HN user

MichailP

245 karma
Posts3
Comments153
View on HN

I must add that this feeling "people judging you" is mostly YOU. That is we THINK what other people are thinking, as we don't have direct link to their brains. The intensity of this feeling is related to your personal feeling of your self worth, which again doesn't have much to do with any realistic criteria. From my personal experience people love you, find you interesting, miss you when you are not there, etc. much more that you think.

I heard similar phrasing used by one psychotherapist that I admire, "I am different from my wishes" and "I am different from my (past) behavior". He once said jokingly that if someone realizes that, he can give them a "60 year warranty on their mental health".

What I also find interesting is that this idea is rather old, it can be found in Christianity, for example, where "devil is tempting you", that is thoughts and wishes you have might not be your own (but from some demon tempting you). It may sound a bit silly in modern times, but it boils down to the same idea.

Because people live in a busy world, where knowledge is not transferred with enough love and integrity. And also people are afraid to say "I don't know" and what little they know they tend not to share.

To make things more specific, those labs had uncertainty budget with something like 20 terms for the things they measured. Each of those terms had associated probability distribution etc. They had uncertainty budgets for all the methods they did etc., and some of those where probably dated, done by someone else, etc. etc. Who checks that? Is the check rigorous enough? Are some assumptions made that don't hold to scrutiny?

So it is actually very easy for error to creep in, I would say actually very likely.

Actually I was going for equality. Not equality of outcome, but equality of basic human rights. Let's take a recent example. Nobody deserves to be a sex slave trapped in an Epstein's island. Wouldn't you agree? But yet a bunch of rich people thought it was fine. As long as it is not their daughter. I would argue this is not natural and initial human instinct. You would have to corrupt your sense of meaning pretty badly to come to this point. Like take some lessons in lack of empathy and sadism. And please don't try to draw fake symmetry between me and people like this.

I wonder how rich people even come up with the idea that they are above normal human beings. The idea feels completely unnatural to me, and I strongly believe that one would have to be educated into the idea. Something like school for racists or upbringing for racists. Racist is not the right word but it is the closest matching the description I can think of.

This reminds of a quote by Nikola Tesla: “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” I always preferred clarity over "cleverness" not just in programming, but also when say reading a book on a technical subject. Clarity evokes feeling of beauty I would dare say.

It is not that you get smarter, you don't get more stupid. I think it has something to do with extraordinary energy demand of the brain. 50 year olds can restore their cognitive ability to the level of 30 year olds through physical exercise. As Jordan Peterson puts it in one of his interviews: "Your brain is a very demanding organ, and if your cardio-vascular system is compromised then you get stupid... Brain is very metabolically demanding and if you are not in good physical shape then one of the things that suffers most greatly is your cognitive function".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29qqv-REAZk

I think it is done. There is no way China doesn't become number 1 in every way that is possible. The stupidity and shortsightedness of western companies that partly enabled this is really staggering. I guess that initial thinking was let's do the clever part of making a product: design, IP, etc. but use cheap labor from China. But obviously the know-how was also unintentionally transferred. And now you have a behemoth with know-how, educated people, mega-cities etc. There is just no way to compete. I guess you can impose sanctions, ban sales, sabotage deals etc. but it is done anyway.

On the other hand, I don't think that China rising is a bad thing, and it will make a world a better place, since USA and its allies can't compete with China with wars (though there are some pathetic attempts) but you probably must put all that war budget money and effort into research and infrastructure.

Possibly this is a huge win-win for the whole world. Or we end up in flames if there is enough stupidity and solving things by war and force.

Thanks for the answer. And what is the correct approach here, if you can only chose/not chose predictor in final set? Discard all multicollinear predictors or pick just one of them?

So say you have 3 predictors that have high intra predictor correlation. Can you still pick one of them, and discard the remaning 2? Or you cant pick any one of them?

Now this is a topic I desperately need. Can anyone here by any chance explain why would one choose predictors in multilinear regression that are NOT correlated to the target? I am having trouble understanding paper [1] where authors avoid using predictors that are correlated to target. Target is ozone concentration shown by referent instrument and predictors are low cost sensor outputs.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092540051... Section 4.1 about ozone predictors

This reminds me of plum dumplings - and they are called gomboc in Hungarian. My late grandmother used to make those, and they were fantastic! Its not served as sweets, more as a main dish. Not that this has anything to do with mathematical objects and points of equilibrium :)

I had to be a bit cheeky to provoke discussion, and it seems that I did. I only edited the original post to voice my concern about down-votes initially coming faster then thoughtful comments we are all hoping for. Fortunately, in the end HN didn't disappoint.