brlewis

33 ms·

361.
by brlewis 6y ago
I support resisting video, especially if the justices are shown while arguments are being presented. They should focus on listening, not thinking about how their facial expressions will be dissected on the Internet tomorrow.
362.
by brlewis 6y ago
Yes, that's an important distinction. At the same time, if VCs graded individual factors, those grades could themselves be rationalizations. For example, they want to meet a founder, and give high marks to the categories they think s
363.
by brlewis 6y ago
> It makes no sense to provide wisdom that clashes with other points Sometimes when there's a tradeoff to be made, it's best to present the opposing principles one at a time. Yes it's worthwhile to seek to go beyond being
364.
by brlewis 6y ago
>I recommend buying houses you can comfortably afford This is great advice. In addition to paying less mortgage, the more affordable house is likely smaller, costing less to heat and maintain. I'd be really interested to see a TCO
365.
by brlewis 6y ago
Answered in nearby comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014548
366.
by brlewis 6y ago
As I fully explained in a nearby comment, the logic in their Kern County anecdote is representative of their logic for California and New York statistics as well. I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation.
367.
by brlewis 6y ago
Thanks. 51 minutes is too long for me to watch. Anybody who knows of anything in there that addresses the sampling bias issue, please point me to how far in it is.
368.
by brlewis 6y ago
I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down, but I got the content of their arguments here: http://www.tathasta.com/2020/04/watch-er-doctors-urge-reopen... They use the same logic for Kern C
369.
by brlewis 6y ago
> That article makes inaccurate statements like, "basically hyped a bunch of data and weren’t transparent about their methods" which is not true. There were 100% transparent about where there information was from and how they w
370.
by brlewis 6y ago
Then in your system of math 0.999... is also less than 1. However, basic arithmetic taught to children requires that adding trailing zeros does not change the value of a number. You'll have a hard time doing arithmetic once you change
371.
by brlewis 6y ago
;) As someone fond of integers, I can't advocate base pi.
372.
by brlewis 6y ago
Internally I'm saying they're real numbers. In what I say to the person trying to intuit that 0.999... = 1, I'm deliberately avoiding talking about number systems. I'm assuming this person thinks of numbers as sequences
373.
by brlewis 6y ago
They don't have to know that it's a real number. Knowing that you never stop writing nines is sufficient to perform the calculation.
374.
by brlewis 6y ago
Apples and oranges. For any two different real numbers, there's a number between them. Integers work differently.
375.
by brlewis 6y ago
Yes, you're wasting your time if you compare my size to the size of an infinite universe. If you really want to waste your time that way, you don't want to use real numbers. On the real number line my size is exactly zero. You nee
376.
by brlewis 6y ago
They have to know that 0.999... means you never stop writing nines. Put 1.0 on top, 0.9 on the bottom. Start subtracting from left to right, and keep writing nines on the bottom as you go to the right. In no time you'll see that the an
377.
by brlewis 6y ago
Whatever base you use, it will only be useful for rationals. You can't use any base to significantly improve the representation of pi. In base 7, 3.1 would be a nice approximation, but you can't go beyond approximations.
378.
by brlewis 6y ago
If people don't accept the former, they can take out a pencil and paper to compute it themselves. After a few digits it will become obvious. I don't have a direct computation for making the latter obvious, just indirect ones like
379.
by brlewis 6y ago
Ok, now you're saying that infinite decimals have final digits.
380.
by brlewis 6y ago
You are stating that 0.999... = 1 proves that 1 - 0.999... equals zero. I am stating that 1 - 0.999... = 0.000... proves that 0.999... = 1. I think people intuitively see that infinitely zero equals zero.
381.
by brlewis 6y ago
You are correct. This was a rhetorical question to get traderjane to question whether "bigger than 0" really applies here.
382.
by brlewis 6y ago
Correct. This is covered in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Infinitesimals
383.
by brlewis 6y ago
You're repeating the same wrong thing you said earlier. It's 0.999... and not 0.999...0 In the same way, it's 0.000... and not 0.000...1.
384.
by brlewis 6y ago
I don't think it's a real number, but if it was this would be yet another intuitive proof that 0.999... = 1.
385.
by brlewis 6y ago
There are programming languages with rational number types, but none that I know of that represent numbers as repeating decimals.
386.
by brlewis 6y ago
There is no infinitely small number between 0.999... and 1. The difference is 0.000... Not infinitely small, but infinitely zero.
387.
by brlewis 6y ago
No, there's no 1. 2OEH8eoCRo0 is exactly right. Subtract 0.999... from 1 and you get 0.000...
388.
by brlewis 6y ago
Why is 0.000... bigger than 0?
389.
by brlewis 6y ago
Noticing the time when you posted your comment -- how big is the TypeScript team, and how many time zones does it cross?
390.
by brlewis 6y ago
> since the middle of the 90s it switched to programming against an API Yes, people always seek out libraries rather than using what's built into the language. Browser JavaScript would be a lot more efficient if people took a more S

More ›