yt-sdb

I appreciate the point being made---that we're too reductive in how we view a healthy human body---but calling Patrick Mahomes "one of the greatest athletes on planet earth" is laughable. He's more healthy than many adults, but he's no means an outlier amongst _athletes_. Compare that claim to this header [1] by Cristiano Ronaldo. He jumped 2.6 meters, at pace, perfectly timed, to score a goal, in his mid-30s.

And more generally, I would take almost no health advice from American footballers, many (most?) of whom will go into old age with ailments and injuries due how they treated their bodies.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMZ1O6uFdAE

Fun fact: Finland is typically not considered part of Scandinavia. I was told this flatly by a Finn.

Are you sure? Compare before/after for the main affected regions (Holland Tunnel, Queensboro) versus the unaffected regions. We definitely need more data, but I think there's an immediate reduction in the obvious places.

$19 million for 50 staff. That's $338k/head on average.

How did you compute this? 19/5 is 3.8

"Before" and "after" are generic terms. A car might stop before the crosswalk (space). You might eat dinner after work (time). But "ex ante" and "ex post" specify a relationship to an (random) event or to specific information. For example, a data scientist might compute a quantity "ex ante". This means that the quantity was estimated using only forecast data. No historical data was used. It would not make sense, however, to say that a car stops ex ante the crosswalk.

I could have easily said "afterwards" and "beforehand", but I like "ex post" and "ex ante" when referring to before/after having access to specific information.

I worked from the top of this page [1] downwards and ended after algebra 2.

[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/math

I don't think so. My problem was that I had a weak grasp of many basics concepts, and more critically I did not know in which areas I was weak. So while it's easy ex post to say "I could skip such and such section", it would have been impossible to make this judgment ex ante.

And in fact, I think a failure mode many people make is trying to predict which things they already know and then skipping those. This allows for blind spots to persist.

I suppose the one way to skip things correctly would be to have a coach. But that comes at a new cost ($), but maybe that works for some people.

Maybe 5 years ago, I was in a similar place. I had a particularly embarrassing moment at work when it clicked that I just... didn't know the basics. I was, to use an overused term, "mathematically immature".

So I made a commitment: I decided I would work through Khan Academy math for 1-hour a day for 1 year. I started with pre-K [1] (specifically counting) and watched every video and did every single exercise in order. I focused on mastery. I didn't rush myself, and I did not continue until I felt completely confident in the material. I just did this for a year. I think I go through roughly algebra 2. In my mind, it is critical to combine explicit knowledge (watch videos) with tactic knowledge [2] (do exercises). For example, you need to understand what a logarithm is conceptually but you also just need to do problems to get a feel for it. So this is fundamentally different than learning-by-grazing or just reading a book.

I could go on and on, but let me just say that it changed my relationship to math in a deep way.

[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/math/k-8-grades [2] https://commoncog.com/tacit-knowledge-is-a-real-thing/

My favorite quote on the meaning of life, from Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning":

For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment. To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion: "Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?" There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one's opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it.

Can I make a suggestion? Most people in this thread will think you are wrong about the Cayman Islands. In this context, your comment, "Caymans is just a better jurisdiction," is provocative. You also claim you can think of 24 things that are better. Fine. But then this rambling comment with jargon and the all-too-common implication to "do your own research" is, from a rhetorical perspective, not persuasive. I'd be genuinely curious to hear a more detailed, layman-oriented answer.

From the guidelines [1]:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Isn’t this analogy wrong? The question implied is: if shoplifting were legal and if some people shoplifted to feed hungry babies, should we make shoplifting illegal?

Well, I have lots of friends and interactions outside of work, but I still prefer going into the office.

Personally, I think what makes people happy is a multidimensional surface with lots of peaks and valleys. Univariate explanations are reductive.

I figured people were going to take issue with the opening anecdote about art, but that was simply the author trying to frame the story in an interesting way. The rest of the article was more compelling.

I don't disagree, but this is simply bad rhetoric. Don't start with an incorrect/misleading/confusing example, and then expect readers to stick with you for the more compelling stuff.

Do you have a TLDR for that article? It's pretty long and wordy.

That's quite the either/or.

In case it's also not clear to others: "high", "moderate", and "low" refer to utility in learning.

What? 30 * 4 * 3 = 360.

So someone could buy a coffee every weekday for 10-20 months before equaling this one capital expense, and that’s your argument for why wage workers shouldn’t consider it expensive?

