mitthrowaway2

At least it's not {{Cite bridge graffiti}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quaternions

It's a pretty good idea, actually. But I wish they would do the easy response to rising summer temperatures first, by planting more shade trees.

There's a lot of great explanations here, but none that quite put it the way I'd think of it.

If we had primary color wavelengths that could stimulate each cone independently, then it would work just like you say, and we'd only need 3 of them. But because the cone spectra overlap, we don't have "orthogonal basis vectors" to work with. Our primary colors each excite a mix of cone responses.

But no problem right? As long as each primary color has a different response, we at least have linearly independent vectors, and any student of linear algebra knows you can mix those together to act as an orthogonal basis and get any desired excitation of the cones. Right?

And that would be true, except that linear algebra assumes you can freely add or subtract vector amplitudes, but with LEDs we can only generate light, we can't send a beam of "negative green". So we're constrained to the subset of colors where the basis vectors all have positive amplitudes. And that's the smaller color space that results.

I've heard of the radium girls a hundred times, but this is the first I've heard of the munitionettes.

If they really wanted to have an impact on data center construction, they'd sneakily spill some silicone oil in semiconductor fab cleanrooms.

The monopolist would probably not even make the good in the first place if they knew they'd have to sell it at the marginal cost, because they'd make zero profit and be underwater on all of their development costs.

Yes, especially for a durable good like a video game, having it now means having it now AND also having it later. It strictly dominates having it later, so I would be willing to pay more. Plus, there's utility in synchronizing with my friend group so we can play through together at the same time, discuss it without spoilers, play multiplayer while our skill levels are similar, etc. And that purchase timing will typically be set by the eagerest friend, rather than the stingiest.

So yeah. I do wait for deals sometimes but it would be silly to say that these two things have the same value in the eye of the consumer.

Addendum: The closest thing I can think of that matches the GP's description is conditional probabilities.

For example, if it rains tonight then I am 70% sure it will rain tomorrow too. I am also 80% sure it will rain tonight. And I am 100% sure that if it doesn't rain tonight, it also will not rain tomorrow. Then I can chain these together: The chance of rain tomorrow is P(Rain tomorrow) = P(Rain tomorrow | rain tonight) * P(Rain tonight) = 0.8*0.7 = 0.56.

You can assign conditional probabilites to the correctness of your model itself. Then the phrasing is more like "I am 70% confident that it will rain tomorrow, conditional on my understanding of meteorology being correct" and "I am 80% sure that I understand meteorology correctly". Then you also need to add in a term for P(Rain | not understanding correctly).

But again this seems like a TypeError.

If you're asking me for my forecast and my confidence in my forecast, I would say this:

Forecast: It will rain tomorrow. Confidence: 0.7

If you say "No no, I mean what is your confidence in the 0.7 number" then I have no idea what you're talking about. 0.7 is my confidence. It's not valid to attach a confidence to that number. When the next day comes, we simply find out whether it rains or does not rain, and whoever put the highest probability on the correct outcome wins.

If you're doing this with intermediate steps then I have to ask: where did the 0.7 probability come from as an intermediate step, and what is the epistemic meaning of the 0.8 attached to it? If you only felt 80% sure that you were 70% sure that it would rain tomorrow, then what is the proposition that you are 70% confident about?

No, what I'm saying is that 0.7 is the ending point of the calculation, and there is no 80% associated with it. The 0.7 number already factors in my uncertainty in all of my knowledge about whether it will rain tomorrow. Saying that you're 80% sure of your 0.7 probability forecast throws a TypeErrorException.

Attaching a number to it isn't so daunting, if you view that number as a reflection of your own subjective certainty as to the truth of the proposition. There's no other "correct" number to shoot for; in reality it was either an accident or it wasn't; Nature knows which proposition is true but we don't. Our mission is only to find the figure that minimizes the logarithm of our error, if the truth were at some point to be revealed to us. The more evidence you gather and the more work you put in will get you a better minimum, but there's no reason to be afraid of putting even a rough quantitative number on it before doing that legwork; you'd just be doing it from a state of higher uncertainty, and your stated probability would have to be farther from either confident extreme (0% or 100%) accordingly.

if you believe it will rain with probability 0.7 but you are 80% sure of your belief

What does this even mean...?

If I believe it will rain with probability 0.7, that 0.7 figure should already be taking into account the sum total of all of my uncertainty over all of my beliefs: my trust in the weather forecast, my past experience with the local area in this season, my certainty that the earth will continue to exist tomorrow.

Bayesians of course accept that their models can have errors, and if they're doing a good job they'll factor all of the most influential ones into the probability calculation itself.

The most extreme warming happens at the poles, doesn't it? Plus increases in volatility on top of a rising baseline, so more extreme heat wave peaks even in temperate climates that don't change as much on average.

I've replayed it hundreds of times. It's pretty fun. I got to the final boss but didn't win.

But you'll miss out on such priceless gems as "This is the story of the dairy frog, boiled by ever poorer ice creams."

Those drones are pretty noisy though.

Fine farmers for what? Without context I have no idea whether this is a reasonable use of satellite pictures or not.

I know lots of competent developers in Canada. Some better than any I have yet met in the Bay area. They know they could triple their income by moving to the US, but they have other attachments, priorities, and concerns.

Lots do move to the US too, but it's a filter for ambition, not competence. Don't confuse the two.

Remind me which of Palantir's models would it be competing with?

For the non-Americans in the room, is "America 250" anything other than the 250th anniversary of the war of independence?

How fast does it move? How's the latency?

Seems like this should be a net cost adder. Yet even new builds are quite affordable.

It was still very affordable in 2009 - 2014 when the yen was not weak.

Presently high housing prices are causing this; a lot more people would be living in SF today if there was more supply, which is equivalent to the high prices having kicked people out.

Do you have any policies in mind that could reduce the population without pricing people out? Maybe a Hukou system, or a right-to-reside lottery?

I hear this about every Chinese product from steel to LLMs, but it can't be possible to run every industry at a loss at the same time, especially not for a net-creditor nation. Which Chinese industries are running the surplus that subsidizes the rest?

If you're streaming the audio waveform, you can calculate the peak volume and adjust the gain.

Seems like there's a clear free-rider problem, the volunteers make the sacrifice and the non-volunteers reap the benefits.

Link to your GitHub? I'd love to play the version with your improvements!

This is like saying "an under-appreciated value of ordering from Amazon is that they deliver to your house".

He's also been a vocal advocate about copyright reform and against DRM, and his arguments are coherent and generally well-regarded among the tech crowd. In context, "giving away books for free" is a particularly strong form of putting his money where his mouth is.