bcgraham

Isn’t it right and proper for management to serve ownership?

Note that roads are not neutral in the “net neutrality” sense, since emergency vehicles are prioritized. There’s a cogent argument against net neutrality on similar grounds: i.e., prioritizing traffic with prioritized purpose, especially in the face of congestion.

If opportunity cost means anything at all, “not extending one’s life” must have a truly dizzying opportunity cost.

As far as I can tell, reading documentation - not in snippets, to remember the details of something you know how to do, but top-to-bottom, to learn capabilities you didn’t know existed.

Aren’t you describing exactly the kind of “intuitive guess” he referred to, for why consciousness is embodied?

Art must be distributed to be appreciated. There will be demand for it: customers, each furiously waving their cash offer.

Someone is going to render that art for consumption in exchange for that cash. My conviction is the artist should have right of first refusal to grow rich with that cash. I confess this conviction is a moral conviction, driven by a sense of fairness, not efficiency. “The suckers compulsively produce it for free,” doesn’t find much purchase with me.

If you went this route, I’d push it out farther and make the cut steeper. Maybe after 20 years you start doing X%, where X is (Years - 20)*2.

I really don’t want to make it harder for people to survive on their creative output for their whole careers. But that’s the focus: providing for a family, maybe even fabulously, but for one generation only.

Can this line of reasoning be extended to poker?

This seems like the kind of thing that got decisively ruled out decades ago, but could the estimates of star mass be wrong?

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

The vim integration piece uses the same concepts as the gdb integration. The rest uses some (very ugly) local scripts, cobbled together in 10-minute snatches of time over years. Hopefully, the functionality of the pieces not included here can be inferred from the names.

https://gist.github.com/bcgraham/f88e7e500e1b933bed1c7077f86...

I don't have the time now to clean it up, unfortunately. Before you judge too harshly, let him without sin cast the first stone.

Fzf can be a tremendous time-sink because its credible promise to improve your quality of life in the terminal.

One of my most-frequently-used pry customizations is a keybinding that opens the current backtrace in fzf, with the preview window showing the selected location, allowing me to quickly walk up or down the stack, with tons of context. `enter` takes me to that frame, and `ctrl-v` opens that file location in vim.

That sounds like exactly the kind of meaningful information I’d be interested in.

I would be interested in seeing normalized comparisons, data allowing - e.g., X deaths per person-protest-hour, that sort of thing.

Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond.

The urge to preempt what an audience hears is suspect.

When some civilization becomes apparent, wouldn’t game theorizing say there’s a free rider problem? Wait for someone else to poke their heads out to handle it, save us the trouble, and maybe learn how we rank in a battle royale?

It’s driven by the nature of jokes in a long-running medium. Jokes both require and create context; this joke’s punchline is that joke’s setup. If the setup isn’t rooted in the current context, it’s nonsensical. If the punchline is in current context, it’s boring.

It’s easy for this process to feed back, especially with large casts of characters. I heard a writer once talk about “protecting” characters from some jokes, I believe to prevent a process like this.

Just a little bit of trivia for other Stephenson fans: Anathem’s narrator is named “Erasmas.” This is a phonetic representation of the Greek “ήρωάς μας,” meaning “our hero.”

http://bible-api.com/ecclesiastes%203:7

People are pretty susceptible to passionate speech by charismatic figures; much more susceptible, in fact, than they are to facts. This just seems like an opportunity for racists to win hearts and minds.

The unstated assumption of this premise is that some people (never us, always others) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and thus need to have their decisions made for them, for their own good. It advocates for human subjugation.

I always thought it was stored in the “angle” of your geodesic. When you come out of the gravity well, your travel through spacetime is angled to be traversing more time relative to space, making you look like you’re moving slower (when considering only spatial dimensions). As you fall into a gravity well, spacetime curvature changes your geodesic such that you traverse more space relative to time, meaning your travel looks faster in the spatial dimensions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459?ijkey=c3677213eca8...

Eh, Stephenson likes puns. He did the same thing for Anathem, and I’d say that takes itself at least somewhat seriously.

Anyone else read Neal Stephenson’s Anathem? It drew heavily from Deutsch, so it’s not totally surprising, but this argument seems pretty close to “Did you read Anathem? Because Anathem.”

I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.

An excerpt from Anathem (Neal Stephenson, 2008):

"Early in the Reticulum — thousands of years ago — it became almost useless because it was cluttered with faulty, obsolete, or downright misleading information," [he] said. "... [Crap] — a technical term. So crap filtering became important. Businesses were built around it. Some of those businesses came up with a clever plan to make more money: they poisoned the well. They began to put crap on the Reticulum deliberately, forcing people to use their products to filter that crap back out. ... But it didn't really take off until the military got interested. ... Artificial Inanity systems of enormous sophistication and power were built ..."

I know this is a sensitive topic, but just for consideration: when I asked my wife this question, she answered, "Almost everyone." She thought that answer was so obvious it might be trying to lead people to that answer.

If you read the question with an open mind, I think any bias it has is up for debate.

Providing the combination to your safe seems like a closer analogy, and I believe it is protected from compulsion by the Fifth Amendment.

The "best" by which metric and whose evaluation? This is another way of asking, "Who are we going to forbid from determining for themselves these answers?"

In every economy, companies optimize for survival by "seeming" the best. The only part that changes is the audience to which it seems.