bluecalm

32 ms·

541.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Well if EU politicians think Apple's profits are excessive what about introducing laws to foster some competition? You can complain about other countries running circles around you all you want but at the end of the day if you can&#x27
542.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Man, Kraków is very car centric by any reasonable measure. There are huge multilane roads cutting through the city in all directions. There is zero enforcement on speed and pollution limits. It's very dangerous to move around if you&#x
543.
by bluecalm 2y ago
People naturally choose speeds according to how safe they feel not how safe it is for everyone else. If you have a residential area road which is straight and wide enough to go fast people will choose higher speed than on a narrow road. Th
544.
by bluecalm 2y ago
The problem is that people are naturally very bad drivers and are especially bad at judging what safe speed is. We already know it's hopeless to teach them so what is left are traffic calming measures, heavy handed enforcement and tech
545.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Bikes being too light and needing weight added to rich 6.8kg minimum is a tale of the past. With aero frames, disc brakes, deeper wheels and bigger cassettes most TdF bikes are way over the minimum, sometimes more than 1kg heavier.
546.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Like Spain when there are legal problems with testing on weekends.
547.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Pure carbs are better than fat and protein if you're about to start or are in the middle of long endurance effort.
548.
by bluecalm 2y ago
I see it the opposite way. Triathlon (and cycling time trialing) becomes very expensive if you want to be competitive because there is too little regulation. You can buy a lot of performance on a time trial or triathlon bike and I don'
549.
by bluecalm 2y ago
The same mindset that leads to calling bike commuters elitist apparently.
550.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Yup and it's not so easy to buy them, you need to get into a queue and wait. People with access shops/employee privileges (sometimes you can buy a watch out of the queue if someone doesn't show up to get theirs) are making a
551.
by bluecalm 2y ago
NVidia make those things for quite some time you know? They also have done heavy investments in software side and had total dominance there for years. It's not like your needed to know 10 years ago. >>TSMC Relatively low margins,
552.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Driving bigger cars which are often only bigger outside has very little utility or even negative one if you don't count pleasure people get from driving dangerously. Minivans beat SUVs in almost all use cases and are safer for others a
553.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Good summary. No idea why it gets downvoted. People want big cars for selfish and arm-race reasons. They don't pay for the consequences so it's rational as well. When it's rational to engage in an arm race we need regulation
554.
by bluecalm 2y ago
People want big cars and people want everyone else to pay for them. Build big parking spaces for free. Widen roads for free. Not cover costs of accidents or otherwise the insurance would be too much. Not pay for all the polluting either. It
555.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Yes, people in general are terrible at driving. Teaching them is hopeless that's why we need solutions that works. There are two right now: infrastructure that makes it hard and very inconvenient to go fast and heavy handed enforcement
556.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Yeah and more and more people are fat and die or get sick from air pollution. Truly a win for car based infrastructure. Your argument doesn't work because people are terrible at making good choices as individuals. Public enjoys smoking
557.
by bluecalm 2y ago
"Food companies are able to make profit implies that in the aggregate, people lose money on it, just as with gambling". The argument is simply incorrect. Insurance companies provide a service, not +EV (money wise) investment. Same
558.
by bluecalm 2y ago
I think you are simply wrong about your assumptions. If the system is semi-stable the total utility won't decrease that much. If it's not stable it will. I am not sure exactly what you are missing there but maybe that it's ex
559.
by bluecalm 2y ago
It's not like that at all. If you want to argue that one can't define value then I am out. If you admit "value" has well understood meaning then utility function of wealth is just how much value one can derive from it. W
560.
by bluecalm 2y ago
>>You haven't demonstrated most of these assertions. For example, if everyone gambled against everyone else every second, then that system has a pretty good chance of staying close to equilibrium for a long time >>whereas y
561.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Another example could be needing money for life saving expensive treatment for either yourself or a loved one. That's why I mentioned that "avoiding variance" in itself is not a good argument. You avoid it for a reason and th
562.
by bluecalm 2y ago
2$ per week for a few years is a day off work or a few stake dinners. You could definitely notice it if you wanted.
563.
by bluecalm 2y ago
But why is reducing variance desirable? It's exactly because there is utility of money function which is concave. Variance being undesirable comes from the shape of utility of money function.
564.
by bluecalm 2y ago
Utility of money is just how much value one (an individual or entity) can derive from having x amount of money. Utility and value might be defined by self referencing each other but that's true for many other concepts or words in a lan
565.
by bluecalm 2y ago
>>Insurance is invariably a "for profit" enterprise so the utility or return across all participants has to be lower than the value invested/paid. This is wrong and the reason you are confused about the argument. If ins
566.
by bluecalm 2y ago
It doesn't really matter much if you have a million dollars or a million dollar house (+/- liquidity of assets but this is not really important for the discussion). >>Gambling is seen as immoral because it's about exten
567.
by bluecalm 2y ago
>>Hm I don't follow. Could you please define "expected value in money terms" vs "expected value in utility of money terms" Imagine you have $10k to your name and flip a coin for $1k. Your expected value in mon
568.
by bluecalm 2y ago
This is very interesting, thank you! When I was implementing random shuffling I used xoroshiro128+ instead of Mersenne twister and felt pretty good about it but only because it was used for randomness needed for Monte Carlo simulations, not
569.
by bluecalm 2y ago
>>Having insurance is gambling, but not having insurance is also gambling. This is because life itself is a gamble. We don't know what the future holds and we have the choice to insure or gamble on just about any aspect of our li
570.
by bluecalm 2y ago
It's not about Kelly Criterion specifically but about utility of money in general. Kelly Criterion just solves for maximal utility assuming utility is logarithmic (big assumption often made for convenience).

More ›