voldacar

What is the best alternative for buying btc or crypto without KYC now?

You are demonstrating a lot of status-quo bias

Hence why they used a marine engine.

When you look at wages + benefits, the increase is more or less proportional.

The range that is considered safe is much smaller than the range that is actually safe. It also doesn't help that there is misinformation about what "vitamin D toxicity" actually is.

Wikipedia states "Vitamin D toxicity, or hypervitaminosis D is the toxic state of an excess of vitamin D. The normal range for blood concentration is 20 to 50 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). However, the toxic state is known to be a value of 100 ng/ml or more in a clinical setting."

This is wrong because toxicity is not a pure function of vitamin D concentration. I'm above 100 ng/ml and yet my calcium is normal. The toxicity is purely a result of elevated calcium levels. The threshold level of D which causes this elevated level of calcium seems to vary significantly between individuals, and in any case, is much higher than the numbers that google or wikipedia gives you. At any rate the 4000 IU number is unscientific nonsense.

If you look at the literature on cases of D "toxicity" (hypercalcemia), it only really occurs when people take absurd doses like 100k IU per day (often far more) for months. This usually occurs by accident, rather than someone choosing to take that much. And since D toxicity isn't reported that often, I have to assume that there are a lot of people out there unwittingly taking mega doses but without developing toxicity. But everyone thinks that high doses of D are scary because of that idiotic 4000 IU number that gets thrown around. N=1, but I take 50k IU per day and have never had any issues. My calcium is within the normal range.

It may be if you believe the government will do evil things with the money, which is often a reasonable belief.

I don't see a huge emphasis on Euclidean constructions, at least not in this particular curriculum. Euclid is just one book among several math books here. However I do think one issue with studying math from a great books perspective is that the level of prerequisite knowledge it takes to even read a lot of texts considered great would take many years of focused study to develop. I don't see Grothendieck in this list for instance. An intelligent child can read Euclid and follow along perfectly, because there isn't really any prerequisite knowledge needed.

Computing is not yet old enough for us to know which books on computing are great books.

Also the point of reading Euclid is not really to learn geometry but rather to investigate and examine the oldest, most primordial expression of the idea that math should be formalized using a few axioms.

It's hard to call something countercultural if every major corporation pays lip service to it 24/7

Vaping doesn't deposit nitrosamines, polycyclic hydrocarbons and tar in your lungs though? I don't see how it warrants comparison

You are romanticizing a lot of things in this comment

Meta, but it's interesting how many comments here are reflexively blaming men and their collective behaviour for this. On its face this seems irrational since who has sex in present day culture is basically gatekept by women. There appears to be this bizarre cultural taboo or cognitive bias where women can (collectively) have agency but when they use that agency to make decisions that harm others, you aren't allowed to criticize them collectively because that would be immoral or something.

a bit Whiggish, don't you think?

Where should one begin with this?

>Then the wizards use the Axiom of Choice to remember one representative sequence from each class

I don't think AoC is enough here becuase the wizards need to evaluate the choice function to get the representative from each equivalence class. AoC merely states that there is some function that maps each equivalence class to some element within that equivalence class. It doesn't tell you how to actually evaluate it, which is what the wizards need to do.

The axiom of choice is not really about assigning names to objects using finite strings of symbols. In this example, you take R, remove countably infinitely many elements, and end up with a set with uncountably many elements. From a set theoretic perspective, it is not any more difficult or unintuitive to select an element from this set using AoC than it would be for R. When we use AoC, we are not really assigning a name to anything or doing any computation. We merely claim that a function exists which returns some element from the set. AoC doesn't compute or describe this function.

This draws you into the math instead of running away from it. I feel like a reasonably smart (and motivated) person with no knowledge of group theory or number theory could follow along here and understand the material. I feel like the people who write Quanta articles want me to remain ignorant.

This is so much better than anything from Quanta. Anyone trying to write about math should read this and take notes.

A good retroencabulator helps a lot here.

Part of the utility of rational trig seems to be that it can work in any field, while functions like sin and cos only work for reals. I.e. you can use rational trig describe the "geometry" of a "triangle" whose points have coordinates in a finite field

Wildberger is an ultrafinitist

Plant cells have rigid cell walls and are damaged more by freezing than animal cells

Username does not check out

How many years are left on the patent?

The book Where is my Flying Car traces a lot of different developments back to the late 60s/early 70s explosion in number of pages of federal regulations and lawyers per capita. The massive cultural obsession with danger and liability is relatively young and can essentially be blamed on Richard Nixon.

The reason is that the government doesn't like it. Not particularly mystical or significant if you ask me.

Their spending grows commensurately with their fundraising. The cost of maintaining wikipedia is more or less constant. It's a cancerous growth pattern.

All that just for 14 MW. Wow