sumitviii

For example, GDP includes money spent for renting an apartment, although no goods are produced in this case.

Because it measures all the goods and services produced in a country over the course of an year.

I know of a way to inflate it as much you want, but I don't think I will ever be in a position to use it.

It could be convincingly argued

Go on. Argue that please.

In fact, the current CEO of Unity (One of the most popular game engine) said that anyone who's not baking monetization into their games right from the start is "f*king idiot".

There is no point in arguing against American government's actions on a forum almost completely populated by Americans.

and using a competitor is suicide because your content will never get any traction

You can post on multiple platforms, you know. Content creators aren't stupid. They post on whichever platform is buzzing. It's their day job and the most popular ones know what they are doing than any of us.

I wish I could upvote it 10 times.

No one is stopping these nostalgic folks. Those older techs aren't banned. They have just lost their war for network effect.

The first thing Aeneas eats as soon as he lands on the beach is also pizza!

Maybe the show tries to say that winning leads to slacking off?

dons tinfoil hat

Maybe because the FR industry is the one that's delivering those death threats?

By out there I don't mean in the physical world, I mean in the world of possibility.

Maybe its like a going-under for them as a civilization?

And might soon be able to design life! Present FTW!!!

but that might not temper a mindset as mathematically conducive as notions of "completion and balancing".

Or maybe what would be considered a mathematically conducive mindset is determined by whose mathematical tradition we are following? Maybe there exists a mathematical mindset out there where "domination and sacrificing" are the requirement for conductivity of ideas?

Or maybe its far too soon for us to say if the West (or the Greeks who you guys almost worship as a culture) has produced more than 1 or 2 great mathematicians?

Maybe the peoples of the future will only consider one particular mathematician as the relevant one? Maybe like Turing, because most likely computers will become a greater part of the world at large? Maybe we see programmers the way people used to see scribes some time back?

Imagine seeds that grow into a house. This is dream stuff!

while being almost incapable of any physicality

Only for the later (even if major) part of his life. One could argue that the physicality he was capable of in the earlier stage of his life helped him gain a solid understanding of physics on our level.

But there is a better argument to be made: Modern Physics is an entirely different beast. To understand the underlying reality you have to be, in one sense of the word, be detached from the reality. And being paralyzed can be said to be one of the many things that let him have experiences unlike that of any almost any other human being. His earlier life let him have a solid footing on the dynamics of our level, and his later life allowed him to depart from it, in a direction in which he was propelled by his intellect.

I would argue that if Stephen Hawking was a sports instructor (or even a programmer for a sport software), his lack of physicality would have worked against him. But if you showed me someone with a severe physical disability who writes great code for sport software, I would revert to my first argument.

(I just explain what's in front of me! :P)

Kurzweilanism=Gavinism

>We have some vague models of it ("the brain is like a computer and the mind is like a program running on it")

I agree with the thrust of your argument, but this itself is wrong. When the Europeans were figuring out complex gears and stuff, they thought that the brain is like a complex cog machine (that was when they thought that mind was different, I think). When fluid dynamics became the craze, they started comparing, brain to a machine that manipulates some fluid.

The truth is that we don't even have a model for it.

Its because in real conversations, you talk to 1-2 other people and not a million. If a lot of people are discussing something (as they do in parliaments) people have a way of upvoting (by banging tables) or downvoting (booing) others.

I think OP was talking about jobs at Instagram for dogpoop of Chihuahua.

Nietzsche's concept of solitude has freedom. If you feel like you are going insane, you can talk to real people. You can read books.

ThomPete is talking about categories as silos probably. Just like most people come to HN for mostly startups and programming, but stay for nautil.us too. And serenpidity here is refreshing.

His idea makes sense.

How do you think Newton would have reacted if someone said "Pentaquark" in front of him? Think he would have understood when just the word was said? Musk is talking about Newton getting all of modern physics when all he has heard is two undergrads chat on Hacker News.

...but are people actually going to go for it? I don't know

~..death would take care of people who didn't know how to type..~ - Steve Jobs

I was going to make logingone's argument but here's a better one:

All maths done till ~1600 AD could have been done in 50 years, if you see it from perspective of a civilization which has a stable existence. And forgetting all abstractions, stability of surrounding civilizations is basically a random phenomenon.

And I'm sure maths done in physics departments is beyond understanding of 80% people outside it, let alone any civilization which started 400 years before us.

Psychopathy, in the current context, is a clinical term for a condition. Its not a state.

Internet is like a loud speaker. Just because some people can use it to communicate some profanities doesn't mean that it should be banned.

987654321 / 123456789 = 8

FTFY

money spent on the Mars orbiter was just an exercise in national pride

When start-ups compete against big corporations, do they try to follow corporate crap and other slow things? The advantage of being second is that you can learn from those ahead of you.

Although I agree that at least basic sanitation is more important than this, but this is not the case in general. In general, we need to invest in next generation technologies and advancements. Only then can we create income sources which dwarf all coming from the advancements of rest of the world.

This argument is just like the one used against Mars program. In competitions, asymmetrical developments are often better than symmetrical ones.

We can build more toilets (aren't we already?) or we can educate next generation to aspire to do something great.