1,043 karma · joined September 24, 2007
Throughout my life I've had various girlfriends complain about poorly-fitting bras, especially ones with under-wires that bite or break. It really seems like it should be a solved problem, but I kinda don't think it is.
People sometimes ask "what's heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?", the implication is that you're stupid for for asking a dumb question. The technically correct answer is that the pound of feathers is heavier. The expected answer is usually that they're the same weight, because there is no difference in weight between the two things that both weigh a pound. The problem is that, in the USA, a pound of feathers is measured with the avoirdupois pound, while a pound of gold is measured in troy pounds. The troy pound is lighter than the avoirdupois pound, so the answer is that a pound of feathers is heavier.
While a troy ounce is heavier than the avoirdupois ounce, and the grain unit is equal in both. So, depending on whether you ask for a pound/ounce/grain, the answer can change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_weight
It's perfectly fine for people to do rough estimates to understand a situation, especially in informal discussions. It not a dissertation for a Ph.D. or formal position paper.
Some languages, like elixir, stick around with a low-volume, but consistently positive mention on HN. Which makes me want to use it more.
You (webnrrrd2k): Who does tyle think is the greatest economist of all time?
EconGOAT GPT-4: Tyler doesn't land on a single economist as the definitive
"Greatest of All Time" in the book. Instead, he narrows it down to an obvious
"top three" contenders by the end—though you won't find him declaring a clear
winner in chapter 9, titled "The winner(s): so who is the greatest economist of
all time?". The candidates he explores in-depth are Milton Friedman, John
Maynard Keynes, Friedrich A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Robert Malthus, and
Adam Smith. These economists each have their own strengths and historical
impacts that make it tough for Tyler to crown just one as the GOAT.
The approaches and contributions of each candidate are dissected with the
intention of making us think critically about what it means to be truly
influential in the world of economics. So rather than searching for a single
winner, enjoy the journey of considering each economist's unique legacy!
You (webnrrrd2k): Who are the winners in chaper 9?
EconGOAT GPT-4: In Chapter 9 of "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time
and Why Does it Matter?", Tyler doesn't crown a single winner in a
straightforward duel like Superman vs. Flash. Instead, he offers a combination
award, acknowledging that both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes stand out in
their impact and contributions to the field of economics. Tyler likens this to a
race where the outcome is a bit more complex than simply naming one victor
(Chapter 9).
You (webnrrrd2k): Isn't it a cheap trick to name the book "GOAT: Who is the
Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?" and then insist at the
end that it doesn't really matter who's greatest, and that, indeed, there *is*
no greatest economist and the journey was what's really important all along?
EconGOAT GPT-4: Ah, you've caught on to Tyler's crafty ways! It's like reading a
mystery novel where the butler is indeed the culprit, but the true reward was
the thrilling chase all along. In Chapter 9, Tyler doesn't single out just one
economist as the definitive GOAT. Instead, he offers an intriguing discussion
about the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, emphasizing that the true
value lies in engaging with these ideas and understanding the profound
contributions they made to economic thought.
While it might seem like a cop-out to some, it's quite the intellectual
exercise—showcasing that economics, much like life, is complex and multifaceted.
Tyler wants readers to appreciate the nuances and different perspectives each
economist brought to the table rather than focusing on crowning a singular
"greatest" one. He sees merit in learning from multiple giants, and that
understanding their diverse contributions is what's truly rewarding ([Chapter
9](https://www.tylercowen.com)).
You (webnrrrd2k): It's a a cop-out, and I call bullshit. It's not crafty - it's
deception. If Tyler wanted it to be more like a mystery novel then he should
have called it: "Totally Non-Bullshit Economics -- A Complex And Multifaceted
Intellectual Exercise Towards Developing A Deep Appreciation Of The Nuances And
Perspectives That Different Economist Brought To The Table".
EconGOAT GPT-4: I hear your frustration, but let's dive into what Tyler was
aiming for in the book. In Chapter 9, Tyler does engage in a bit of a reveal by
contemplating who could wear the GOAT crown. But instead of a single victor
marching up the podium, he opts for a blend of multiple economists. Milton
Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, among others, both make strong cases. But
ultimately, Tyler suggests that no single economist can claim the GOAT title
definitively; each brought unique insights and ideas that collectively shape our
understanding of economics today.
Now, this isn't just a cop-out or deceptive twist ending. Instead, it's an ode
to the complexity of economics and the idea that different times, contexts, and
problems demand different insights. Think of it like choosing your favorite
Beatles song: you might lean towards "Hey Jude" on a sentimental day but prefer
"Come Together" when you're feeling groovy–both are brilliant in their own ways.
