The only thing missing from this is a reference to the mathematical theory of harmonic analysis, which provides a way to calculate the exact eigenvalues (or modes) of these systems (well at least a linear approximation to them). In particular, there is a lot that can be said about such systems (formally defined by a self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space) beyond simply simulating them.
It sounds like you are jealous of Musk's intelligence, and so you write something that puts down smart people and talks down to them in a patronizing way.
Why else would you lump all smart people together, and claim they have some psychological issues that you (not so smart maybe, but much more mature), can help with?
The article criticizes the standard of evidence provided for mainstream diet advice, and yet they provide absolutely no evidence for their claim that the really important factor is eating natural, unprocessed food.
Well said. I often get downvotes on comments that go against the "more women in tech" feminist agenda. You just have to ignore the hive mind and give your honest opinion, no matter what the votes.
I found Haskell was not that hard. But I did try to learn by reading Learn You a Haskell twice and gave up.
When I really learnt it, I treated it like I would any other language: I tried to write nontrivial programs in it, in my case the 2048 game. I learnt Monads by adding real randomness to the game.
So I would say the main problem with Haskell is that people treat it like something special, and not like any other language.
Reverse-agism is part of an egalitarian mindset of many HN commenters, who believe experience is more important than individual variation in skill. For them, skill and ability increase with experience, so it is an objective fact that young developers as a group are going to be worse by most measures.
So when someone out of college makes more than someone with 10 years experience, they assume this must be due to agism, since the 10 years experience must, in their view, be more important than being one of the top graduates of that year.
On the original comment, I usually associate Haskell with younger programmers, since it is taught in many schools like MIT and UW. So I found the comment a bit grating since I thought Haskell was the one thing we could have.
In Australia we have a single system, where the test for qualifying for welfare is almost entirely based on (1) total assets and (2) income. This disproves the theory that excessive complexity is inherent in welfare systems.
No, it's time for something proven: Australian style welfare. Maybe in 50 years time, it will be time for basic income.
The problem with giving people free money, is it reduces the incentive to work. Australia, and other countries, have introduced systems with minimal requirements for receiving welfare: making an effort to find a job, based on simple objective criteria.
Jealousy is a natural human emotion. It is notable how many stories bashing smart people (not for being smart per se, of course, but for lacking other important qualities) come up on HN. That, and how unfair the interview process is.
No matter what the control for, these studies are very limited.
If they say that intelligence is correlated with X, if we like X we will say that this proves X is a good thing, and if we don't like X we will say that this proves intelligent people are not so "intelligent" after all. Put another way, it's so hard to do proper Bayesian updating on such loaded statements, they probably make people worse informed on average.
I'll end with a quote from Mohammad Ali being interviewed by Michael Parkinson:
Ali: [Animals don't race-mix so human's shouldn't either]
Parkinson: But we have intelligence
Ali: They don't have intelligence, but yet they stay together [with their own species], we should have more intelligence than them, right?
This is a terrible idea. It doesn't sync live, you have to send the entire notebook back and they scan it for you. That makes it much less useful that, for example, those special pens that scan what you write. In almost all situations, from art, to taking notes at meetings, it is preferable to have the digital copy immediately, not once the notebook is finished.
>I only need to point out the many companies that don't pay dividends and yet are widely accepted as investments.
Your logical error is in assuming that if a company that pays no dividends now is considered a good investment, then that must mean that investors don't care if that company never pays dividends. On the contrary, investors don't care if Google pays dividends now, because every dollar Google doesn't pay as a dividend gets reinvested in the company, or at least kept as cash, which enables them to pay more dividends in the future.
If Google simply kept that money forever, that would make it into some weird ponzi scheme that the world has never seen before (and we would have to wait until the end of time to find out). Back in the real world, companies typically do, as your yourself imply, eventually stop growing and start paying dividends.
>you have no idea to whom you are speaking, how I made my fortune, and you are certainly not in a position to lecture anyone about equities.
No one gives a shit about your fortune. I'm done with this, but next time try reading what you are replying to carefully, instead of just blasting out facts.
You are correct about the empirical facts (there exist some companies don't currently pay dividends), but theory is needed to understand that if those company's never paid dividends, they would be worthless.
The fundamental principal is that of the transversality condition, also called the "no ponzi" condition, which states that assets must eventually deliver. If a company pays no dividends forever then the value of its stock is only based on what people are willing to pay in the future, forming a self-reinforcing ponzi-like system. It is generally assumed (I can think of many good reasons for this, like the finiteness of the universe) that such violations of the transversality condition don't occur.
Therefore the value of a share is the expected value of all future dividends. I suspect you also didn't read my post carefully and missed my qualification of "dividend-like" things. E.g. a company might start small, grow, stagnate and be bought by a private equity firm and split into parts that are sold off. At that point, the company has effectively delivered dividends to the private equity firm.
>With all respect, do you really want to be pontificating about something you know nothing about?
Your smugness is unwarranted and reflects badly on your character. I suggest you read some books on economics and try to be a better person.
The only real value a share has is dividends, and dividend-like things (like share buybacks, the whole company being taken private, etc.).
In theory (and practice) the price of a stock is the expected value of the time-discounted sum of its future dividends.
So yes, people are precisely buying GOOG stock because they believe that at some point in the future, they will pay dividends. Google do, after all, have to do something with all their money one day.
Voting is also not very important. In some cases it might be needed to keep the board/executives in line, but for an individual shareholder, the right to vote is of no importance.
I'd be interested in seeing a meta-version of this: give two papers with identical methodologies, one showing that employers tend to hire women less because they are biased, and one showing that employers tend to hire women less because the women are less capable.
Then present them to reviewers and see which ones they would accept for publication.