xscott

16 ms·

241.
by xscott 2y ago
That helps explain curvature of space, but it doesn't explain any of the motion. When you see those stretched rubber sheets, they rarely/never show the grid lines moving. So let's say you place a small *stationary* object at
242.
by xscott 2y ago
"Think of the children" or not, it really doesn't matter the size of the vehicle. A SmartCar, or even a motorcycle, at 30 mph is likely to kill your kid too.
243.
by xscott 2y ago
> Well, your own mind axiomatically works At the risk of teeing-up some insults for you to bat at me, I'm not so sure my mind does that very well. I think the talking jockey on the camel's back analogy is a pretty good fit. T
244.
by xscott 2y ago
How do random people you meet in the grocery store measure-up with this standard?
245.
by xscott 2y ago
I agree they probably aren't going for world domination, but here is a nice video from Mathew Flatt where he says, "The point of Rhombus is to make Racket macro technology more accessible" and "removing an obstacle for m
246.
by xscott 2y ago
I'll have to read about why they made the choices they made, but it reminds me of going to a microbrewery: You tell them you like simple (American) macrobrews, and they say they have just the thing. What arrives is a light lager that
247.
by xscott 2y ago
> So I strongly support red light and speed cameras, traffic calming, and physical pedestrian and bike barriers. That's because you (naively) don't think it will be abused. You can easily find articles and news reports where t
248.
by xscott 2y ago
Another feature is that they let "parents with small children" board earlier in the process, so if you get on after that you can avoid sitting near the screaming, crying, and kicking seats.
249.
by xscott 2y ago
I wonder how we justify what people "should" pay. I mean it seems like there's some benefit to any person for the protection of society (police, fire, etc...), and that's probably close to constant per person. It'
250.
by xscott 2y ago
I guess that depends on what you think anyone is paying for. Maybe we're paying for rule of law and personal safety. Maybe we're paying for the government to protect our assets and income. Maybe we're just paying to be all
251.
by xscott 2y ago
> Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but a half century without a growing population seems like it'll cause some changes/cons
252.
by xscott 2y ago
That is not what happens in practice. Typically you get stick and stucco construction with flat roofs, picking the cheapest possible labor and construction materials, while putting on drywall and paint to make it look attractive for the 10
253.
by xscott 2y ago
Why? Because you don't like it? It's all perverted now, but the intent of copyright was to encourage artists to create new works for the benefit of society. It wasn't because there's some inalienable right to protect t
254.
by xscott 2y ago
It's very funny how that's a really good example and made it click instantly. Thank you.
255.
by xscott 2y ago
> It would be very sane to be able to compute, for any two numbers, which one is > larger (or whether they're equal), but sadly this is not computable for the > computable numbers. I'd like to understand - Can you expla
256.
by xscott 2y ago
I don't have any answers, but I suspect it's because we're evolved from things that didn't need to know. Related, I sometimes wonder how many derivatives you need to go down in order to find the one that is discontinuous
257.
by xscott 2y ago
I like and agree with your observation. But I think you can use conceptual tricks to get just a little further: Acceleration is "due" to a force (F=ma), so you can think of jerk as a change in that force linearly increasing over
258.
by xscott 2y ago
That's absolutely a bug that needs to be fixed, but I think it's possible. Maybe have the network which generates the answer be moderated by another network that assesses the truthiness of it. It's just a matter of prioritie
259.
by xscott 2y ago
Lots of things are possible, but the person I replied to seems to think that driving, flying, meat, and electricity are the problem. If you could magically convince every person in every country to eliminate those, you'd get: Ro
260.
by xscott 2y ago
You missed a few: We also can't have anything new made out of steel, iron, or cement. And we can't have heating or cooling in our houses or businesses: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
261.
by xscott 2y ago
> This is based on the false premise that the only stable thing for an economy is growth. Are you sure it's false? I'd like to believe that we could just have the generation being born replace the generation that's dying.
262.
by xscott 2y ago
Fair enough, but the last US presidential election had this banana nonsense going on with various recounts lasting for weeks. Maybe you can fix all the states in the entire country while you rework the election system, but since ranked cho
263.
by xscott 2y ago
Many people suggest ranked choice, but it has the significant problem that you might have little idea who won or who is leading until the very last vote is in. One vote in a close race could kick off a chain of events that changes everythi
264.
by xscott 3y ago
I don't think your distinction is compelling. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
265.
by xscott 3y ago
I'm not accusing you in particular, but a lot of people will say that a "second amendment advocate" couldn't hope to fight against the government out one side of their mouth, and then say that the January 6th nonsense wa
266.
by xscott 3y ago
I won't believe quantum computers are more than noise simulators until I see quantum computing factor large composite numbers. To me, that's the "flying car" we were promised.
267.
by xscott 3y ago
Heh, you're really unpleasant. Pick your BMR calculator of choice, but 6000 calories a day corresponds to about 850-1100 pounds. There are very few people that heavy. You should use your brain to learn some math, quit being a jack as
268.
by xscott 3y ago
You're being really sloppy with your numbers too. If someone ate 200% more than what they need on average, they'd be putting on 300 or 400 pounds per year. That's like a pound a day, and it's not what happens to most p
269.
by xscott 3y ago
This hypothetical case of sending a large multimedia message instead of 8 bytes for latitude and longitude and 3 more bytes for the letters "SOS" doesn't seem sincere.
270.
by xscott 3y ago
Well, since we agree the laws aren't about right or wrong, I guess you can appeal your case to the rich.

More ›