ckuehne

17 ms·

121.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Strictly speaking, it must give the _gene_ a reproductive advantage, not necessarily the animal. Often, these two advantages are aligned. But they need not be. This is the case in kin altruism. And this is also, why "promoting longevity bey
122.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Okay, compound nouns are probably not what you had in mind when you made your statement. But then again, your statement was pretty general. Regarding Fatzke: "zk" is not in one syllable either. At least not when I (or google) pronounce it.
123.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Fat zk e, Blit zk rieg, Hu pv erbot.
124.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Ahem, Germany is net payer into the European Union bugdet with an estimated net payment per capita of 1045 Euro ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#St... ).
125.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Thinking in meta levels.
126.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Not arguing for or against it because the whole thing seems way too muddled for me. But have you ever considered that the difference between your arguments (i) to (v) (with exception of (iii) maybe) is the intention of the humans involved
127.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Actually I think the Leibniz notation is confusing you a little (or at least you are using it very sloppy): you use dU(AW)/dW to denote the derivative of the chained functions as well as the derivative of the outer function applied to the i
128.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Maybe I am wrong. But how can dU(AW)/dW = A dU(AW)/dW be true? If you set z = dU(AW)/dW and substitute, then z = Az. This can only be true in trivial cases. Also if you apply ln(P) as utility function then the partial derivate for W yields
129.
by ckuehne 16y ago
O jeeze, I don't know where to begin with your calculation. First, if the utility function was "downward sloping" nobody would ever work. It's the marginal utility that is assumed to slope downwards (I assume you know this, because you late
130.
by ckuehne 16y ago
I think your reasoning is flawed both on a practical and on the philosophical level. Let me first tackle the philosophical level: First, you insist on the impractical notion that it is only the suffering that counts and must be reduced no m
131.
by ckuehne 16y ago
He has problems with the metric system though: "Extend left foot and shift weight 300 centimeters forward.". :)
132.
by ckuehne 16y ago
If it is the "forcing others" part that bothers you I can reassure you: you don't force anyone to live by procreating. Simply, because there is no one you could force. Before you were born (or conceived for that matter) you did not exist.
133.
by ckuehne 16y ago
The conclusion again being it would be best if no sentient being existed at all? Thought experiment: If you go outside right now with a gun in your hand and start asking random strangers "Would you like to die right now?" what do you think
134.
by ckuehne 16y ago
You realize of course that the logical conclusion of your argument is suicide.
135.
by ckuehne 16y ago
"Most reviews give a bell-shaped curve of star ratings;" Not true now [1] and not true back then [2]. [1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1134743 [2] http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/eclstabus/1670r.htm (Fig. 1)
136.
by ckuehne 16y ago
At the risk of being pedantic: quicksort has a worst-case runtime of O(n^2).
137.
Want to live longer? Cut the carbs!(dailymail.co.uk)
1 points by ckuehne 16y ago|2 comments
138.
by ckuehne 16y ago
The journal article as pdf http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
139.
by ckuehne 16y ago
I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth. It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal socia
140.
by ckuehne 16y ago
>You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. I am neither ignorin
141.
by ckuehne 16y ago
"There is a contradiction, because the argument in the article assumes the signalling of social standing is THE reason for the behavior." Yes, of course it is the (proximate) reason. That is the whole point of the article. It does not arg
142.
by ckuehne 16y ago
There's no contradiction to your argument. I innately enjoy looking at beautiful women and eat delicious food without (always) being aware that the ultimate cause for the enjoyment is increase in genetic fitness. Or more to the point: I inn
143.
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy(youarenotsosmart.com)
6 points by ckuehne 16y ago|1 comments
144.
The (Power Law) Mathematics of War(ted.com)
2 points by ckuehne 16y ago|0 comments
145.
Engineers: Right Wing Terror; Humanities: Left Wing Terror?(nytimes.com)
14 points by ckuehne 16y ago|1 comments
146.
by ckuehne 16y ago
My thoughts exactly. But then again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change .
147.
by ckuehne 16y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9n_V6XDrL8 . Couldn't resist.
148.
by ckuehne 16y ago
Crossfit never takes longer than 30 minutes. Some workouts can be as short as 3 minutes.
149.
by ckuehne 16y ago
FYI: Docs are fully integrated and appear for example together when moving through the list of autocomplete suggestions. Very similar to XCode's inline docs. Alternatively, you can press Ctrl and every function call, class definition and so
150.
by ckuehne 16y ago
An article that begins with "Researchers report that a spinal fluid test can be 100 percent accurate" does not shine a light too bright on the its author's head.

More ›