I asked ChatGPT to improve your comment by making it "more thoughtful and less insulting":

It's understandable that some people might not fully appreciate the complexity of ChatGPT's language prediction abilities. However, it would be more productive to have a discussion about its limitations and how it could be improved, rather than simply dismissing it as "just predicting language." Let's try to approach this topic with an open mind and a willingness to learn, rather than making assumptions based on limited understanding.

I think a massive mistake I keep seeing people make is assuming that ChatGPT is a peak rather than a checkpoint at the bottom of the mountain.

I fully agree. The AlexNet paper was what, 2012? So in a decade, we've gone from "neural networks aren't useful" to self-driving cars, Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, ... None of these tools is perfect yet, but to stress that point is to miss looming mountain.

I don't understand your complaint. Consider this fact:

There is less snow in the lowlands. In parts of the Oslo wildlands, the skiing season has become nearly 40 days shorter.

So we have an observable, measurable, falsifiable fact. It correlates or trends with global mean temperature changes. We have a mechanism of action. We have an arrow of causality, based on established scientific observations and experiments going back decades. I'm not sure what else you want.

You mention lack of citations, but they do have citations. For example, the browning water section clearly links to this paper [1]. That paper looks at data going back three decades and emphasizes (in the title, no less) the very arrow of causality you want.

"Correlation is not causation" is a weird, toothless complaint here. They're not plotting fedoras on the x-axis and global mean temperature on the y-axis.

I'm worried that this kind of Hacker News comment only helps climate-change deniers.

[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00396

Let's say I start an exchange to trade magic beans. The beans are worthless, but lots of people like trading them. In my terms of service, I say I won't use user funds for anything else and won't rehypothecate user beans if posted as collateral. I claim to make money off fees. Then I do both, lose all the money, and people lose billions of dollars---which they realize when they ask for their money back. You may think magic bean trading is dumb. You may think the people trading them are dumb. But what I did would still be a crime, and calling it a crime doesn't necessarily mean you're delusion about beans.

Put differently, it sounds like you think people who put money into FTX are dumb. Fine. But the law still protects dumb people, as it should.

"Made him out to be"? SBF is actually pretty smart. He's repeatedly demonstrated a high level of mental quickness and numeracy that is common to traders, e.g. doing Fermi approximations during live interviews. And plenty of professors' kids don't get into MIT and then Jane Street. He was privileged, sure, but he's got the raw goods, too. Which is one of many why reasons I don't buy his claims that the root problem was just "risk management". No, he just committed fraud.

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_explanatory_depth

“A room of one’s own” by Virginia Woolf is a great book about this topic. Financial freedom proceeds creative thinking.

If you don't want to watch a 1-hour YouTube video, [1] is a web page with the main arguments.

[1] https://gordongoner.com/

Many cyclists die every year, typically in collisions involving motor vehicles. It goes without saying that very few drivers are killed in those collisions. The risks are widely asymmetric. So if we want to talk about the worst of a group, I'd encourage you to spend five minutes on r/idiotsincars. Compare anything in that subreddit with your example here: you have drive more slowly than you'd like in a situation where you acknowledge the other person has equal rights?

Also, wow at this:

I don't see your side of the story, and probably never will unless I kill one of you.

For anyone else reading this, hundreds of wipeouts is many standard deviations away from the mean. As a point of comparison, I've been biking for 10+ years and bike commuting for ~5 of those. I've had exactly one wipeout, the first time I wore clip in shoes.

A few years ago, I went to a public interview/chat with Rainer Weiss in NYC. He described years of work in which the LIGO team found inventive ways to make their systems more precise. They just kept knocking down orders-of-magnitude. Still, after taking new measurements, they found nothing. No gravitational waves. Then the interviewer asked him if he was discouraged at this point in his career. I loved his response. He said, "No, it was a more meaningful zero."

The person you're replying to already has answered this question in a post you've already replied to. But to be explicit, consider the first sentence of the follow up post [1]:

Now that you know what right-half-plane zeros are, in this article I'm going to begin a deep-dive into a control-systems-based analysis of a certain feedback system that is drawing particular public attention today: inflation.

In my mind, this is explicitly drawing a connection between the author's engineering background, particularly in control theory, and the current topic, inflation. To be clear, it would be fine if the author wanted to make a _mathematical_ connection between control theory and inflation. However, since the author does not explain right-half-plane zeros with any meaningful technical detail, the rhetorical effect is an appeal: "just trust me on this." Then the author switches topics _and explicitly connects the two topics_. I cannot speak for the person you're replying to, but this rhetoric is what bothers me.

[1] https://jbconsulting.substack.com/p/on-shelter-futures-part-...

EDIT: Looks like VogonPoetry already replied while I was typing this up.