HN user
It's the fact that Facebook is hemorrhaging its best people as those on the inside finally start waking up to the fact that Zuckerberg's vision of Facebook as a good thing for the world was a lie.
I would say that if these people are the best, they it couldn't have taken them this long to figure out what's obvious to so many of no.
No, these are rats leaving the ship.
"Maths" is how you know it works.
Especially in fields like physics there are many limits that you can derive analytically. Some times those are highly non-trivial.
It's the most common one, that's why I put it first :D
Having been in the academia I can tell you that from my experience there's two main reasons why scientists are often reluctant to share their code:
A) embarassement at having other people see how bad it is. Not necessarily wrong, but bad in other ways.
B) wanting to keep an advantage by continuing to publish on top of the work already done, whereas anyone else wanting to get in on the same idea would have to first re-build the original work.
is a matter of considerable debate to say the least.
Correct. Ironically the person you're responding had an issue with the black and white claim that "socialism=communism" and wanted to add nuance, and did that by presenting a black and white claim that "the nazis were socialists", which is a claim that could use a lot more nuance.
I don't disagree from your overarching point, but just a nitpick:
I mostly disagree when you say that Nazis were socialists. Of those people who supported the Nazis, the vast majority did so in part because the Nazis marketed themselves to those people as socialists. On the other hand, Hitler marketed the Nazis to "the industrialists" as enemies of the communists: in Germany too communism and socialism was bundled together. So I would say it's more accurate that Nazism was a bunch of marketing ideas that Hitler et al used to grab power.
Now, you could say the same thing about the soviets, that their ideology was just a tool for grabbing power. They might have flipfloped on other topics, but I don't think they flipfloped on the specific topic of socialism.
"learning to trade" says almost nothing, as there are many different strategies that you could be learning. So what did you learn exactly? :-)
For our American friends, this is like finding that the Democrats screwed over Bernie Sanders during the election campaign. Sounds familiar?
There's a difference, which is that here Corbyn actually became the Labour party leader. However despite that he's still portrayed as an outsider by the establishment and the media.
In a city as large in London, obviously I don't literally mean zero bakeries. But they're not common.
I second both counts: No bakeries, and the bread is terrible anyway.
I live in London and never heard of "Paul".
Are you sure it's actually from the UK? In some countries appearing foreign is part of the branding strategy.
You're usage of Bitcoin, money, GDP, USD and currency is willynilly.
Your usage of the English language is wilynilly.
Does personally attack people get you somewhere in real live, I wonder?
I didn't personally attack you. I said you have added nothing. That comment has nothing to do with your personhood.
I think you don't know what a "personal attack" is. Or a "currency", for that matter.
You have added zero to this conversation.
If I may quote myself from 12 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17470247
It's not just the administration. Every time the EU has levied fines against Google a lot of Americans on HN claim that the EU is doing it because they're jealous of how successful American businesses are.
A) Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, that's just a discussion about labels. Call it whatever you want, my point still stands: the transfers are decentralized but the exchanges are centralized.
B) Even though my point does not depend on whether you're right or wrong, you're wrong. I have USD in my bank but I have to cash them out into GBP. So according to your "reasoning", USD is not a currency? Of course it is, you're just talking nonsense.
Currently using bitcoin for payments changes nothing. Yes, the transfer of "currency" are decentralized, but to cash it out (to pay for food, rent, etc) you still need to use exchanges which are centralized.
I second this, and I'll add that uMatrix allows you to block JS by default while giving you the versatility to manually whitelist domains.
That's exactly what I was trying to discover.
I love the idea because these days often a large chunk of the value comes from good comments from readers. Especially with HN but also to some degree with reddit.
Two questions:
First, will you tell us how it works? My guess is that you have scrapped these dicussions from reddit and HN and your extension contacts a server asking "show me reddit and HNs for this news". Is this correct?
Second, will you kindly stop contributing to Google's eco-system? Time and time again Google has shown the world the complete disregard they have for everything but their bottom line. By comparison Mozilla's behavior has been impeccable.
Damn, do I disliked Nassim Taleb. I don't think I've ever heard him say anything deep. That wikipedia article is an excellent.
