been given. It is a vile inflation which lowers the value of distance, so that a modern boy travels a hundred miles with less sense of liberation and pilgrimage and adventure than his grandfather got from traveling ten (C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy).

Even as a passionate hiker, I can barely imagine what does it mean to cross a mountain pass in winter, with the equipment they had at the time.

Marrying may make you poorer, but you leave longer (see any life expectancy table).

The problem is maybe more when QA doesn't mess with developers, than when it does.

Luckily nobody applied this logic when thinking about introducing seatbelts and airbags.

I agree, but I still see it as a win: it shows that the government feels like some concessions are needed, even if those are mere signaling (and a morality police 2.0 will replace the current one).

Half of me agrees with this, the other half doesn't... I liked too much that game.

Yes, you're right.

I came to the comment section to look for this comment! Thanks.

Maybe the reposting is part of a frequentist study. I'll call it article laundering.

As the author mentions, convolutions for signal processing and convolutions for probability are essentially equivalent things in two different contexts. It is interesting that the same concept is behind the multiplication of polynomials. In the discrete case we have the parallel of the vectors representing ...

  the (discretized) probability density <-> the (discrete) signal intensity <-> the coefficients of the polynomial

... in the respective context.

If we look at the discrete case, since the operation of convolution is computationally expensive (O(n^3)), people often rely on the Fast Fourier Transform Algorithm (FFT), that runs in O(n log(n)). An excellent and very enjoyable video on the FFT applied to the polynomial multiplication is https://youtu.be/h7apO7q16V0?t=1.

It's about marketing, the A/B testing they do, not science.

Looking at the speed with which this post goes up the HN page, I would say that Twitter is still very relevant.

This result is really beautiful! At the same time, it's like GoL has been conquered, and in that it leaves me a little sad. But just a little bit. Congratulations!

I don't see the difference so much in the methodology as in the kind of reality one wants to observe.

The sciences have the experimental part, which is a method made possible by the kind of phenomena you observe. As far as religion is concerned, I don't want to oversimplify, as I think we run the risk of lumping everything together, as there are different interpretations as to what a religion is.

> I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking

He doesn't really speak about personal feelings, but more about the frontiers of a personal investigation.

Nice! The same idea is the essence of the Hilbert's paradox of the grand Hotel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Gra...), especially for the case Infinitely many new guests.

Very nice! I wish there were more explanation in the comment of the video. Thank you for sharing.