azan_

Math is literally the most g-loaded thing there is.

What meme?

They actually can't, but even if they could - expensive private viewings are much more fair.

What's your problem? It's not like employees are doing it for free.

What? Did you mean to write it to someone else?

Well yes, farming in European Union is pretty much eu-funded hobby. For good reasons of course (food security etc), but if European protectionism and donations were gone, farmers would be much worse off.

Nonsense, but you clearly either haven't read my replies or don't understand that capitalism requires growth while some other economic systems don't. Even 1% growth per year is exponential growth and quickly will run into limits (as we are currently experiencing!).

But let's grant "both systems eventually run out of resources" for the sake of argument. The rate at which that happens then becomes clearly relevant, and if staying alive is good (I hope we can at least agree on that), using resources slower is better. Capitalism is depleting resources on a human timescale (as, again, we are currently experiencing with climate change), so instead depleting them on longer-than-human timescales is clearly the better option.

But you were talking about INFINITE growth, not exponential and those are two completely different things! Exponential growth will become infinite only if you have infinite time frame! So can we agree than "infinite growth is impossible on a planet with finite resources" is really dumb argument, because capitalism does not require infinite growth at all? Then we'll be able to move on to exponential growth.

If my system requires infinity growth then yours also does require infinite resources by the logic outlines above. If you agree that your system does not require infinite resources because we should be talking only at timescales that are relevant to humans, then my system also does not require infinite growth. You can’t have it both ways, either you are ok with infinite timeframe (and then degrowth will eventually run out of resources) or you are not (but then the growth requires to sustain current system is obviously finite).

That's an absurd argument, though.

Yes, exactly! Talking about infinite growth or infinite existence is really stupid and that’s my point!

You can’t reach steady state in ANY economic system because you can’t have 100% efficiency, that’s basic thermodynamics. Resources will keep decreasing no matter what you do. Hence argument about infinite growth is absurd - infinite existence without growth (or with degrowth) is also impossible.

It appears that parent comment believes that there’s infinite amount of food and once you degrowth you will never run out of it.

But the claim must be that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy.

Yes, if you actually mean infinite growth it’s true. And that’s what I find absurd - why would you care about infinite growth? If you actually care about infinity, then even if you degrowth you will run out of resources because guess what - resources are finite, so the use of resources will have to also be arbitrarily small and asymptotically approach zero!

Because 1) growth is not directly linked to resources and the richer country is the less growth depends on resource-intensive areas such as farming or industry; 2) it’s absurd to think we are at the stage of growth where resource availability becomes constraint - I’d say it’s on the contrary and we are at the stage where we become far less dependent on resources than are on scarcer side (e.g. thanks to solar uptake).

The economic system itself is incompatible with the physical reality of a finite planet.

„Infinite growth is impossible on planet with finite resources” is nice buzzphrase, but upon closer inspection it makes literally zero sense. Fortunately people will never accept degrowthers’ postulates.

Tao is not an expert in math research? That's a really high bar then.

What's your definition of AGI?

Typical pure-math linear algebra course has to cover so much material that there's really no time for applications! That's why applied math is typically separate track.

Please read the comment I’m replying to.

Anyone pointing out the obvious - that peer review is broken and science hasn't worked in 40 years - is at best a flat Earther.

Yes, if someone claims that science hasn't worked (what does it even mean?) for 40 years then he's not that far from being flat Eather. It's hard to expect other side to be reasonable while making such absurd claims.

The usual way of doing things is completely broken system.

In the making I'm sure. It's really naive to think that jet engine is challenge that won't be overcome.

Isn't having universities in global top10 actual quality?

Isn't China currently among the leaders of material science with lots of top 10 universities located in China? [0] (in rankings that do not incorporate prestige but actual scientific output)

[0] https://scholars-stage.org/china-and-the-future-of-science/

How is it worse compared with workers that are currently employed by the oligarch class? It's not like they don't have people doing menial work for them right now. And automation of menial work is a good thing!

Amazing mate, literally everything you wrote is wrong, including labeling me as left wing, keep it up!

How is it possible? You can't diagnose tuberculosis just based on imaging and tuberculosis hospital has to know that!

This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible.

Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like transient fever, numbers for myocarditis is much lower for vaccine vs covid, and for death it's much, much, much lower. I'm sorry but you hold your views only because you don't understand what you are reading. People who told you to do your own research owe you an apology - you are not capable of even reading very simple scientific article.

Again, if this was a no big deal incidence rate, find another vaccine whith a number that high. Good luck.

But I don't care about transient fever or transient fatigue and why would anyone care?

Anyway I'm ending this discussion - you clearly have absolutely zero idea about medicine. Shame that you can't see how stupid your opinions are and feel urge to share them.

Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.

Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.

But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.