2,741 karma · joined March 15, 2017
co-founder https://getjumper.io
What I’m getting at is that the “law” might be more or less substrate independent.
Now consider that Red Hat had a net income of $433m. Even if they reach $500 this year, Big Blue will still be $200m short, every year.
At the moment, IBM is trading down at -0.5% on an otherwise slight green Nasdaq.
Just from these numbers we can conclude that IBM is seeing some pretty significant synergies in the purchase that the market isn't.
[1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/ibm-bond-sale-red-hat-51557...
Free from money, yes but not free from value. As there's usually little-to-no line to the self-checkouts, I save time. For a little effort on my part I don't have to wait in line (something I hate more than checking out my stuff).
>The self-checkout stand, destroyer of jobs
Vintage luddite. I'm honestly flabbergasted that people who gladly use modern technology like internet, smartphones, computers etc never stop to reflect on the sheer number of jobs their gadgets have destroyed. But the self-checkout stands, this is outrageous!
What his channel feed looks like: https://imgur.com/a/OqCIKlP
Now the article claims that "gods are almost entirely absent from online worlds" – something I severely doubt. Take for instance this message board: is HN completely anarchistic? Not so likely. Is it meritocratically governed? We'd like to think so. Or do "gods" – those who write exist here as well?
When it turns out Spez (Founder and Arch-Wizard of Reddit) has the power to change contents of users' comments on reddit – and exercises this power for his own apparent amusement – is he not a "god in an online world"?
When I read Lorry's manifesto, about the hierarchies of essentially mods on his MUD, its difficult not to think of all the mods, supermods and admins on message boards large and small across the Internet.
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
Perhaps news are inherently skewed towards the negative side, and that's the way it should be.
With that said, I'd like to add the obvious "BIG if true"
In all honesty, I think the lines are severely blurred at this point.
Serious question though, how do you know when you come across women in the HN comments?
TIL (again) that context is still key when it comes to language/communication
Cheers
P.115 >The adoption of strictly linear evolutionary models of progress in mathematics of the sort discussed [previously] tends to be highly attractive to many mathematicians in light of the intoxicating simplicity of such strictly linear evolutionary models, by comparison to the more complicated point of view discussed [previously]. This intoxicating simplicity also makes such strictly linear evolutionary models — together with strictly linear numerical evaluation devices such as the “number of papers published”, the “number of citations of published papers”, or other likeminded narrowly defined data formats that have been concocted for measuring progress in mathematics — highly enticing to administrators who are charged with the tasks of evaluating, hiring, or promoting mathematicians.
> Moreover, this state of affairs that regulates the collection of individuals who are granted the license and resources necessary to actively engage in mathematical research tends to have the effect, over the long term, of stifling efforts by young researchers to conduct long-term mathematical research in directions that substantially diverge from the strictly linear evolutionary models that have been adopted, thus making it exceedingly difficult for new “unanticipated” evolutionary branches in the development of mathematics to sprout.
I also recommend reading page 114 where he lists some 14 breakthroughs made in his paper, and how many years earlier they could have been made. The audacity of this guy!
[1] ALIEN COPIES, GAUSSIANS, & INTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY (http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Alien%20Copies,%20...)
Only thing that tripped me up is the old Target-Pregnancy factoid. Most likely never happened, and now I cringe every time I hear about it.
http://www.kdnuggets.com/2014/05/target-predict-teen-pregnan...
I do share his fascination of Bayes' and believe that it is one of the most powerful theorems out there. It keeps popping up in applications everywhere (ML, crypto, intelligence, pharma dev etc etc) since published about 200 years ago. Taught to thousands of undergrads every year in every country, I sometimes get the impression its simplicity does not successfully convey the true real-world capacity.
To think it was not so long ago assumed inferior to sampling and frequency statistics.. :)
>"We do not and have never created 'fake' artists and put them on Spotify playlists. Categorically untrue, full stop"
For this to be true: some third party created them on behalf of Spotify.
>“We pay royalties -- sound and publishing -- for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist.
FTTBT: they pay the third party a non-zero sum (normal rates??)
>"We do not own rights, we’re not a label, all our music is licensed from rightsholders and we pay them -- we don’t pay ourselves."
FTTBT: third party frontman "owns the rights", duuh
Then again, I, for one, welcome our new musical overlords ;)
Held both in Swedish and English
Defence laywer Per E Samuelsson identifies two reasons to why the charges were dropped: – He had a solid explanation to what really happened that night. Which means the prosecutor can't expect a conviction in court. Secondly, we can prove that the US is after him. Proof which we didn't have when the Supreme Court tested this in 2015.
EDIT: Marianne Ny has been a subject of heavy criticism in Sweden for her handling of the Assange case (primarily for refusing to take his statement remotely, and claiming his fears for extradition to nothing more than conspiracy theories).