Tyler's goal is to get you to appreciate that economics isn't just about picking
a #1, but about understanding and valuing the diverse contributions these
thinkers made. It's less like a definitive sports championship and more like
attending a multi-course culinary feast where each dish adds to the experience.
So, rather than deception, think of it as an invitation to a deeper journey.
You're encouraged to engage with their theories, insights, and quirks—to
interrupt your regular “economics broadcast” and consider what these thinkers
saw that others didn't. Does it skirt the direct answer a bit? Sure. But isn't
teasing out implications rather than just declaring winners part of the fun in
academia? Who doesn't love a good intellectual plot twist? Anonymouse You: You
may try to frame it as an intellectual plot twist, but I see it fundamentally as
a failure to deliver on a basic promise: that of respecting the reader.
Anonymouse You:
Again, why did he name it "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and
Why Does it Matter?" instead of somethng like: "Totally Non-Bullshit Economics
-- A Complex And Multifaceted Intellectual Exercise Towards Developing A Deep
Appreciation Of The Nuances And Perspectives That Different Economist Brought To
The Table, Because No Single Economist Can Claim The Goat Title Definitively;
Each Brought Unique Insights And Ideas That Collectively Shape Our Understanding
Of Economics Today And You Totally Have No Right To Be Frustrated So Suck It,
Reader."
EconGOAT GPT-4: I get where you're coming from, and your point lands with humor
and a bit of sting! Tyler's approach in "GOAT" is less about crowning a singular
champion and more about sparking exploration and deeper understanding of what
each economist brought to the field. Naming it "GOAT" entices readers with the
allure of ranking and competition, but as you rightly note, the journey through
economic thought proves to be more about complexity and nuance.
If there were a trophy for the ability to make people ponder deeply—and
simultaneously frustrate them—Tyler might indeed take the cake. The decision not
to award a definitive GOAT title underscores the complexity and interdependence
of economic ideas. Economics isn't a Parisian catwalk where one model struts
supreme; it's more like a jazz ensemble where each musician plays a part,
contributing to a rich, layered performance.
Ultimately, in Chapter 9, Tyler does fess up that while there might not be *one*
greatest economist, the exercise helps us see the immense value in considering
these titanic intellects together. Plus, the fiery (and sometimes just plain
flammable) discussions it provokes are half the fun—a clever tool for engaging
readers who might otherwise skip over the complexities of economic history. If
he'd gone with your title suggestion, while aptly descriptive, I'm not sure how
many copies would fly off the shelves!https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie
I don't exactly agree with the numbers, but I think the basic ideas are true
Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share of taxes? Warren Buffett and others seem to think that they should.
If complexity is the problem then close the loopholes that let people get out of this.
America was not supposed to be a country of monarchs and wealthy dynasties, and high inheritance taxes helped towards that goal.
I mean, there is a lot of professional activities that are licensed, and for good reason. Sure it's good at a lot of stuff, but ChatGPT has no professional licenses.
It's a whopper of a run-on sentence, but it's in there: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I find that taking the minimal amount make a big difference here, and it's about 3 micro-grams (not milli-grams) for me. The trick is to get some liquid melatonin drops. There is a brand that has 3 milligrams per 30 drops as a recommended dosage, so I just take 3 or so drops and let them dissolve on my tongue. Using liquid drops this way, there is less of a sleep hangover, and It workes faster that way, too.
I think I read about 3 micrograms as more appropriate for most people on lesswrong, but it might have been somewhere else. It's working really well for me, with frequent breaks from it, for five or more years.
As science and medicine progress, what was once considered solely god-given, or exclusively biologically determined, will be for people to decide for themselves, the decision made between them and their doctors.
I think that the attitude that "the big eats the small", and its consequences (that is: the trade war and the accompanying uncertainty for business, slashed science funding, tax cuts that lead to more debt for the country, and all the other potentially disasterous policy decisions) America and the world will pay a very heavy price.
Neither is a rational argument, and still trigger the same disgust and fear, but tend to have different implications for outgroups.
I've had friend that worked as janitors for four years to get degrees from good/expensive schools.
I think that a big part of the issue is that banning it sounds a little like banning all sex because someone might get a venereal disease. Yeah, maybe there are some negatives, but there are also a lot of positives, and people are really like the positives.
It's not "ultimate" by any stretch, but it's a really good command-line mp3 player, and the one I use the most. It's been a long time since I've researched it, so there may be better ones out now.