valgor

My reply to thoughts like these are always the same: In the US we spend an insulting amount of money on military and defense. The amount of money Spacex is spending is nothing in comparison. If one is truly interested in helping humanity, then one should be advocating moving funds from the military to any branch of science or social welfare. To nitpick the small difference someone like Musk could make by doing something else is to not have your priorities set.

While Hardy's book is still relevant, there is a more modern attempt at answering the same questions for those interested: Mathematics without Apologies: Portrait of a Problematic Vocation by Michael Harris.

Nothing worse than an article with acronyms without stating what those acronyms are.

The common cold use to kill us. Science helped a lot of people overcome the common cold. One day we will look at aging like the common cold.

> Hammett, a pragmatist? Wasn't he a Marxist?

Because you cannot be both?

I see your $200, and thank you for your contribution to GNOME :)

You make is sound like they are struggling. Some of those dudes are rich. I wouldn't worry about them. And they have enough fans they could stream other games and still be okay.

Thanks for the downvote and a thorough list of examples proving me wrong.

That is very true. I know and follow many Communists and Socialist, and none of them support Accelerationism in any form.

>natural low-sulfer wines

How is this helpful?

Is it necessary to go through the entire Learning How to Learn course or is there a TL;DR somewhere?

China gets the biggest double standard from Western media. The restraint China has used during this time against Hong Kong is unlike anything the US uses against its own people. The yellow vest protest in France didn't last this long and people actually died during it.

This really hits home with some thoughts I've had lately. But I'm caught in a trap. Do I go after my dreams (numerical computing), do something useful (continue working with the non-profit I help out with), or continue being a sellout by working and learning things relevant to my employer? Splitting my time does not seem efficient, but consuming less and creating more would mean I'm at least working towards several goals slowly than not at all.

The author is not saying don't ever consume again. Just consume less. In particular, the mindless parts of consumption. If you are an economist, I assume reading The Economist is part of gathering tools for your creative ventures.

Protesting is about bring awareness and education to the public over topics the media was not airing. For example, the media was not talking about income inequality before OWS protest started happening. OWS shifted national discourse for a lot of people. That means it was a very successful protest.

So yes, real change has to happen somewhere else. Newly educated people could drive that change, new alliances could be formed, or next steps like boycotts could be organized. Those things could have started at a protest, which is another reason why protesting is valuable.

When I got interested in this type of workout, I just youtubed videos, picked out exercises that I wanted to do, and created my own routine.

The paper is linked in the article if can be bothered to read what you are threatening to flag...

Lot of great stuff on here. However, here is the thing that worked for me since I was in the same boat as you: after finally releasing a project into the world and calling it "done", I felt SO much better than when I jumped from project to project every 1-2 months. Finishing a project is a different sort of "high" that I want to get again and again. My advice would be to pick something small so you can finish it and have that experience.

I now have two out of work successes I can point to, and more importantly I now feel guilty wasting time on side projects that aren't a part of my third release I'm working towards!

I know this isn't exactly related, but as someone interested in numerical analysis, what is the difference between working on Sage, Octave, and Julia?

>Alexandra, alone, has done more for opening up the science more than all Open Access activists combined.

This is the difference between reformist and revolutionaries.

I used the term 'liberal' as in they are pro-market, which the Economist claims to be.

All western, liberal media sources refuse to publish anything that paints China in a good light. <conspiracy-theory>I think it is because the US is falling behind while China is pushing forward.</conspiracy-theory> However, China media sources are as completely bias as western sources, only in the opposite direction. I suspect reality is some where in the middle.

"Hi. I'm really amazing and have done a lot of stuff. People love me. Am I hirable?" /flex

I don't know what your day is like, but for myself I started during the work week by doing intermittent fasting. I would stop eating (in particular, no calories, so I stopped drinking too!) by 8pm the night before and then do not eat before 11-noon the next day. This gave me an 8-9 hour window to eat. It was only rough the first few days, but if you stick with it, you might find yourself doing intermittent fasting on the weekends without even trying.

I have been in your situation before. You must first understand you goals. Do you want to help humanity, explore science, become rich, explore only what interests you, etc.? Do you want to be alone in this journey (like a mathematician or philosopher could be) or in a research group or new company?

You don't have to be interested in altruism to get important ideas out of the 80000 hours site: https://80000hours.org/ In a nut shell they suggest what you are best at, not what you necessarily what interests you the most. Global Healthcare is high on their list of important areas to work in.

For myself, I decided what is important is working on problems I find exciting which is why I'm going back to school for a Masters in Statistics. I've tried working on problems or in areas that are important to humanity such as coding for open source projects and non-profits, but keeping up motivation is difficult.

I was really surprised to see an article on HN about China that wasn't full of ignorant hate and racism in both the article and in the comments, but then down and the very bottom is your sole lonely comment. Stay true, freedom fighter.

Clickbait nonsense. Remove this article.

Nope, but now I'm interested. Thanks!

Scientific publishing has a deep problem right now with papers being published with data, algorithms, and/or code being proprietary. In addition but not always related, there is the problem of reproducing results in papers. From bad data to crafting results to have p be under 5% causes headaches for scientists and in general creates an ecosystem of bad science.

If I had enough time, I'd like to do two things:

1) Create a third party rating system where we attempt to rate the quality of the paper based on openness, reproducibility, who funded the research, data quality, etc. The hope is that researchers will not look for papers in their favorite journals, but refine their search to only quality papers.

2) In a similar vain to the above, have a company that does nothing but tries to reproduce experiments in papers. I think this would be a ton of fun and provide great value to the world. Where funding would come from however is unknown...

I think if you have such an exposure to so many stat and probability books, and yet cannot recommend one good one, then clearly you are the person fated by the universe to write that one book written correctly. :)