HN user
I'm only interested in why you believe what you believe. How smart are you? What do you value most? How truth-oriented is your epistemology?
I'm glad you don't discriminate (nothing "reverse" about it) against men, but many do, and since [your views are wrong](https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Difference-Female-Brains-Au...) it's tantamount to sex-based theft and redistribution.
People seem to take it as some sort of impressive critique of statistics and the scientific method. Similar to "there is a Replication Crisis, vaguely speaking, so your bigot facts don't matter." No, the replication crisis is mostly a function of low sample sizes and misinterpretation, if a paper has a decent number of people and isn't being interpreted by an activist (like, ie, the social researchers themselves), it's valid.
Same thing here, this is only impressive to people who don't know how to interpret statistics.
I'm not sure why this sort of thing impresses people, it's obvious the 1984 ghostbuster group skews old.
I think "useful" is doing a lot of work here. A lot of math notation exists clearly to gate keep. It's often nonsensical. It's a shame because it really makes mathematicians look bad (re:annoying) to those who can see through it. It's not hard to see through it or anything, but it is obnoxious. All you need is an english explanation of the notation, and then you're good, but often all of the sources on the topic are written in the same obnoxious babble language.
Take sequential Monte Carlo / sequential importance sampling for instance. This powerpoint on it is clownishly bad: http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jordan/courses/260-spring10...
This is supposed to be an algorithm implemented in code. It's essentially illegible without code examples, which it doesn't feature. Code examples tell you what the cipher signifies; at no point does the cipher provide any value to the learner. Fanciful bayes-theoretical statements and so on basically reduce to "iteratively build enlarging valid states." Given the fact that this simple statement is missing, I question if the professor has some sort of communication disorder or if they're just a troll. Similar to pomo philosophers, it's probably a mix.
Correct. Inflation is when the dollar gets weaker for the masses because the elite are printing themselves dollars. Deflation is when the dollar gets stronger for the masses because the elite's proportion of the national currency is decreasing. We have pro-inflation, anti-deflation economic ideology because the elite fund the economists' "research."
Printing fiat makes stablecoins denominated in the currency lose real value, not gain in it.
What's the case for this statement? In general, I don't expect to commodities to change value just because some currency was redistributed.
Leaving aside the dubious idea that the Federal Reserve can give their friends the ability to print money
You didn't read my comment correctly.
Stablecoins are dangerous because they have the potential to change the current selection effects on the elite. For one thing, stablecoins subvert the ability of the Federal Reserve to print money and give it to their friends at Goldman Sachs et al --- normally this is supposed to result in their friends have a larger fraction of money than they previously had. You start with 1 dollar, David at Goldman Sachs starts with 1 dollar, you each have 50% of the wealth in the "nation." David and his friends start printing themselves money, soon they have 99 dollars and you have 1, and you can't compete because they'll lock you up with violence for being a "counterfeiter." That's how inflation works.
When there's stablecoin, you just put your dollar in stablecoin before they print the money, the dollar inflates, stablecoin goes up proportionately, you spend the stablecoin and things remain fair.
This obviously curtails the ability of the ruling class to reproduce itself. More than that, if the pool of people getting billions through stablecoins is more random than the pool of people who got rich on the dollar, then the ruling class will change to be more representative of the population as a whole.
This could cause massive cultural changes, consequently.