deciplex

29 ms·

271.
by deciplex 10y ago
The Born rule isn't an interpretation it's a fundamental law derived from observation of how the probabilities work out. If you've got some interpretation of stuff that explains the Born rule I'd really like to hear abou
272.
by deciplex 10y ago
It's not clear what point you're trying to argue. Yes, the particle collision data constitutes a measurement in the sense that it is entangled with whatever medium the data is being stored on (and, in practice, a while lot else),
273.
by deciplex 10y ago
If you really want to understand quantum mechanics in an intuitive sense (i.e. enough to understand why it works, but not really enough to generate your own robust predictions at a very granular level) I recommend http://lesswr
274.
by deciplex 10y ago
I'm not sure trying to instill an "intuitive" sense of quantum mechanics by appealing to classical principles in this way is such a great idea. The example of entanglement given here implies that each system was a circle or a
275.
by deciplex 10y ago
It didn't help that when the buzz and hype was greatest for Google Plus they... didn't let people join Google Plus without a difficult-to-obtain invite. By the time they cut that out nobody gave a shit anymore. Turns out Cartman&#
276.
by deciplex 10y ago
> Sure, if everyone today had an extra guaranteed $1,000 every month, it would short-term be fantastic. But the economy would eventually adjust, as it always does. Rent would slide upwards, so would goods prices, etc, to the point where
277.
by deciplex 10y ago
> So instead of encouraging (or mandating?) young folks get trained or educated (or both!), we simply give them money for existing? I don't see how that solves the bigger issue. It solves the issue with minimum wage pointed out by
278.
by deciplex 10y ago
You're right. Minimum wage is a hack from a previous era. We should do away with it and replace it with basic income.
279.
by deciplex 10y ago
I don't disagree with you, but that's not what people usually mean when they say "supernatural" and this is what I was pointing out. Usually, it's taken to mean a bit of literally impossible nonsense that happens an
280.
by deciplex 10y ago
I meant in the sense of, why would I believe something for no reason at all? I'm not terribly interested in the advantages and rewards I gain by thinking a thing, other than the basic stuff that naturally comes with seeking and discove
281.
by deciplex 10y ago
Why would I do that?
282.
by deciplex 10y ago
I don't think you're necessarily contradicting maxlybbert, if the Federal Circuit only reversed the lower court on the question of the Java API in particular.
283.
by deciplex 10y ago
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you have a belief about how reality works, normally you would expect that belief to pay some dividend in terms of what you can expect to happen in this situation, or that. Otherwise you'
284.
by deciplex 10y ago
Interesting. Instead of looking for God in the gaps of our knowledge, you are defining God to be the gaps in our knowledge. I haven't heard that one before.
285.
by deciplex 10y ago
"I don't know," in other words. I mean, you must be able to imagine how your reasoning sounds to people who don't already believe in god, right?
286.
by deciplex 10y ago
Instead of drawing on a single example and claiming that the truth must be in the middle somewhere, try coming up with two examples, preferably contemporary if possible, one from the right and one from the left, one where the weight of the
287.
by deciplex 10y ago
It's too often this instead: Senate Committee on Candy: "Gum is a problem. Okay, life sentences for anyone caught chewing that evil stuff in public." The Public: "Well, the law's the law. If criminals don't wan
288.
by deciplex 10y ago
At this point I don't know what to tell you other than to re-read my post. I am clearly talking "ought" there, and not "is". This should be especially obvious considering I allocated a paragraph in my OP to explain
289.
by deciplex 10y ago
> So, to be clear, you think it's okay to ruin people's lives because one woman doesn't like them? I don't know how you could possibly take that away from my post unless you are being deliberately ignorant and selec
290.
by deciplex 10y ago
Good thing we're not talking about what some random person on the internet thinks, but rather a conclusion the university arrives at after a rigorous and hopefully well-defined process which still comes short of the burden of proof req
291.
by deciplex 10y ago
Those are all protected classes under the law, so it doesn't hold up. It's the "and is probably a rapist" (or more likely to be than the average student) (according to the university's tribunal) which is the importa
292.
by deciplex 10y ago
Yeah, I know. That's why I'm still sympathetic to the view. I would hope that we could still have the tribunals but treat their findings for what they are: the non-professional opinions of a few administrators, based mostly on inf
293.
by deciplex 10y ago
It wasn't long ago that I would have agreed with this article in full. I may have even posted here on HN to that effect before. I am still sympathetic to the point it makes. However: Universities boot people out for other reasons which
294.
by deciplex 10y ago
Okay so we had eight years of a conservative President who pretty much ran on the charitable self-definition of conservative you have there, i.e. so-called "compassionate conservative". Especially in the 2000 election that was the
295.
by deciplex 10y ago
I'm not sure who is more smug: Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow. But, I know which of them consistently punches up, and which one punches down, and that is far more important to me. As for the current state of political discourse I think
296.
by deciplex 10y ago
It follows well enough. The first part "glad this person isn't leading me" is a statement of personal preference based on the facts revealed in the article, and the second portion "they clearly don't care about thei
297.
by deciplex 10y ago
Why should you? Human culture seems to work better if you don't, for one, moreover property rights over something infinitely reproducible in principle, are a lot more tenuous than property rights based on physical possession. For the f
298.
by deciplex 10y ago
She had run out of money to pay people with, yet kept them in the dark about it and had them continue coming to work.
299.
by deciplex 10y ago
As an American I'll remind you that we have relatively recent experience with the latter type, and it mostly did not go well.
300.
by deciplex 11y ago
Nothing is outside our objective reality that I'm aware. You know when you're learning some new maths, or some other difficult abstract concept, and it just sort of "clicks" eventually and you understand, in whole and al

More ›