tom-thistime

6 ms·

31.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
My comment was actually a sort of Dad Joke based on Breaking Bad, not a slap at Werner Heisenberg the physicist.
32.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
In fact, though, it's "oral exam." But it does sound funny.
33.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
I don't think Heisenberg was necessarily a narrow specialist, trained for just one job. He was one of the inventors of a whole new theory of mechanics.
34.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Really puts Heisenberg in context. No wonder he seems so bitter.
35.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
It says there wasn't really any wormhole. Instead there was something intended to simulate some ideas about wormholes. It's as if someone claimed he had a car and said he'd pick me up for a date ... but it turned out he actua
36.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Sure, or even slightly worse, a culture of "I don't believe in science."
37.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Definitely. Scientists can't function (literally aren't working at the professional level yet) unless they can read critically. The scientific literature is full of holes, mistakes, irrelevant junk, work that the authors don'
38.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
We sure missed the point here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33828602
39.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Fair enough.
40.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Did the credit union ask any questions related to the value of the car? Because a car might be considered an asset.
41.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
If you believe that IOUs by definition aren't valuable, then stay away from treasury bonds. If you're just drawing some kind of distinction between valuable things that aren't money and valuable things that are money then ok.
42.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
SBF is toast and everybody knows it. Sure, hopefully they'll track down any crooked campaign contributions that might have been made. Unfortunately many traditionally-crooked campaign contributions are legal now.
43.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
In addition, banks don't precisely lend out "money they don't have." They lend out cash they don't have against outstanding loans that are rationally expected to be repaid. If those loans are bad and the bank conc
44.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
At some point the NYT just got rabies where Trump was concerned. The news pages became gross and distracting even to folks like me who are normally core NYT readers. Now this is nuanced, ok? Trump has publicly called for elimination of the
45.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Thanks. I spent a lot of time making the language in my comment as neutral as I could.
46.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Sorry to be a noodge, but the insider trading charges didn't stick. Stewart got in trouble for obstructing an investigation. https://harbert.auburn.edu/binaries/documents/center-for-eth...
47.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
It sounds like you probably know what you're talking about. That's going to cost you karma points.
48.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
This may be a "culture gap" (or language gap) between crypto and traditional finance. The FT text directly addresses the question that we're told "No one [is] asking." They asked where's the money, and they&#x2
49.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Ok, sure, when David Brooks, or the Freakonomics guys, or the Guns, Germs, Steel guy, claim they've nailed the causality of something, that's often facile gibberish. All this does nothing to undercut the validity of causality itse
50.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
I think he's talking about the mathematical 'universe,' not the universe we live in. Apparently it's not so obvious what's absurd in the mathematical universe. Alternatively, maybe you and I can define 'absurd&
51.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Right. And that felt obvious at the time ... but if you don't timestamp it, who knows (later on) whether it really was obvious, or hindsight? I also thought that question (Hindsight or Not?) might be interesting to more people than jus
52.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
I'm attempting to preserve a record of when the views expressed in the comment seemed popular. Opinions can change over time.
53.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
On 2022 11/4 7:50 am Pacific, this was the top-ranked comment on this article on HN.
54.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
It wouldn't be much like today's internet. Bandwidth on fiber is enormous compared to bandwidth using dish antennas.
55.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
If you haven't worked in science, please keep in mind that the literature has never been seen as holy writ. Wrong stuff gets published all the time. You have to read critically. Not excusing sloppy work or whatever it was. Just pointin
56.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
I don't think I've ever seen a paper that included much raw data. It's possible this may be a good suggestion, but it's not the way things are currently done.
57.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
They probably have the key, but decrypting takes server time and why bother? They are the ones who encrypt it and decrypt it. Just scan the plain text. Which they must do in order to encrypt the message.
58.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
OMG, no, it's "END TO END." That means WHATEVER I NEED IT TO MEAN. Even if the provider promised they ARE using my messages to target ads, THAT NEEDS TO NOT BE HAPPENING. Irony notice. This message contains irony.
59.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
I'm sorry, but the Feynman reference may be a little misleading. With respect, it is difficult to imagine Richard Feynman putting "I sent the information to the recipient via the internet, but I hope they didn't read it"
60.
by tom-thistime 4y ago
Oh, come on. It's called "end to end" but it isn't. Meta has to read them to provide the service. This is not a new revelation.

More ›