dkural

45 ms·

451.
by dkural 11y ago
Yet they seem to be wealthier and healthier than the poor folk voting against their interests in the middle of the country.
452.
by dkural 11y ago
Removing artificial restrictions on a free market system will increase overall productivity. It will certainly increase global GDP to remove barriers to free movement of people. Imagine that people could NOT move between various states in t
453.
by dkural 11y ago
You should do it and see if you have any original ideas others find truly interesting. It's hard to have genuinely new things to say. I think its fine to build, it's fine to think and share, and it's fine to do both. Why so m
454.
by dkural 11y ago
My opinion is based on his writings and talks, available on his personal homepage worrydream.com ~ he has prototyped a number of his ideas as interactive webpages, responsive development environments, demos as part of his talks etc. The gen
455.
by dkural 11y ago
I think Bret Victor is a living genius. So much of what is designed today implicitly accepts the layers of nonsense imposed on us as "the way to do things", convinced that nothing better is possible. It is somehow hard to see when
456.
by dkural 11y ago
This is what Wolfram says to their engineers who question it. Wolfram / Mathematica has been around for a while. What's the long-term idea? What exactly will it do better than some other tool in that category? You can't reach
457.
by dkural 11y ago
Wolfram is the ultimate company failing in product thinking. For decades they yell "You can do anything with this!", but fail to identify, specifically, one thing it does better than other products that are designed to specificall
458.
by dkural 11y ago
This MIT Tech Review article is based on only a single, non-peer-reviewed preprint, with missing figures, written by non-experts. The preprint presents a "theory" with no data to support it. I guess it would take real work to do r
459.
by dkural 11y ago
I did read the entire post. Isomorphisms and homomorphisms between groups also obey associativity, identity, can be composed etc - but there is no point to talking about the 'category of groups', as opposed to, simply, Group theor
460.
by dkural 11y ago
The ironic thing about this post is, no actual category theory is used. Defining functions and functional composition laws is done (and is a perfectly natural thing to do), at the beginning of any undergrad math class. The definition of fun
461.
Why was the programmer's code incomprehensible?(reddit.com)
2 points by dkural 11y ago|0 comments
462.
by dkural 11y ago
I don't get the point of the title. 4 pages + a PhD in math is needed.. lol. Here's even a shorter summary: Wiles proved a special case of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, ie establishing that for every rational elliptic curve the
463.
by dkural 11y ago
You're quoting out of context. The "she" in the quote is not Ms. King, which is very clear in the article.
464.
by dkural 11y ago
Yau is wrong. Perelman proved it just fine. Hamilton made the plan of attack. Perelman executed it. Mere mortals could finally follow the argument, Yau & his students transparently tried to steal credit from a man who doesn't care
465.
by dkural 11y ago
This is a result in logic, a branch of mathematics. Logic, as practiced inside mathematics, is far more advanced than what's practiced inside philosophy departments. Something like more than 95% logic professors inside philosophy depar
466.
by dkural 11y ago
Btw this is a big reason why drugs are more expensive in the US vs other countries: US Doctors essentially demand bribes in the form of CME-credit holidays, post-FDA fake clinical trials as a kick-back, lucrative consulting and speaking gig
467.
by dkural 11y ago
I felt like a major point of the article was that it didn't consider being available on facebook/instagram/twitter as being present, since you're likely doing something else - you actually being with someone physically i
468.
by dkural 11y ago
Well, if something is genuinely "useful", the people who find it useful are generally willing to pay for it; unless they choose to spend their resources on something that they deem even more useful. Thus in general I think things
469.
by dkural 11y ago
It's a feel good story but the path do a drug is anything but linear like this portrays. The vast majority of compounds, even when there is a molecule targeting it; fail in Phase I, II, or III trials; or fail to improve upon existing t
470.
Categorification of Fourier Theory(youtube.com)
2 points by dkural 11y ago|0 comments
471.
by dkural 11y ago
but they'd know they didn't make 201M - and conceptually that them buying and selling that house doesn't value them like a 201M revenue publicly traded company with billions in market cap. Founders know exactly what they&#x27
472.
by dkural 11y ago
What a great comment. People who don't understand this fact will be surprised when decriminalizing drugs won't halve the prison population. The author'd like to fix the problem of mass incarceration, and correctly points out
473.
by dkural 11y ago
I agree with you.
474.
by dkural 11y ago
By the way I 100% agree pendulum is too far towards capitalists. I just want to disabuse folks of the illusion that companies will willingly swing the pendulum / have the best interest of the employee in mind. It's like asking the
475.
by dkural 11y ago
Of course I "admit" it - my whole point in the above post is, the first step in gaining "work-life" balance is understanding that the company will never do it as a matter of principle. It will only do it tactically insof
476.
by dkural 11y ago
Of course it sucks for the employees! You're right that it's a meaningless life that way. But the fallacy is that it's somehow up to the "world" to fix that - Many people have this feeling that it "should"
477.
by dkural 11y ago
Most businessmen will say nice stuff like this to create employee buy-in. Most capitalists in reality think the following: If you take care of labor, they'll over time feel entitled to be taken care of, and demand more & more. If y
478.
by dkural 11y ago
A company is the property of its shareholders. Like your house is your property. As long as you follow the law, you can do whatever you'd like with it - in that sense, it exists for your benefit. You have no obligation to buy new chair
479.
by dkural 11y ago
People seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a company is. It exists for the benefit of its shareholders, and secondarily, customers. It will take whatever actions necessary towards achieving this. It'll accrue benefits to the empl
480.
by dkural 11y ago
A materialist rejects "consciousness" as a fruitful term, observing that it often leads to confusion and non-sequiturs, as contradictions often do. The paper itself shows how certain definitions of consciousness would have these o

More ›