modelic3

It certainly is. My original point still stands. Nothing is created out of nothing and quality of life is related to existence of various goods that are governed by physical and economic rules. So if some people have too much then others don't have enough.

Fuck this. Part of starting new things is to disrupt the status quo. At this point google is the status quo and they are not disrupting anything so the EtherPad guys are just douchebag sellouts.

Why is this posted? There is a link for the guidelines at the bottom so what's the point of making a post of it.

What about the choice of symbolic forms? It'd be cool if some of the data analysis suggests other possible blocks to use in the modelling process.

What the hell man? What's with the downvotes.

This is kinda cool but the pictures are the standard interpretations of what mathematicians imagine. I would have liked to see some non-standard approach with a bit more abstraction.

Does nobody learn about thermodynamics in school any more? It's not like an economic system is not susceptible to the same laws that govern any other physical system. If some people are living like kings then there must be others that are living like slaves.

Or it could be that all these women are just sick and tired of hearing and seeing skinny supermodels.

Studies like these are a joke. Everything in biology is give and take so measuring something without comparing it to some other marker is completely useless. When testosterone levels go up, invariably other things go down and it is much more useful to know how internal variables covary instead of just "oh look, fast cars means more testosterone" <- stupid.

This is interesting I would have suspected that exclusion would have resulted in a lower pain threshold and higher sensitivity.

This is just another drop in my bucket of suspicions about aspects of creativity and intelligence. Stress free and confident individuals tend to be more creative and intelligent than those that are constantly angry and stressed out.

I guess those kids with ADD were not problem kids after all.

You'd most likely converge onto some optimal creature and just stop at that point since the fitness function is fixed.

I'm not sure how feasible this would be or what you are technically thinking about. The whole thing with genetic programming is to have the population converge onto some optimal solution but in real biology this optimum is constantly moving around.

Good point.

I disagree with the implications of the article. I often laugh because the comedian makes me aware of my own self-contradictions.

Awesome.

True but anxiety tends to narrow focus and depending on what you are trying to accomplish it can either help or hurt.

Totally true. Anxiety saps all kinds of brain power.

True but then it's nothing more than individual choice.

The correlation could be the other way since most guys are used to seeing women with make-up.

The post doesn't mention which is which. Holy shit. What if I got it wrong? (Please don't be alarmed. I'm just being overly dramatic.)

I like the idea of being able to validate my own identity.

There is always a gap between formalism and intuition and sometimes quite interesting things happen between these gaps. The Banach-Tarski paradox is labeled a paradox because it says something about how geometry and topology are formalized in set theory. There are other formalizations of geometry and topology where such things are not possible.

Nice. I just dismissed the tuning aspect completely.

I don't get it. Isn't the whole point of online shopping to just click and be done with it? This just prolongs the process.

What happens when the novelty wears off?

The article mentions something about immune systems not developing properly but I'm sure there are better ways of exercising your immune system other than infecting yourself with parasites.

The rules of the market change quite infrequently and even your algorithms will be quite poor at predicting market panics and other changes that deviate drastically from the rules. Such predictions still require a holistic approach that only well trained humans are capable of. If you think I've helped make your case then good for you. I was simply trying to clarify my stance on the issue and at no point was I trying to be correct or incorrect.

I disagree. All learning and decision making is emotional. If it wasn't then computers would be quite good at it. I have yet to see a single digitial, rational decision maker that is as good at learning from mistakes as humans and other emotionally driven animals are.