In [0] you have the following:
The ludic fallacy, identified by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book The Black Swan, is "the misuse of games to model real-life situations."
And he gives an example of this:
One example given in the book is the following thought experiment. Two people are involved:
Dr. John who is regarded as a man of science and logical thinking
Fat Tony who is regarded as a man who lives by his wits
A third party asks them to "assume that a coin is fair, i.e., has an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when flipped. I flip it ninety-nine times and get heads each time. What are the odds of my getting tails on my next throw?"
Dr. John says that the odds are not affected by the previous outcomes so the odds must still be 50:50.
Fat Tony says that the odds of the coin coming up heads 99 times in a row are so low that the initial assumption that the coin had a 50:50 chance of coming up heads is most likely incorrect. "The coin gotta be loaded. It can't be a fair game."
The ludic fallacy here is to assume that in real life the rules from the purely hypothetical model (where Dr. John is correct) apply. Would a reasonable person bet on black on a roulette table that has come up red 99 times in a row (especially as the reward for a correct guess is so low when compared with the probable odds that the game is fixed)?
So Nassim Taleb wanted to discuss "using games to model real-life situations" and to demonstrate the pitfalls he uses two characters. He _portrays_ the characters as "man of logical thinking" vs "man who lives by his wits", but as we'll see he's missing one dimension to his characterization.
The first problem here is that implicitely he's suggesting to the reader that the decisions of the "man of logical thinking" represent the pitfalls of "applying games to model real-life situations", whereas the the other guy's decision represent.... it's not specified, but clearly has a better outcome.
The second problem, is that he conflates "applying something you read on some textbook to real life without thinking" with "modelling real-life". He suggests to the reader that those two people are actually "logical" vs "instinct", but they're not. They're a dumb guy who knows maths vs a smart guy who doesn't know math. _Obviously_ real-life is more complex than your textbook examples, and so the smart guy is going to win because his fuzzy heuristics beat the first guys decisions which are optimal within his flawed model. An actual smart and logical person would update his model based on new evidence (i.e. "I was told that this coin was 50-50 but actually the chance of what I just saw is so small that it's more likely that I was just lied to") and then use maths to make predictions and beat the guy who's smart but doesn't know math.
So ironically, he wants to portray the dangers of using over-simplified models and to do that he uses an example where he obscured one dimension.
Nassim Taleb is really good a rhetoric but light on substance.
Can't you put probabilities on that though? What you said is basically "impossible to predict, because one or the other might score more goals, so it's like coin flipping."
far too much can rely on a few events that are basically a coin flip
Can you give us some examples?
Hey, you seem to know a bit about the subject. What is the reason for the name "feedback systems"? (I understand a name is just a name, but the fact that I don't understand why that name was picked suggests to me that I'm missing something.)
EDIT: From that book: The term feedback refers to a situation in which two (or more) dynamical systems are connected together such that each system influences the other and their dynamics are thus strongly coupled." So.... the whole system is governed by a system of coupled differencial equations...? This is so broad it's almost meaningless.
That's the thing I was thinking about.
And yes, zero gravity, thank you.
I wonder what the flat-earthers think of the first video. They probably just call it fake news.
Regarding the second video, does anyone know why the limit of the atmosphere is visible?
This is a really really good post because the ideas used to solve this problem are applicable in almost every control theory problem which is one of those tools all good engineers should have in their backpocket because they're so versatile.
Still, at the time of writing all 10 previous comments are about plotly. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
EDIT: I also seem to remember that a couple of months ago there was a youtube video posted here on HN about a bycicle-like contraption that allowed you to simulate an environment of zero friction. The comments under that post quickly became a flame war on the subject of countersteering. To those people who might be reading this, I doubly encourage to read this post and make a good faith attempt to understand it.
Alternative: If you're on Firefox, this addon automatically adds "Facebook" to the referer so you can bypass the FT and WSJ paywalls
I read an account elsewhere that claims that they were transported strapped to stretchers the entire time, including underwater, and that furthermore they were sedated (but conscious) to reduce probability that they would panic while being carried underwater.
Trip of a lifetime.
Amazon does have an ad business, and has for some years now.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/amazon-ad-business-to-reach-5-...