grepherder

9 ms·

31.
by grepherder 15y ago
I know Daron Acemoglu as a prolific academic, and he has some good ideas but I don't buy the general idea he has established here. As pointed out by others I find it to be serving democratic propaganda rather than any rational train of thou
32.
by grepherder 15y ago
Either I'm misunderstanding your ideas or you've misunderstood the nature of the problem. If you're being pragmatic, rest assured that for any machine/program we can construct in this universe, we can decide the halting problem, as it is bo
33.
by grepherder 15y ago
Well, that paragraph you quoted is indeed non-sequitur, clearly you can program computers to discover unexpected truths using their 'axioms', code their 'axioms' to be as flexible and fragile as ours and so on, but the assertion that the na
34.
by grepherder 15y ago
I skimmed over the comments, and I'm surprised to see no mention of it here. Maybe I missed it. The house always wins, and they still won. This is, for each of them at just a few million, very cheap advertising. Consider how poker/holdem wa
35.
by grepherder 15y ago
Recognizing mortality is not the cure to existentialism. Recognizing mortality _is_ existentialism.
36.
by grepherder 15y ago
> The post does not address the main criticism in the video, which is that the body scanner does not actually help with security. I think it is the majority here that fell for the causation-correlation fallacy. Just because you can chea
37.
by grepherder 15y ago
I understand that. The point is there are very few (if any) single security layers, physical or digital, that can claim otherwise, i.e. that can't be "fooled 100% in a well defined flow". People here should be aware of that more than most.
38.
by grepherder 15y ago
OK, I will play the devil's advocate. Yes, he does not deny or dispute whether the method works as claimed. The otherwise hip language is not helping nor does it sound sincere, I agree. But, if we want to stay objective: 1) He describes the