alok-g

51 ms·

751.
by alok-g 5y ago
+1 With online commenting, comments show up even before they have read the whole document which partly defeats the purpose. Often the comments are already addressed later in the doc. With printed documents, the audience naturally brings th
752.
by alok-g 5y ago
Penrose's argument linking consciousness to Godel's theorems makes little sense to me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose–Lucas_argument Thanks for answering my question. I am guessing that neither book
753.
by alok-g 5y ago
If you are mathematically-inclined and are looking forward to understanding the proof itself, the book won't do much better than the following video [1] taken from a comment in this thread [2]. Disappointed, I attempted to read Godel&
754.
by alok-g 5y ago
Does either (claims to) explain the proof itself in it's full glory? I had read "Godel's Proof" by Ernest Nagel et al [1] and it fell short. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Gödels-Proof-Ernest-Nagel/dp&#
755.
by alok-g 5y ago
Does it explain the proof itself in it's full glory? I had read "Godel's Proof" by Ernest Nagel et al [1] and it fell short. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Gödels-Proof-Ernest-Nagel/dp/08147583...
756.
by alok-g 5y ago
Exactly! For the same reason, when someone uses halting problem to 'explain' why their program freezes, they are wrong. They are wrong on multiple counts actually. For pure mathematics, this stuff is relevant. For all practical
757.
by alok-g 5y ago
A good book as such. However, whereas the authors claim that they outline the proof in chapter 6, that chapter fell short of it with key aspects of the proof missing. Overall, I was disappointed.
758.
by alok-g 5y ago
I believe it is about quality vs. quantity. I have similar traits. People often tell me that I do not speak enough. However, whenever I do say something, people find it novel, valuable, insightful, and nearly always correct. Once people g
759.
Physicists measure the gravitational force between the smallest masses yet(scientificamerican.com)
134 points by alok-g 5y ago|43 comments
760.
by alok-g 5y ago
See also: Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
761.
by alok-g 5y ago
That explains it. I looked it up and it does indeed say that it impacts those cases more when both people are high earners. Thanks. :-)
762.
by alok-g 5y ago
Link: https://highland2.app/screenwriters.php Requires MacOS.
763.
by alok-g 5y ago
Moving sections around is doable in Microsoft Word too using Navigation Pane.
764.
by alok-g 5y ago
An interesting corollary: A software supporting file creation must also support deletion. A user can create a document in Microsoft Word and save it. Why can't they also delete it from within Word. If they have an open document, wh
765.
by alok-g 5y ago
I would like to see more details. :-) What you wrote is not my current understanding or observations.
766.
by alok-g 5y ago
Your broader points could very well be valid. I'll think some more. If there are some mathematical works showing what you have explained, I would like to read. :-)
767.
by alok-g 5y ago
Care to explain why? :-)
768.
by alok-g 5y ago
So no one ever retires?
769.
by alok-g 5y ago
I would like to have discussions even for "constant" tax. Wrote more in the comments below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27434369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27434819
770.
by alok-g 5y ago
I understand that. Such a proposal cannot be introduced on a given day and applied to all. It can only be a slow implementation done over say two generations. People would need to see it coming, take that into their understanding and calcu
771.
by alok-g 5y ago
>> The fundamental model behind progressive taxation is that the pain of paying taxes should be roughly the same regardless of income level. Good point. I'll think more on this. One thing though which makes this non-obvious: We
772.
by alok-g 5y ago
I understand the difficulty already. This is tricky, will involve caveats, and unless well-thought though, it would have easy means for people to evade. This certainly isn't something that I could frame by myself. :-) However, I fee
773.
by alok-g 5y ago
That's indeed a valid point, and I bet there would be instances of the same where the charitable contribution serves self-interests besides tax savings.
774.
by alok-g 5y ago
>> unless we're talking about some sort of progressive inheritance tax, it's not just about filthy rich people, but all of us. Agreed. It cannot be abrupt. There needs to be gradations and caveats*. >> why shouldn&#x
775.
by alok-g 5y ago
Your points are valid. I agree mostly. I was only answering HenryKissinger who missed both your and my points. >> The idea that a wealthy person has a 'better' idea of how to spend their money ... The word 'wealthy&#x
776.
by alok-g 5y ago
>> When you talk about opportunities, what do you specifically mean by that? I said some in another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27434550
777.
by alok-g 5y ago
Here's the motivation: To maximize social developments, we reward those who create value for the society. If someone, via their own efforts and without stealing/fraud, generate a lot of wealth, they would have invariably added va
778.
by alok-g 5y ago
>> In my opinion, do away with income and capital gains tax and have a pure consumption tax instead. Want a lavish lifestyle? Then you will pay higher taxes. I hold a similar view. Why should someone pay more taxes just because they
779.
by alok-g 5y ago
Unless the tax brackets go down, net taxes (spouses combined) should come to roughly the same thing.
780.
by alok-g 5y ago
My understanding is that donating to charity, which would ideally be for the good of the common public, is purposefully encouraged, and that is not fundamentally different than giving money to the governments as taxes. In other words, some

More ›