waqf

> Human perception of color is certainly a matter of biology.

Of course it is. The mathematics is a model of human biology (in terms of the effects of interactions with different colours of light).

Mathematical models of the underlying electromagnetic phenomenon known as light already existed in the 19th century, but that's very different from the problem at hand.

"whole industry": I am currently in Germany and the major apps here (Lieferando and Wolt) are a lot less dark patterny, the prices seem to be usually same as in-restaurant and there aren't hidden fees.

(My crunchy friends still criticise them for being an oligopoly that squeezes restaurants though, which may well be true.)

Is that effect mediated by body size, or is it true even when corrected for body size and shape?

Slightly better explanation: https://web.archive.org/web/20141114091039/http://math.iit.e...

You still have to figure out their convention for the matrices they're taking eigenvalues of though. Looking at the eigenvalues for K8, it seems to me that their adjacency matrices have 1 on the diagonal, and -1/n wherever there is an edge (n being the degree of the vertex), so that each row sums to 0.

In my math it's a $210 annual delta.

Next up: Guinea. And the Kiwis.

It would be odd if it were not.

Just as you would write "I went to the United States" not "I went to The United States".

(Of course, lower case here means that you should use lower or upper case according to its position in the sentence; it doesn't mean forcibly overridden to lower case like e.e.cummings.)

Ring binder with the clasps opened.

Horace Lunt's Fundamentals of Russian is one I found helpful, particularly for being upfront about the actual pronunciation rules.

There are also many similar gripes among STEM tutorials. Why can't this physics/chemistry/economics book assume I know vector calculus/differential equations?

I wouldn't say "supreme" is inaccurate, since the Supreme Court is superior to every other court.

(That's if we accept that Parliament is no longer a court after the Supreme Court assumed its judicial responsibilities. Also, I'm likely wrong because everything one thinks one knows about the UK constitution is always wrong, but feel free to tell me how so.)

The popups happen because that turns out to be what the legislation is incentivising. The solution is to make different legislation that doesn't incentivise popups.

Some examples (obviously not problem-free, but just to show that a solution space exists):

* No tracking even with permission

* No tracking unless the user mailed you hard-copy permission

* No popups

* No popups unless user testing shows that a user who hates popups, doesn't care about privacy and is just clicking stuff to get to see the site, will decline tracking at least 80% of the time

Interesting, why do you perceive that "scrip" cannot be short for "prescription" whereas "script" can be?

FWIW, Wiktionary lists both: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scrip#Etymology_4

Another is animal cruelty, pursued by animal charities. Basically it's when someone's committed a crime but the CPS (equivalent of the DA) is never going to bother to prosecute them so you volunteer to organise the prosecution yourself.

What is meant by "solving fusion" if not making fusion an economically viable source of power?

And I didn't mean to suggest that available energy was the limitation on building LHC++, but rather that available economic surplus was.

If we solve fusion, surely we have a lot of cheap energy (and attendant economic output) to throw at solving physics?

Many jurisdictions outside the US do (much more readily) award fees so that the loser has to pay the winner's legal costs.

The disadvantage of it is that if you're just some guy against a BigCo, then instead of risking having to pay your own $50k lawyer bill you're potentially risking having to pay their $5M lawyer bill.

In fact this was used in the 100% official localisation of BBC BASIC … into American. The US edition of BBC BASIC 3 would print "COLOR" instead of the obviously correct keyword "COLOUR".

Ducks have ducklings, so naturally, cows have cowlings.

The tech may be possible, but it won't solve anyone's copyright problems. The result would be a "derived work" of the original, irrespective of whether it sounded similar or not.

Last year a man died after falling through disused stairs up to a highway bridge in Boston. To be fair they were fenced off and were obviously unusable, but still … https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/newly-released-video-sh...

A higher price doesn't mean that most people, or even most of the people who buy it, think Hersheys is objectively "better".

My assumption in this case would be that it's higher price because higher cost because imported, and consequently it's only bought by homesick expats or people who specifically want a famous US brand, not people who are optimising for price/quality.

The journalist may suffer from misconceptions, but the version of the experiment to which these results apply was conducted so that the transaction costs were equal in either case (source: https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Zero%20as%..., see Experiment 3).

> Well obviously, I'm getting a free thing as a no-brainer, and then I also decide whether I want the paid thing or not.

Not permitted. If you take the "free" chocolate they will not sell you the fancy one at any price. It is not obvious how people behave under that circumstance.

They controlled for this (in the version of the experiment for which the results are reported in the article): they offered it as part of a campus cafeteria meal (and integrated it into the cafeteria billing), so the subjects were already paying for something whether they bought a chocolate or not.

Source: http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersPI/Zero%20as%2... (see Experiment 3)

An "individual" … maybe that means it would suffice for them to be accompanied by the family dog?

(edit: unfortunately not, for in the German it is more specific, "nur in Begleitung einer Person …".)

>In those pricey plane seats they're among themselves.

Train travel also has multiple classes of service. And in some ways it's easier to keep people in their own half on a long train than on an A319 where they're only separated by a few feet and a curtain.

So I guess I don't see your point here? Unless you're claiming that terrorists travel first class on trains but can't afford it on planes.

Well we obviously haven't yet solved the problem of preventing genocides, because we didn't prevent the current one. But we don't necessarily need new data, maybe we just need new interpretations to the data or new policies based on the interpretations, in fact I don't know how you got to that suggestion at all.

Other than that, I don't wish to defend what another poster (hans1729) said upthread as interpreted by you. My claim is simply that you should not stop trying to understand people just because you see their actions as "evil", because understanding them and how they got that way is a step on the path to having fewer people like that in future.

I am not "biasing myself toward" a point of view; you are putting words in my mouth. If you can't consider someone's point of view without agreeing with it, then I do see the miscommunication. I can, and I also think it's necessary and important.

I am interested in solving the long-term problem of preventing the next genocide.

You are interested in solving the short-term problem of alleviating the current one.

They are both important work. Likely they are good fits for our respective skillsets. I don't mean to stop you from solving your problem and I'm not mad at you. I don't know why you want to insult me and stop me from solving mine.

> You can in fact study history of holocaust with principled opinion and judgement that Holocaust was bad.

Yes. That's exactly what I am proposing to do.

If by "being principled or judging" you mean labelling people as evil and dismissing them then I don't accept that that's axiomatically noble.

If by "being principled or judging" you mean having any ethical values at all, then I don't see that it is inconsistent with striving to understand others' minds; I was asking because it appeared that the poster I was responding to thought so.

I think it's very useful in such a case to investigate, as scientifically and dispassionately as possible, exactly how such a moment came to be. And I think that would involve "getting into the heads" of the supporters of the cause. Do you not think so?

This can be explained using Bayesian reasoning.

P(all heads | bad faith) ≫ P(any given "random"-looking string | bad faith)

therefore

P(bad faith | all heads) ≫ P(bad faith | any given "random"-looking string)

So if you want to exclude bad faith responses, the best strategy (by Neyman–Pearson, if you want to think of it that way) is to remove "all heads" responses (and similarly for "all tails").