- > pays more
Definitely
> has less bullshit
Is there a Theranos equivalent in the world of math research? I'd argue "very different flavor of bullshit", but not necessarily less of it.
- As an undergrad I worked with a professor who was doing precisely that! https://sense-lab.github.io/pubs/pdf/solomon_nature_2006.pdf
I hadn't thought about this in a long time. Looks like her lab is still going strong doing research at the intersection of biology and robotics on whisker-based sensing:
- > Try the PBS Kids app
Great recommendation. Angela Collier has a recent piece on kids' television and PBS in particular that is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGyatqN63RZ4
- > Quarters can stay, for now.
I'd say just drop the second decimal place and have dimes and half-dollar coins.
- > I've been progressively exchanging
Is there a way for a small individual investor to "exchange" shares in stock without doing a "sell A + buy B" for which the sale of A is subject to capital gains tax?
Some cursory googling points me to "exchange funds", but those seem to be designed for accredited investors.
The advice I see for someone like me who wants to "re-balance" is just to change allocations for any new investments, but I'm wondering if there's an effective way to shift existing allocations without incurring a tax penalty...
- I've been reading them on my phone; the web interface is OK, but if you had an EPUB I would certainly prefer that. Thanks!
- I stumbled into this "tales" section:
https://little-book-of.github.io/maths/books/en-US/tales.htm...
I started reading it to my elementary-aged kids as a bedtime story! We're only on part 7/100, and I suspect we'll be too deep for them before long, but at least or now they're really enjoying it.
- I think the point is that this only works in the aggregate. Individuals in a group/organization/society can make small positive decisions that improve the likelihood that any individual in that same group will get "lucky".
There's a sort of "freeloader" problem, though, which is that the ones who get "lucky" don't themselves have to be making positive choices. In fact, being a selfish individual in a group of generous ones can be an easy way to get ahead - as long as you can get away with it without being noticed or punished.
- Human civilization feels so much more fragile to me since I realized how much we owe our technological progress to the accumulated effects of biological processes over geological timescales. Fossil fuels seem like the most obvious part of this story. If we had to start over "from scratch", would it even be possible? Or have we already so thoroughly exhausted the low-hanging energy stores that a second "industrial revolution" would be effectively impossible if our present civilization collapsed deeply enough?
I wasn't aware that concentrated stores of iron are also an important part of this story!
- Ever since I saw that episode I've felt like it's inevitable that something like this will become commonplace. If I had a product like this that actually worked as imagined, and the full data pipeline was under my complete control, I could think of a dozen reasons why I'd want to use it. If we take it for granted that this is coming whether we want it or not (and I'm not saying we necessarily must, but it's worth pondering)... is there a way to design the technology, and cultivate new social norms, such that we end up with something that's a net positive rather than a dystopian panopticon? I haven't been able to answer this for myself, at least not yet.
(Even setting the social repercussions aside, though, Zuck/Meta being involved is a dealbreaker for me.)
- This sounds like the premise for a fun sci-fi/horror move. Uh-oh; we accidentally trained GPT6 on the Necronomicon!
- Just wanted to point out - because I was curious as to why they would post a video about learning to surf - that this is NOT a NASA video. This is from the channel of someone named "Tom Sachs", who happens to be using the NASA logo as his youtube avatar image.
> These films are required viewing for Tom Sachs' studio. They comprise guides to studio practice and documentation of specific projects and installations. The movies represent aspects of the sculptures that exist in time. These films will enhance your experience with the work and are the prerequisite for any studio visit, employment application, or interview. Most were made in collaboration with Van and Casey Neistat.
- > Cold War era crowns scientists, engineers, policy wonks as aristocracy. Broadcasting elites as clergy legitimize the scientific consensus.
> Aristocracy (from Ancient Greek ἀριστοκρατίᾱ (aristokratíā) 'rule of the best'; from ἄριστος (áristos) 'best' and κράτος (krátos) 'power, strength') is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats. [1]
It seems plain to me that in no sense have "scientists, engineers, policy wonks" been the "privileged ruling class" in the USA.
Senators and presidents and the executives and board members of multinational corporations and other large institutions are the "elite ruling class" you're looking for, and they're not scientists and engineers and academics...
- Wow, thanks! I feel like this resource deserves its own HN discussion. Bookmarking this to explore later...
- I just want a simple/quick/easy way to scan all of the books in my house and print spine labels like the ones they use in a library.
Dewey decimal or Library of Congress or whatever. We just have too many books (mainly children's books) and I want an easy low-thought/low-friction way to identify exactly where each book should be put away.
Would this help with my problem? Is there already a solution for this?
> Most library management apps are either too basic or designed for institutional libraries with rigid workflows that don't fit personal use.
That what I concluded after a cursory search of this space as well.
- > Maybe if I could stomach giving a llama bot access to email and calendar etc etc to have a real personal assistant it would be an attractive offering in a world that accepts being watched 24/7 by AI/billionaire overlords
I share this general point of view but take it further: I really want something in this direction (a quality AI assistant that can access my communications and continuously see and hear what I do) but it MUST be local and fully controlled by me. I feel like Meta is getting closest to offering what I'm looking for but I would never in a million years trust them with any of my data.
My wife has the first-gen raybans and they're great for taking photos and video clips of e.g. our kids' sporting events and concerts, where what it's replacing is a phone held up above the crowd getting in the way of the moment. But even with that I feel icky uploading those things to Meta's servers.
- I find it neat that the simulation appears to "pulse" almost like a heartbeat, because so many of our activities are tied to the clock and state changes disproportionately occur on the hour or half-hour. It's especially noticeable when using the "fast" playback option.
How different this would have looked before the invention of mechanized timekeeping!
- > 1.1. Homework set #0: Diagnostic > This is a special problem set: Its main purpose is to give you an idea of what is to come in this course, and to give me an idea of your level of familiarity with certain things (including proof writing). Do not expect to solve all these problems
I love this, and I wish I had seen more regular calibration-type assessments in my own education.
> 1.2. Homework set #0B: Additional problems > The following problems are not solved in these notes; they shall be used for future homework sets.
Here's a set of problems that are representative of the prerequisite material, to give us both a sense of how well your foundations match what I'm assuming at the start of the course. And here's a second set of problems that represent the sort of things you can expect to be able to solve once you've completed this course.
What a beautiful way to start.
This must just indicate that the model used to value the building is wrong, right?
I'd think insofar the value of the building is tied to the rental price, that value should naturally be a function of the revenue that the building can be expected to generate, which in turn is be a function not only of the chosen rent price but the likelihood of someone renting at that price. Why would a building that offers its units at $N per unit but can only fill half of them at that price be worth more than the same building filling all of its units at $N/2 per unit?
I suppose there's some wiggle room to account for the relative uncertainty in those two cases. But fundamentally the rental price is a choice whereas the value of the building is (or ought to be) based on a combination of the qualities of the property itself and what the market is willing to bear.