MarkusQ

32 ms·

691.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
> An argument against it is that there are clearly people driven by the desire for "more", with no visible upper bound. The real problem is that the distinction is meaningless. These people could just be described as "mi
692.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
<snark>It has been described as such every time it's tried.</snark> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Cybernetics
693.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
For all of the above, the answer is probably shaped something like this: https://250bpm.substack.com/p/accountability-sinks
694.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Except that Planet Labs annual revenue is almost twice that, and has been for a while. So it's likely not them. No idea who it would be though.
695.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
Site. Sorry, OCD. :)
696.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
I suspect what happened here (and possibly in other similar cases) is that some author glossed a body of work in a way that made sense in context, and others mistook it as a quotation. It's as if I remarked that Isaac Asimov said a lo
697.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
I dodn't think it's a quote; more a paraphrase of: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/marcus_tullius_cicero-orat...
698.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
What could possibly go wrong?
699.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
> the theory of the program as it exist in the minds of the development > team might not be fully available for reconstruction from just the > final code and docs As an obvious and specific source of examples, all the features they
700.
by MarkusQ 1y ago
No, it was used to argue that computers could pass the Turing test and still _not_ understand anything. It was a reducto intended to dispute exactly the claim you are ascribing to it, and argue _against_ "computers as being capable of
701.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
> The reviewers of Science were not and unless proven otherwise Science is a serious publication. Serious publication or not (which, BTW, is an instance of the Argument from Authority fallacy), they aren't immune to the problem of j
702.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
As other researchers have pointed out, genes for handling oxygen (and metabolic cycles in general) are often repurposed (with cycles even reversing direction over evolutionary time scales). So the lineages that apparently "used"
703.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
If you think _all_ of the Overton Window is "right of center" than you are surely miscallibrated (there's even a meme floating around that describes this exact conceptual error).
704.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
So wait, so you've decided a film by the director of An Inconvenient Truth, that was praised by everybody from Bill Gates to Oprah, has won awards and gotten a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes is "right wing propaganda"? You may want t
705.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
You could put it anywhere you like; our ability to forecast the future has been rubbish for thousands of years. Some of my favorites: 2019, 2000, 1992, 1969, 1928, 1900, mid 1700s, ~400 BCE, ~5000 BP, ~11000 BPE.
706.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
> The Singularity is a belief that you can extrapolate from history and current events That's exactly backwards; a singularity is a point past which you can't extrapolate, because trying to do so leads to absurdities (e.g. infi
707.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
They assume that people were only relocated from the areas later covered by water. It seems quite plausible that the actual area of relocation was somewhat larger than that subsequently covered by water, which could explain the results.
708.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
From TFA: This cast doubt on the long-established view that life was made possible when organisms started producing oxygen via photosynthesis, which requires sunlight, about 2.7 billion years ago. "Deep-sea discovery call
709.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
Every time I look into those I come away thinking that Occam's Razor would suggest a different explanation: the original characterization was, knowingly or not, incorrect. Patents so frequently fail to contain sufficient information t
710.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
When companies compete to hire top executives, the cost of hiring those executives goes up. Just like with athletes or musicians.
711.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
Ah. Thank you. I misread the thread.
712.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
My bad. Thank you for the correction.
713.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
The whole book is an argument against growth (cf the title). More specifically, all the models implicitly assume that rising costs will never reduce demand (and thus consumption), drive the search for alternatives, or make increased effici
714.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
The problem is that it's replacing (or attempting to, at least) an era of policy already led by ideology and cynicism, and all it's really adding is the contrarianism. Too many papers published in peer reviewed journals have turn
715.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
Not even wrong.
716.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
Sure they were. College has changed a lot, as has college enrollment; instead of the top 10%, colleges now take the top 40% or so, close to the fraction that graduated high school in the 1960s. Courses that used to be taught in high schoo
717.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
The price of houses will fall and the price of basic services, food, etc. will skyrocket as people flee the stagnant cities and core economic activity moves elsewhere. It will never go this far of course (zero actual workers is an asymptot
718.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
Because somebody needs to keep things running for the rest of us? Seriously, we need all the bright people we can get, working on the tough problems and solving them. And we need even more basically competent people educated to keep what w
719.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
Actually, it may just as likely be that the interviewer is looking to see if you over complicate things. So _ask_.
720.
by MarkusQ 2y ago
What exactly do you think they're marketing? And don't say launch services, 'cause you're using "it's a marketing stunt" to explain why they aren't taking payloads. "It's R&D" make

More ›