jevgeni

70 ms·

1. 781.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   A part of me loves and a part of me hates the author. 10/10 would lithp again.
2. 782.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   So, why should I chose energy as a defining factor of global growth and not labour, or other resources?
3. 783.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   That is not what this is about. I have a problem when physical models are naively applied to economic models, i.e. "let's assume global supply is a liquid with variable viscosity" and the whole econophysics approach. The arti
4. 784.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   In Boolean terms yes. However, a software engineer who writes a hello world program in an hour and a software engineer who writes a ML based high frequency trading algorithm in an hour produce vastly different outputs, but consume the same
5. 785.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   But then you can't make a statement that the growth is bounded, unless you assume that "everything else" is bounded as well. And that's a hefty assumption. I've understood the energy argument as central to the artic
6. 786.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   Well, I find it difficult to imagine, what laws of nature would apply to economics? The best and most resilient example I know is the Black-Scholes equation - a framework to model option prices - based on a heat diffusion equation. Thing is
7. 787.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   Oh, thanks. :)
8. 788.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   I'm always a bit weary, when people rely on physics or rigid math to derive economic conclusions. In this case the author assumes causation between energy production/consumption and economic growth. The conclusion being that sin
9. 789.▲
   by jevgeni 11y ago

   > That said, I do agree that economics is taken way too seriously for its incipient state. I think this is the most spot on statement on economics I've read.
10. 790.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    Shhhhh , that would require to actually be familiar with it.
11. 791.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    This is just a train wreck of misinformation. First of all, not a lot of people actually use academic economic theories to "play the markets". Ask a trader how often does (s)he use the General Theory or monetarism in their daily d
12. 792.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    I'm sorry, but I don't want to debate your personal definition of the word "science". Per convention economics is called a "social science" and that's a convention I will adhere to. In addition to what Jup
13. 793.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    Well, I studied economics and this is where my economic-style view of the world comes from. :) Yes, it's quite a pessimistic view of things, I agree. I speak mostly from personal, anecdotal experience. That may of course vary.
14. 794.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    It is safe to say, that the economic theory a person subscribes to is highly related to their income. Unless, of course, you're a politician, in which case it is related to vote count.
15. 795.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    Exactly. I'm also doubtful that taking a more real science approach to economics (hypothesis -> experiment -> result -> rule) will work. It's a science about societies and societies change. For example, the financial mark
16. 796.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    Yes, the phrase you provided will pose no problem for me. Yes, I guess this is where the evidence on both sides need to come in: whether it's just semantics or not. And I still think that such flagrant generalizations are harmful. We h
17. 797.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    > Please use Google Chrome :) I don't care then.
18. 798.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    Thank you for that factoid. I actually forgot about this. :)
19. 799.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    Or Multiple Sclerosis.
20. 800.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    I'm reading "if" as "lf"...
21. 801.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    It's like talking to an undergrad who just read Witgenstein. You aren't defending the truth, but a simplistic model that can be used as an excuse to be condescending and rude, where you take one assumptions as true in all cases an
22. 802.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    What kind of /r/iamverysmart asshatery is this? I don't posses your anecdotal evidence. Especially, when you yourself don't even bother to illustrate them. For bonus points, you could try and prove why one would need evi
23. 803.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    > As I note in my book, today’s lopsided gender ratios “add up to sexual nirvana for heterosexual men, but for heterosexual women — especially those who put a high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock — they represe
24. 804.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    What?! Subtleties to the subject?! Don't talk crazy, now! /s
25. 805.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    I was just being snarky. A router requiring you to have a Google account seems needlessly complicated. We could crank it up a notch and allow only the users of an esoteric and obsolete messaging system use it. Wave was a cool idea, though.
26. 806.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    A Google Wave account.
27. 807.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    I so totally agree.
28. 808.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    (silent tears of joy)
29. 809.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    PowerShell has solved this problem incredibly well. It often feels more Unix in its philosophy, than some of the newer *nix tools, I've encountered.
30. 810.▲
    by jevgeni 11y ago

    This thing is convenient, but I don't understand why it needs a DSL? Why do I need to use `mrl --csv sort ...`, instead of `mrl --csv ... | sort`?