Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


What I meant was, "All objects accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2" is the oversimplification and the bulleted examples were the various reasons that the oversimplification is not technically correct.

(The other kind of sentence, an utterance that rings definitely false to someone who knows what's going on, but which serves to point a beginner in the right direction, is one I don't have a word for.)


People often refer to this as an "oversimplification" - I think that term is a good one. Unfortunately, all google gives as examples of an "oversimplification" are of an "oversimplified cause fallacy" but I think it's reasonable to say things like "All objects accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2" is an oversimplification because an expert would have a whole dialogue with that nonetheless-useful-to-students statement, such as:

  • No, they don't because air resistance generally affects things and its effects depend on their shape
  • Well actually they have a 9.8 m/s^2 downward force applied due to gravity but there may be countervailing or reinforcing forces which depend on the characteristics of the object and the situation
  • Well that only applies on Earth because it's a specific function of Earths gravity
  • Well actually even on Earth there are microvariations in the strength of gravitational force
  • etc

I would think no, but "conditional on hiring" is doing a lot more work than it looks there. Just like there is (supposedly, I haven't checked) no correlation between height and scoring among NBA players. But that doesn't mean that height isn't a big asset in the NBA!

I think it's directly relevant to what you wrote in the "What Happens Now" and "What Happens to Crypto" section, which I take to be the point that the rest of the post is kinda building up to. These sections seem to be written with some assumptions which I think are unwarranted and, at least, untrue in my opinion.

Comparisons with Enron, Lehman, etc -> Assumption: There was some real value here that customers put in, that was lost/destroyed/stolen by fraud. I think this assumption is not true for other crypto assets, only for the USD that people put in.

"In reality I think it is good that these bad actors get flushed out."  -> Assumption: there are good actors, i.e. that after bad actors get "flushed out" there will be a significant number of non-flushed actors

"the engineers working on figuring out ways that the technology can have utility are still working on the space." -> Assumption: crypto can have significant utility and thus has value

"I hope that this saga leads to more due diligence . . . . when it [comes] to internal accounting controls and good governance [at crypto firms]. . . ." -> Assumption: It is possible for there to be crypto firms that have good internal accounting controls, good governance, and be well capitalized. IMO, doing due diligence on a crypto firm is like entering a cat in the dog show - sure you can list all the ways it does or does not conform to breed standards (pointy ears, upright tail, etc) but fundamentally the problem is that it's a cat.

"People will always say that this is a story about crypto. In reality, this is a story about lending." -> No, I think it's a story about crypto.

I strongly disagree with the upshot of this post. In my view, crypto is fundamentally a Ponzi scheme based on various forms of electronic tulip bulbs. FTX issued debt backed by e-tulips, and then people finally realized that FTX's e-tulips aren't actually worth anything. Meanwhile, FTX's non-tulip assets are long gone. (where, exactly?)

What does this mean for the e-tulip industry? Surely although these e-tulips have been shown to be worthless, other e-tulips will hold value....

Yeah, the most promising by-day interventions I've heard proposed is day-specific regulation of driving, such as lower speed limits, closing of residential roads to thru traffic, etc.

Stir creamy peanut butter into either raw oats or the breakfast cereal of your choice. Only downside, you definitely need to have a drink with it, i drink tea, which i would do anyway.

Optionally you can add fruit, sliced apple and sliced banana both work well, i prefer apple. When i feel like i want a treat, i add a few chocolate chips.

Also there's some slippage here -

A - Kid can ignore rules if I, Dad, think the rules are stupid (among other considerations)


B - Kid can ignore rules if she, kid, thinks the rules are stupid (among other considerations)


It's hard to be explicit about A without implicitly giving permission to do B, which I don't want.

One thing that i sometimes do is apply a time tax rather than an absolute tax on skills. Such as "I'll do that for you after i finish [whatever I'm doing], or you could do it yourself now if you don't want to wait"

This also has the advantage of being able to gradually increase the tax rate on old skills as the novelty of having learned it wears off.

Another example would be when you are out somewhere that a third party has posted rules which don't make sense. I don't want, as a parent, to actively say "when you are using someone else's space you are free to ignore their rules if you think they are stupid and you aren't imposing large costs on others" but sometimes that's the actual line I want to take. Not noticing that my kids are breaking a rule I think is dumb is a way to thread that needle.

Load More