lutusp

35 ms·

391.
by lutusp 10y ago
> all saying pretty much the same thing. The number is higher than I would have guessed, but they're certainly not saying "the same thing." In many cases they're included in the search results only because of the pres
392.
by lutusp 10y ago
Wikipedia's editors objected on the same grounds and refused to allow me to delete my article on my own. For that, I needed to collect some votes. The details are here: http://arachnoid.com/programmable_calculators&#x2F
393.
by lutusp 10y ago
> It would be nice if Wikipedia let you vote on citations kind of like reddit. That way there is an easy consensus on what the top citations are and what the most dubious ones are. That doesn't work at Reddit, and it wouldn't w
394.
by lutusp 10y ago
Arranging the deletion of a Wikipedia page isn't that difficult. A Wikipedia biography about me was vandalized so often and so annoyingly that I voted for its removal, and two more votes did the trick. It turns out that this is a relat
395.
by lutusp 10y ago
About the linked study, it's important to emphasize that it's retrospective -- it tracks the behavior of people who applied for and received opioid prescriptions. This means the stated results may not apply to a person not incli
396.
by lutusp 10y ago
Your basic point is legitimate, but in passing I want to say that in Linux distributions you can change the windows decorators/formats to suit yourself, often including a theme designed to resemble Windows. Not to detract from the poin
397.
by lutusp 10y ago
There's an opportunity here for a young, ambitious programmer -- create a PowerShell script that automatically goes through the Windows registry, creating/resetting options to disable all advertising (Start menu, File Explorer, On
398.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Your hundreds of comments on this ... You know, starting out with a wild exaggeration, an "alternative fact," undermines your otherwise meritorious point. > ... I need to ask you to stop using HN this way. In what way -- c
399.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Kind of feel that replication study gets abused as a kind of "psychology is unreliable" argument. Since the study demonstrates that psychology is unreliable, I think it's something other than abuse. > I mean, most of
400.
by lutusp 10y ago
> It's ironically sad, in fact, because psychologists and behavioral scientists are the ones exposing the replication crisis and doing the most to try to address the problem. On the contrary, psychologists were shamed into addressin
401.
by lutusp 10y ago
I want to see a selectable parental option to remove all advertising of any kind from the content my child sees. Your move, Google.
402.
by lutusp 10y ago
> I've only skimmed so far, but seems interesting and meaningful. Any meaning the study might have would have to be validated by (a) a successful replication, and (b) construction of a falsifiable theory based on it, one that predic
403.
by lutusp 10y ago
Summary: one unfalsifiable study, not replicated, with no theoretical basis or reference to other theories; a study unable to establish whether the measured trait (intellectual humility) and the measured effect (more effective functioning)
404.
by lutusp 10y ago
> It's justified by logical argument, but not by empirical evidence. On the contrary, falsifiability's merits can be tested and potentially falsified. Science produces more useful results -- a better depiction of reality -- tha
405.
by lutusp 10y ago
> "Falisifiability" is not something that can be empirically tested because it is a concept that does not talk about things in the real, physical world. Full stop. No, that's wrong, quite wrong. Falsifiability (the thing i
406.
by lutusp 10y ago
>> Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it. > Yes, and he discovered it using non-scientific techniques developed in the field of philosophy. This misses my point, which is that anyone could have noticed the
407.
by lutusp 10y ago
> You should read some philosophy of science. 1. What, again? 2. You should address the topic.
408.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Where does the concept of "falsification" come from? Karl Popper was a philosopher. Karl Popper didn't invent falsifiability, he discovered it. This could have happened to anyone -- Popper happens to have been that one.
409.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Is an idea like "in science one can prove a theory false, but one cannot prove a theory true" falsifiable? Yes, it is. And it passes that test.
410.
by lutusp 10y ago
Pilots should be aware of wake turbulence and wingtip vortices in particular, and should be aware that being at a lower altitude than the generating aircraft is the most dangerous position (the vortex pattern is denser than the surrounding
411.
by lutusp 10y ago
> All ideas are paradoxes ... To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The idea that there are an infinity of primes is not at all paradoxical, it's an uncontroversial factual assertion. Most of mathematics shows the same property
412.
by lutusp 10y ago
> It cannot help us explain art, politics, and the nature of existence. Neither can philosophy. How you missed this obvious reply is beyond me. You need to learn the difference between describe and explain.
413.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Please don't keep making the same point over and over. Sure, not problem. I'll stop pointing out that philosophy is a contentless debating society when the philosophers realize it, and when they stop treating it as though it
414.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Is this a similar reason to why long distance power lines are of a much higher voltage? Long-distance power conductors use the highest practical voltage to avoid what are called "I squared R" losses, so named because the powe
415.
by lutusp 10y ago
Quote: “In the low-power regime, the way these power converters work, it’s not based on a continuous flow of energy,” Paidimarri says. “It’s based on these packets of energy. You have these switches, and an inductor, and a capacitor in the
416.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Foucault is not Derrida ... Yes, that seems to be true, but from the standpoint of falsifiability, of empirical testing, they're equal. The very fact that people feel compelled to draw a line between Foucault and Derrida, one that
417.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Why wouldn't power in the non-physics sense not have meaning? Well, I didn't say that. I said it was an unfalsifiable topic. > Why are you restricting meaning, and thus truth, to just physics? Didn't say that either,
418.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance ... How much substance is required beyond the fact that these ideas are unfalsifiable? To a scientist like myself, saying that places the burden
419.
by lutusp 10y ago
> Berkley [sic] decided to throw them away rather than remedy this, in a rather short sighted move reminiscent of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. It's much more likely that the cost of making the lectures ADA-compli
420.
by lutusp 10y ago
Foucault? The physicist Foucault [1] responsible for the Foucault Pendulum and many other advances? Or the philosopher Foucault [2] responsible for some unfalsifiable fluff of great interest to philosophy department tea parties -- conversat

More ›