pdonis

62 ms·

961.
by pdonis 2y ago
> The reclassification happened in 1980 Actually, the reclassification happened in December 1982, according to the Rogers Commission report that you reference. (The original classification as 1R happened in 1980; the reclassification
962.
by pdonis 2y ago
> There's actually a huge and thriving community of people publishing derivative works, in a not-for-profit basis, on Archive of Our Own. (Among other places.) Yes, and none of those people are making a living at creating things
963.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the current system has allowed for a incredible flourishing of creation No, the current system has allowed for an incredible flourishing of middlemen who don't create anything themselves but coerce creative people into agreement
964.
by pdonis 2y ago
Yes, they can't, because there is no legally reliable way to do it (briefly, because the law really doesn't like the idea of property that doesn't have an owner, so if you try to place a work of yours in the public domain, wh
965.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the function in question is not given any inputs As the problem was posed, the function does take an input; it's defined as a function from {0, 1} to {0, 1}. However, as I pointed out in another comment upthread, the function ma
966.
by pdonis 2y ago
Also, there was another very poor decision by NASA that the article does not mention. The summer before the Challenger launch, Thiokol, at the urgent request of its engineers, sent NASA a memo stating that the SRB O-rings were not sealing p
967.
by pdonis 2y ago
My best car buying experiences were when I was an employee of a car company, and could buy any car built by that company at a price they designated (a pretty small amount over the cost to build it). The company designated a dealer to go to,
968.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Without copyright, entire industries would've been dead a long time ago, including many movies, games, books, tv, music, etc. Citation needed. There are many ways to make money from producing content other than restricting how c
969.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Why is f computable Because f is either the constant 1 function or the constant 0 function, and both are computable. The fact that we don't know for sure which of those two functions the label "f" refers to doesn&#x2
970.
by pdonis 2y ago
> This is explicitly expounded upon in the original Yes, it is, but you can have functions that output other functions, and the question of computability applies to those functions as well. Sure, the constant functions are trivially co
971.
by pdonis 2y ago
I upvoted this post because it correctly describes an issue that I saw as well: the question isn't really about computability at all, it's about a label--at least, that's the question that Sipser (and Aaronson) intended to as
972.
by pdonis 2y ago
> The if-then part of it is part of the function definition. No, it isn't. The if-then part of the question is about which of two trivial functions the label "f" refers to. It has nothing to do with the functions themsel
973.
by pdonis 2y ago
Actually, the functions referred to in the question don't make any use of their inputs at all. They could just as well have been defined as functions from the empty set to {0, 1}. The "f" in the question is not a function, it
974.
by pdonis 2y ago
> What about this one This is not the kind of thing Aaronson is actually asking about. He's not asking about a function f that outputs 1 if God exists or 0 if God doesn't exist. He's asking about a label f that refers
975.
by pdonis 2y ago
My reaction was somewhat similar, and I posted along those lines in the comments to Aaronson's post. As I said there, the question is not about a function f that could call the constant 1 function or the constant 0 function depending o
976.
by pdonis 2y ago
> if we just moved to single-payer health care, the role could disappear entirely. I disagree; what is called "single-payer" health care does not solve the actual problem, which is that the people who are getting the servic
977.
by pdonis 2y ago
> You think it's fairly typical basic upon no real knowledge or facts. You don't know what knowledge or facts I have. So it's you who are making assertions based upon no real knowledge or facts. > Better paid or bett
978.
by pdonis 2y ago
> that's not the vast majority of cases I'm not sure that's true. As I said, I think the case I witnessed was fairly typical. > that union that got it wrong likely got it right more often than not and those employees
979.
by pdonis 2y ago
> the original 'Bullshit jobs' post, even before it was a book Is here: https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ > food service jobs (and hairdressing) were specifically mentioned as not bullshit jobs I
980.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Unions are intended to protect workers. But they actually don't. > If their jobs are required to keep the city running, the city (and society at large) should do what's necessary to keep these employees happy. Granting
981.
by pdonis 2y ago
> Read more David Graeber instead. For those who don't want to tackle the whole book, the original article by Graeber is online here: https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
982.
by pdonis 2y ago
At this point your use of the Humpty Dumpty principle makes further discussion highly unlikely to be fruitful.
983.
by pdonis 2y ago
> it's the category of drugs with the most widespread use (animal agriculture) with one of the strongest cases for being drastically under-regulated To call this area "under-regulated" is not accurate: the whole food pro
984.
by pdonis 2y ago
> You don't have a right to buy stuff that works or that you can trust We're not talking about rights here. You claimed, and I quote, "You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it." I am simply
985.
by pdonis 2y ago
> this isn't advice to take them - they aren't regulated and so you shouldn't trust them lol they're for research use only for a reason In other words, no, I can't buy anything I want unless the DEA has a probl
986.
by pdonis 2y ago
> The first day of the 1st Century is Jan 1, 1 AD. That's not what the poster I originally responded to is saying. He's saying the 1st Century should start on a nonexistent day.
987.
by pdonis 2y ago
> pseudoephedrine - you can't buy that because the DEA has a problem with it lol Ok. (Though there is still the question of whether it actualy makes sense for the DEA to care.) How about commonly used antibiotics? > you can bu
988.
by pdonis 2y ago
> You can buy whatever you want unless the DEA has an issue with it. Over the counter? No, you can't. You can buy a lot of stuff that doesn't work over the counter. But, for example, if I want a decongestant that actually
989.
by pdonis 2y ago
> whether that date actually existed or not is irrelevant. No, it isn't, since you explicitly said to start the first century on the date that doesn't exist. What does that even mean?
990.
by pdonis 2y ago
> What does that even mean? It means just what it says. In the common calendar, the year after 1 BC (or BCE in the new notation) was 1 AD (or CE in the new notation). There was no "January 1, 0000".

More ›