wrsh07

64 ms·

931.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Their point is that these risks are overblown. Nobody died from Fukushima. So if the major accident you're concerned about was, in fact, completely due to human error [and even still the number of deaths was relatively small], why are
932.
by wrsh07 11y ago
I interpreted the parent comment as a plea to journalists to actually listen to what the residents of ENY are saying, rather than simply relating the changes happening around them. I don't think they were implying it's the fault
933.
by wrsh07 11y ago
I thought he was great at building walls ;)
934.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Just FYI, search is ridiculously profitable [see "search ads"]
935.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Is there any reason why, if we had a decade of warning, we wouldn't be able to protect much of this area?
936.
by wrsh07 11y ago
It's true, I wish they had shown us a zero-knowledge proof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof ) that they had cracked it. At least then we would know that this isn't just to escape an unfavora
937.
by wrsh07 11y ago
I find it clearer if you have 100 doors. Pick one. The host eliminates 98 doors [with no prize behind them]. Do you switch? Or do you stick with your original guess? As the parent mentioned, switching gives you a 99/100 chance of being
938.
by wrsh07 11y ago
You are, of course, correct. Sorry about the careless wording [I think the analogy is still interesting, though!]
939.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Correct. And to be fair, the FBI could have received the vulnerability from a foreign state that is also opposed to terrorism but did not want their identity or methods known. ie they may have reasons for not disclosing the vulnerability, a
940.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Funny to call it reporting when it's more of an editorial by the renowned security researcher Bruce Schneier. However, I'll defend his point: take the Monty Hall problem [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Ha
941.
by wrsh07 11y ago
While there's always an enticing option to make more money, I don't think it makes sense in this scenario: your cynicism seems unwarranted. For one, that doesn't match up with current media [you don't generally pay for b
942.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Agreed :/ Housing sucks. But to nit; I believe a coop is only 10% down (condos are 20%. Either way it doesn't really change your math). And I'm still years from being able to buy a place in NYC, so sigh
943.
by wrsh07 11y ago
> This appears to be blatantly moving the goal posts. It doesn't actually matter. All we care about are values by %. So we can say that someone in the first 5% of humans could have done this same calculation and been wrong. And that
944.
by wrsh07 11y ago
My point is that the initial discussion wasn't limited to anything except "sentient life." It wasn't limited to vertebrates or mammals or any such thing. Thus, the statistics are purely for the discussion of "what s
945.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Right -- it's much more likely that alien life is not sentient. But when we restrict our search to sentient life, here is what the statistics suggest [and as you correctly point out, that restriction is what makes this an interesting d
946.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Can you imagine a remote "open office" workspace where you can mute the background chatter when you actually want to work? Or sit next to whoever you want so you can bother them when they're not obviously busy?
947.
by wrsh07 11y ago
VR could be a great new way to enjoy a whole bunch more than "high brow" entertainment, too. Everyone could see what it's like having "front row" seats at a basketball game. Or hovering above the action. Player pers
948.
by wrsh07 11y ago
I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work. Our arguments need to be like the Doomsday argument, presented here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/65/ If most species looked at themselves and said "my sp
949.
by wrsh07 11y ago
The statistics really doesn't care what type of sentient species we are. If you're confused by the examples given [for the approximate size], that's understandable, but the examples don't change the analysis. That's
950.
by wrsh07 11y ago
They actually respond to you in the FAQ: > "What if people who lived several centuries ago did a calculation on how many births there would be?" > This appears to be one of the most widespread misconceptions on the topic. Ma
951.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Of course they could. And they should! Statistically, if every single sentient being makes this argument, more sentient beings will be right than wrong. To quote: > Given the prevalence of the four different blood groups in the cartoon a
952.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Analogy time: - I am an ordinary human - I live in an ordinary country One of these is wrong, and it's the second one.
953.
by wrsh07 11y ago
If you want the math, that's here: http://mnrasl.oxfordjournals.org/content/456/1/L59
954.
by wrsh07 11y ago
You're missing the point, then. Have you heard of the German Tank Problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem You can make estimates from a sample size of one. That's literally the point of the
955.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Seems like you should be able to get something decent for $800,000 [which matches up with my understanding of what a 1br costs on UWS]. http://streeteasy.com/for-sale/nyc/type:D1,P1%7Cprice:700000... Note, I could
956.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Can't you just look at the creators of the program? Demis says he certainly does not worry about a "terminator" or "ex machina" style scenario and also predicted they would win: http://www.bbc.com/ne
957.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Right, but if there's overcrowding, and animals in the overcrowded population stochastically [eg with 10% probability, perhaps at conception] became homosexual, then it does make sense. Continuing to reproduce in an overcrowded situati
958.
by wrsh07 11y ago
It's a math problem. You make some assumptions, and then you solve the problem with respect to those assumptions. Of course all models of the world are flawed. But some are useful. If you're wondering which restaurant you should s
959.
by wrsh07 11y ago
I think the best thing about this problem/solution is that it encourages people to date more people [as a rule]. ie don't settle for the first one that likes you back
960.
by wrsh07 11y ago
Clearly the number of eligible partners is also limited by the number of people you can date in one lifetime.

More ›