scg

The 100 years isn't the issue here, nor Rolex in particular. Replace Rolex with a contemporary brand and dcolkitt's point stands even more clearly. There is nothing in the law that makes a distinction between a Rolex watch and some other brand that people may purchase hoping it will garner prestige someday through present-day marketing efforts. It would be absurd to make that distinction.

The salient point is many things may be purchased for "speculative profit you hope to make [...] reliant on the business", but that by itself doesn't make them securities according to the law, so it's just not the right test to use.

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

To the extent that the Rolex brand has a certain inertia that will propel it further even after the company ceases to exist, that inertia can be attributed to company's previous marketing efforts.

Indeed, the brand may retain value for some time even if the company goes out of business, perhaps even for a very long time. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that ongoing marketing efforts can amplify the brand's value and momentum, and the brand's inertia will be even stronger should the company cease to exist.

Another way to look at this is to put yourself in the shoes of a prospective buyer in 1923. Wouldn't you say in that situation you rely on the company's continuing marketing efforts to further the value of the brand? At what point in the last 100 years do you stop relying on the company's efforts?

Also, Rolex can easily destroy brand value with ill-considered promotional campaigns, so you rely on the company to not mess it up.

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

  He spends much time labeling and psychoanalyzing the people who disagree with him

  [...]

  But in the last few years, as his firm a16z took in $7.6B of capital to make a disastrous bet on “Web3”, while charging LPs an estimated $1B in management fees for the privilege, he’s been putting out a stream of disingenuous and logically-invalid arguments.

  For those who didn’t follow Marc’s Web3 debacle, I’ve kept the receipts:

Criticizing pmarca for not engaging with the core of the argument, while simultaneously bringing up "receipts" for unrelated criticisms is odd. This behavior is more consistent with someone who has an axe to grind than with someone who is offended by 'poor “sportsmanship”' in discourse.

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

  Let’s start with a passage from the essay where Marc is 100% objectively wrong, as a matter of pure logic.
  [...]
  If you argue that AI won’t kill humanity, while simultaneously arguing that “AI will kill humanity” is a category error, your logic is mistaken. Period. End of story.

This isn't the airtight argument the author thinks it is.

It is logically consistent to dismiss an "AI doomer" claim by positing it's based on a category error. That doesn't mean you argue for the exact logical negation of the claims, so you don't automatically grant that it wasn't a category error to begin with.

  Here are examples of what actual category errors look like:
  - “The number two is blue.”

There is a broader, and arguably more common, definition for "category mistake". A statement can be a "category mistake" or not depending on the context. Quoting from <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/>:

  For example, an utterance of ‘That is green’ seems infelicitous in a context where the demonstrative refers (or appears to refer) to the number two, but entirely innocuous in a context in which it refers to a pen.

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

Can you point to a single YC crypto / "cryptocurrency-adjacent" company that is a "grift"?

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

Why?

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

Does it pick up context from previous cells like Wolfram’s Chat Notebooks?

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/06/introducing-chat...

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20230108202435/https://codingnes...

scg

3 anni fadiscuss

As a human programmer I didn't quite understand the problem statement until I read the whole article and the tests.

I believe the goal is to find a path with the fewest possible "fire" cells and the minimum cost as a tie breaker. The cost of a path is the sum of its cells' cost and it can't be greater than 5.

If I understood the assignment correctly, I don't think the problem statement is equivalent to what's included in the prompt. Specifically, the prompt doesn't clarify what happens if you have to cross through multiple "fire" cells.

> Fire tiles cost 1 point to move through, but they should avoid pathing through them even if it means taking a longer path to their destination (provided the path is still within their limited movement range)

Submissions

"tea" protocol rewards open-source contributions, from Homebrew creator

GPT-4 Fails Economics

comments