Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


I was trying to guess what the idea is before reading the post, and my first thought was: in a multi-player game, there is a problem where, say, two players are in a losing position, and would like to resign (and go play something else), two other players are in a so-so position and want to possibly resign, and the final player is clearly winning and wants to continure. But there is no incentive to straight-up resign unilaterally, as then you have to sit and wait idly until the game finishes.

So, we introduce "fractional resignations", we get something like [1, 1, 0.6, 0.6, 0.1], compare it to the pre-agreeded threshold (say, =3) - and end the game if it passes this bar.

Can you please link some of those Youtube channels you mentioned in the comment? I'd like to learn more about the topic - ideally, grasp the big ideas & what-I-don't-know (coming from the pure math angle, so not much grounding in the natural sciences).

For reference, I found Introduction to Biology - The Secret of Life (an MIT course at edX) to be very helpful in this kind of exploration.

The argument is very unclear clear to me. What does "unbounded" mean? What does it mean to "retrocausally compress 'self'"?

 Are you postulating that:
 - the notion of "an individual" does not make sense even in principle
 - there exists something like "self"/"individual" in general, but we don't know how to define rigorously
 - there exists something like "self"/"individual", but specific individuals (people, in this case) are not able to precisely define 'themselves'
 - some fourth option?

(The second and third paragraph are even less clear to me, so if they present separate lines of thought, maybe let's start with the first one)

Sorry to be blunt, but the whole post is made of unsubstaintiated claims and dubious associations. I had a very difficult time going through it.

Among many, many good reasons not to play video games, the main one is that they create invisible stress and consume large amounts of brain energy that you could be using for work, school, or moments of inspiration.

You claim that, but don't provide any evidence for this.

Don't trust any source that says video games don't stress you out; there are billions of dollars and vested interests at play.

Why should I trust you instead? As in: don't trust any source that says X; there are billions of dollars and vested interests at play.

The takeaway is to pay attention to your mind and body, and not to any pundit who claims that video games are good for you. They are not. From a bayesian perspective, you are more likely to encounter a lying, bribed pundit, than you are to encounter someone who has done honest research that legitimately argues that video games will make your life better.

Again, "you're more likely to encounter a lying, bribed pundit than you are to encounter someone who has done honest research that legitimately argues that X will make your life better". You're not presenting any such research, or even do not vaugly point in a direction of it.

You can insert whatever you want in X, and it will be as much convincing as your statements.

Then, the posts turns into (what looks like to me) a list of games that you personally find relaxing, with your prescriptions on how other people should play them, and then a shorter list of games you didn't like, that is devoid of even a trace of argument, besides already-repeated "games that stress you are bad".

Doesn't the anthropic bias impact the calculation, where you take into account not seeing nuclear war before? 

There is a great (free) online course called 'NAND to Tetris', which is built on this exact premisse. Can't recommend it enough:

AFAIK, popular data science tools (Spark, Pandas, etc.) already use columnar formats for data serialization and network-based communication:

Similiar idea for disk storage (which is again orders of magnitude slower, so the gains in certain situations might be even bigger):

Generally, if you're doing big data, there are actually more benefits from using this layout - data homogenity means much better compression and possibilities for smarter encodings.

Random users installing random software gives you botnets.

This is only true in case of insufficient security mechanisms. Virtualization/containerization (for example, docker model) would allow users to run independently installed applications safely.

Similarly, I guess that the motivation for centralized store (apart from the financial motive of the store owner: Apple/Google) is to provide security through the process of vetting the apps. But again, if we had proper virtualization software, there would be no reason not to allow users to add unofficial repositories, maintained in a decentralized way.

Of course, virtualization/containerization done on the OS level is (currently) quite resource-intensive. But the alternative is even worse - with everything moved to the web, we are building (we have built...) OS inside OS! With all the problems that it entails: this "new OS" supporting really only one language, having extremely limted set of protocols, overall not having anything close to the full environment of the proper OS.

Summarizing: why would you advocate this all just to solve intercompatibility and safety problems (which, if I read your post correctly, are the reasons for moving apps to web), instead of dealing with them properly, on the OS level?

I really like the thought behind the post! But, your idea seems kind of... overengineered. For one, an important requirement for the packaging is that it should be easy to hold in your hand (e.g. eating in a car/on a couch/anywhere that you can't actually put it on a table).

Additionally, let's say there are two varieties of chips' sizes: small and large. Small ones are small and cheap, so there's no better way to package them than throw some in a bag, and it'd be too costly to package them in a more sophisticated way.

Large ones could have more complex packaging, but there's the problem of closing the bag when there's still some leftovers. In case of the usual bag, it's as easy as folding the top - you get reasonable airtightness etc. But in case of a box, you'd have to make some closing mechanism, or shove it back in the bag (as in your pictures), which seems... complicated.

There are two ideas here. First are Pringles - just put them in a tube. Closing is not a problem, and it has the additional advantage of not crumbling them to pieces (which I'd say should be THE feature of boxes). Second idea is a bag that can be opened vertically as well as horizontally (Lay's Stix implemented this some time ago, although I'm not sure about the US version). Then, you can have best of two worlds - easy to hold/easy to close (open on top) OR easy to access/share (open on the side).

If you don't have a given joint pobability space, you implicitly construct it (for example, by saying RV are independent, you implicitly construct a product space). Generally, the fact that sometimes you talk about X living on one space (on its own) and other time on the other (joint with some Y) doesn't really matter, because in most situations, probability theory is specifically about the properties of random variables that are independent of the of the underlying spaces (although sometimes it does matter).

Your example, by definition, P = Prob(X = 6ft AND Y = raining) = mu{t: X(t) = 6ft and Y(t) = raining}. You have to assume their joint probability space. For example, maybe they are independent, and then it P = Prob(X = 6ft) \* Prob(Y = raining), or maybe it's Y = if X = 6ft than raining else not raining, and then P = Prob(X = 6ft).

Load More