Chinjut

26 ms·

331.
by Chinjut 6y ago
(6 * 52)! / (6! ^ 52)
332.
by Chinjut 6y ago
The ire is because they are saying this in a context where they are implicitly talking not just about their personal preferences, but furthermore about the opportunities that should or should not be made available to others. They are saying
333.
by Chinjut 6y ago
There's no way they're self-made. They may not have inherited it all, but you get rich, truly rich rich, only by having a bunch of other people do work for which you are paid.
334.
by Chinjut 6y ago
There's something horrific about running a society in such a way that the Just Another Faceless Junk Store on every corner is so worried about chasing growth that it decides to "hack its customers instead of treating them right&qu
335.
by Chinjut 7y ago
It perhaps rarely makes sense, but not 100% never. You might at some point in your life have a situation where you want to fold an operator with short-circuiting behavior left-associatedly over a list (thus, with later elements of the list
336.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Yeah, from their logo in the corner!!
337.
by Chinjut 7y ago
"It is proven that all the sequences of digits are present somewhere in these digits" This has never been proven for the digits of π. Of course, there are other digit-sequences for which it is trivially true. For example, just con
338.
by Chinjut 7y ago
The person you are responding to is saying, yes, "cosmetic stuff" might be far more important. So it's more important! Why have another dimension of assessment where we label it less important? Why not only have the dimension
339.
by Chinjut 7y ago
To save you a click, what @dang says in the first link is: Please don't copy/paste comments on HN. It lowers the signal/noise ratio and makes for pain when we go to merge duplicate threads. If you want to refer to something y
340.
by Chinjut 7y ago
There's no time-asymmetry in the statement "There's so many more higher entropy states than lower entropy states", so one can't deduce a time-asymmetric statement like "Entropy increases as time goes forwards&q
341.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Companies make all sorts of acquisitions, insightful or random. The acquisition of Echo Nest certainly isn't the reason for "the impact of Spotify on our culture". I assure you, Spotify's success was in its licensing a v
342.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Spotify's impact on our culture is "People like to stream music. Here is a service that lets them do so.". You didn't need the Media Lab to come up with that idea, and indeed, it didn't.
343.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Nobody's proposing you wouldn't be allowed to work; just that you wouldn't have to. If you want to go find a boss and be their employee, have at it.
344.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Ring theory in general was founded in large part via her work. I always find it funny that everyone only makes such a fuss about one physics conservation law/symmetry correspondence she observed (for physical theories that happen to be
345.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Minor correction: Gödel's incompleteness theorem dates to 1931, not 1944. That said, I agree that the later Russell's more popular writing has been given short shrift, and stands the test of time in many ways better than the earli
346.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Ah, ok, I understand this. Yes, as an alternative to other policies to make people's lives of mandatory toil better, I see the raw deal for some of doing nothing other than lowering retirement age. (Of course, I'm a "Why not
347.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Do you honestly believe Keynes' point with this pithy aphorism was that short-term plans are always superior to long-term plans? The fuller quote is "But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we a
348.
by Chinjut 7y ago
That's their choice. That's their life to do with as they wish. One can just as well "vegetate" as an employee to a boss; indeed, we know that the nature of the current work setup is such that many come home drained from
349.
by Chinjut 7y ago
How is a lowered retirement age a raw deal for people who die before they retire?
350.
by Chinjut 7y ago
The number of hours you volunteer to put into working for yourself is, frankly, completely irrelevant to the issue of hours demanded by a boss from their employees, who surely have things in their life they'd rather be doing with their
351.
by Chinjut 7y ago
IQ isn't real. You deserve better.
352.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Wow. You're correct. Absolutely incredible that this is the only comment actually responding to the article's content.
353.
by Chinjut 7y ago
This is correct. That said, the structure of full-time employment is also pretty bad for mental health. Our world is just overall structured poorly for mental health, and I say this not facetiously.
354.
by Chinjut 7y ago
I said tens of millions since you said it was a few cents for each subscriber, but one million dollars for every hour. (Perhaps I did not read that correctly?)
355.
by Chinjut 7y ago
I believe most controversies over how to structure our economy/society/etc are not between "possibility X" and "possibility Y which everyone considers as good as or better than possibility X", given that they a
356.
by Chinjut 7y ago
This trick would hit tens of millions of subscribers every hour? The number of subscribers and frequency of their calls required to achieve this in the 90s seems difficult.
357.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Pareto efficient is such a useless concept for any economic controversy; most real world decisions about how to structure society aren't between one Pareto efficient outcome and one non-Pareto efficient outcome, but between two Pareto
358.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Employees are pressured to agree to many things by their employers.
359.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Indeed, the very concept of asset ownership exists only by virtue of social recognition. We make up the rules that define ownership/property/wealth/etc, they are not handed down by God, and we could just as well define/d
360.
by Chinjut 7y ago
Suggests is not demands. If we discard the requirement to be an increasing function, one recursively defined solution takes f(3x + 1) = 3x + 2, f(3x + 2) = 3 * (3x + 1), and f(3x) = 3f(x), with f(0) = 0. Or analogously for any way of splitt

More ›