waqf

Yeah, a non-self-intersecting map cannot, but OP didn't specify that, only "epimorphic" which certainly can.

Moreover OP's argument specifically proves too much, because space-filling curves (as described in the article) have a range with positive Borel measure.

> there exists no continuous epimorphism f: R^n -> R^m, where m > n

Really? Then what is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve?

Hi, I downvoted you because you appear to lack reading comprehension ("girly" is not HN's word or even the article author's word: HN is quoting the author and the author is quoting his critics). Either that, or you have some extreme political ideology under which it's not even permissible to quote people critically when they express inappropriate sentiments — if that's your position, you did a poor job of explaining it.

Then I flagged you because, in addition, your wording was pugnacious ("Is HN better than that?").

Yeah, there is no way they should be allowed to bill the estate which they themselves are administrating.

In a normal country with a social welfare program, the guardian would have to bill the government — if the government doesn't agree to lay down money to say that this person needs protecting, nobody gets paid.

(In an honest no-government-programs libertarian paradise like the US sometimes pretends to aspire to be, the guardian would have to bill some kind of health insurer that covered this specific care: and again, the insurer would take on the task of scrutinizing the claim.)

Free rein*. The analogy is to horses, not to kingdoms, although I have heard that the one can be exchanged for the other.

It doesn't seem fair to use the rate of injury during an emergency evacuation as a measure of what could be achieved with the same slides under non-emergency conditions.

There's some suggestion that it was over Greenland: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/914197103026622464.

*samosas

> the base word

Is it really the same word? holistic comes from Greek ὅλος, whereas whole is a word of Germanic origin.

Of course that doesn't mean they aren't from the same Indo-European root — after all, whole certainly has cognates in many languages with the same meaning, such as Russian целый. But Wiktionary tells me that whole is from Proto-Indo-European ٭kóylos, whereas holistic is from PIE ٭solh₂wós.

In any case, the initial w in whole is an innovation in Early Modern English without etymological justification, so a more logical choice to emphasize the similarity would be to revert to the spelling hole.

There's a statistics problem here. Firstly, by Bayes's rule, absence of evidence is evidence of absence: if you didn't find any evidence of harm from piracy when you looked for it, that increases your posterior probability that there isn't any harm from piracy.

Secondly, this isn't just a case of insufficient data for a meaningful answer. This is the most pro-piracy conclusion that could ever come from a study framed as "let's see if there are harmful effects from piracy" — and let's face it, that's the only framing of the study that's going to get funding. The only stronger result possible would be a larger study with the same conclusion.

Yes, that explains why it's correct to first order.

But the mystery is that experimentally it's more correct than that. Why does it seem to join up with itself exactly after 360°, and not spiral slightly inward or outward due to accumulated error? Why does it stop working if you use a temporary variable so that x and y are updated simultaneously instead of alternately?

> the world

The United States. I assure you that even though other countries have credit reporting, they do not use SSNs.

> will have no choice but to finally switch to a new system.

Really? I think they will just carry on unless and until the financial downside (losses from extending bad credit, or lawsuits from identity theft victims, or penalties from the federal government intervening directly) is shown to be really huge.

I know, but I disagree and, moreover, I consider that a harmful belief. The problem isn't that not every citizen of a democracy will agree with the majority preference (I think people understand that caveat), it's that even the majority preference of the population on a single issue is, for many reasons, likely not what gets through the political process.

The "we" wording sweeps all these limitations of democracy comprehensively under the rug: it diverts blame onto the people when it should rightly be directed at the existing political order.

I cannot understand why Americans say "we" in statements like this. I'm not out of mine (at least not with respect to this issue) and you're quite likely not out of yours.

It's not noble to take responsibility for things when you have no control over them and thus won't be able to fix them.

You say everything that they say applies to men too — but that seems like a reason that they will lose.

To win, they have to prove that they could reasonably have been paid more but weren't because they were female. If they show that they could reasonably have been paid more but weren't because they are bad at negotiating, they get nothing.

So, yeah, don't mistake discrimination law for something which would make sure people are paid what they are worth.

> dont have the talent/drive etc

Don't have the talent/drive/connections/hustle/luck …. There are more possibilities than just sexism vs. meritocracy.

Edit: hey downvoters, I'm talking about why a random given person of any gender may not be progressing in their career. Read the context.

No, iamlucaswolf is correct, describing a countable dense set (the dyadic rational points) and an uncountable dense set.

This was actually not an "overbooking" incident in the usual sense. United wanted the seats to move some of their own crew members (reference: http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/real-reas...).

It wasn't United staff who assaulted a customer, it was airport security staff. The article doesn't say the US won't punish O'Hare Airport over the incident.

That is true but it's an error in the unproblematic direction: fixing it makes the argument even stronger.

That is, if the probability for each city flooding is 0.002 but the different cities are positively correlated, then the probability of at least one city flooding is lower than it would be if they were uncorrelated. (Because the probability of no cities flooding is higher, because of positive correlation.)

Good point, but the chance of a given city having a 500-year flood in three given successive years is only (0.002)³ = 8 × 10⁻⁹. So even if we allowed for 100 U.S. cities, 10 different natural disasters and 10 different three-year periods we're still talking about a probability of less than 0.01%.

Looking at the BTS statistics:

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...

you can see that 95% of railroad fatalities are classified as either "Trespassers" or "Highway–rail grade crossing". In both of those cases it seems likely that the victims are generally not actually passengers on the train, but rather are people doing something obviously dangerous near railroad tracks.

(Also the denominator wasn't clear for the quoted statistic: is it per passenger-mile, or per vehicle-mile? In any case here is a sensible denominator: https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...)

Although bear in mind that class-action law suits, which are the focus of this article, are typically not a right you have in the EU in the first place (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_out...).

I don't get it. If you're seriously going to go with the story "I dropped her off ashore, something else must have happened to her" then you don't want to attract attention to yourself, so you definitely don't sink the sub.

Conversely, if you feel you need to sink the sub to destroy evidence, then you don't say you dropped her off, you say she died in the same "accident" that caused the sinking.

You can't blame TSA on the lack of competition, since it's effectively state mandated anyway. (Strictly speaking, airports aren't required to use TSA staff, but they're required to have the same intrusive security protocols.)

It's trading off the false positive vs. false negative rate in the hiring signal. The question is what your assumptions are about the sources of error in that signal.

If you assume that the variance consists exclusively of false negatives due to discrimination, then the extra interviewers will work as Google claims and no bars will be lowered.

If you assume that the variance consists of randomly distributed error that's the same for all interviewees, then the second interviewer is just some statistical sleight-of-hand that's, on average, equivalent to lowering the bar.

Of course it's possible that the truth is in between.

Suppose that fifteen of them were pissed off and one was not. Would the sixteenth have felt psychologically comfortable in your team expressing the fact that she was not pissed off?

How do you know it doesn't just draw out a capacity to think that you already have, and that you could equally well have drawn out by studying or working at something else?

> hard

> messy

Yes, but that's why we entrust it to a half-trillion-dollar company. If it were realistic for everyone and their dog to set up a trustworthy marketplace on their Wordpress site, that's what we'd have.

Amazon should be solving hard, messy problems, it's their job.

This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb5UIPeFClM