I'm not the person you're responding to, but the place where I get my thinking on public policy and economics is empirical studies.
Ageless wisdom can help you decide what the goals of public policy should be. When it comes to working out how to achieve those ends, principle usually has to take a back seat to practicality. I don't live in fantasyland. My government should implement policies that demonstrably work.
A decent rule of thumb is to find the candidate who has the answers, or who knows who or what is responsible for the problems, and then vote for literally anyone else.
You can definitely be a libertarian and a globalist at the same time.
The main difference, I would imagine, is that a libertarian globalist would believe that people have at least as much right to move across borders as money and goods do. Most globalists talk a lot about free trade and free investment, but free migration is taboo.
Kind of. The problem with incentives is that people never quite respond to them in the way you want.
For example, I'm not sure why coerced relocations are a viable alternative to, say, infrastructure investment. Depopulating an area, it seems to me, would have flow-on effects which would make the economic situation in those places even worse.
The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork.
Ah, yes, the Economics 101 theory of incentives.
You are not looking at the broader problem, which has little to do with welfare programs: The poverty cycle incentivises being poor. If you want to get people off welfare, you don't want to make it shittier to be on welfare, you want to make it attractive to transition off welfare.
Here's one random example that I pulled out of an orifice: Did you get a full-time job? Great! You get to keep your full welfare benefits for the next fortnight while you adjust to your new financial situation. Then it's scaled back, but only to the point such that you're always ahead compared to when you were not working. The government is ahead, society is ahead, and you're ahead.
MULTICS had email in 1965. It was written by Noel Morris and Tom Van Vleck, though it was designed a little earlier. The credit for coming up with the idea usually goes to Glenda Schroeder.
Maybe in niche environments. For most software for which C++ is the language of choice, Java isn't a realistic option.
This is a strict subset of all software, of course. My point is that Java and C++ don't play in the same spaces for the most part. Desktop apps are probably the only area of significant overlap.
Basically 8k reduces aliasing, which is something that the eye is quite good at spotting and makes the image look artificial. That's why most of the 4k demos you see are careful to select images that avoid aliasing.
I find that with the first generation of any new format (be it DVD, BD/HD-DVD, whatever) all I can is compression artifacts writ large. It takes several years for encoders to get good enough.
New Zealand and Australia are no slouches when it comes to acting quality and effects. Australia has Animal Logic. All the best Hollywood actors right now are Australian. Hell, NZ has Weta. When is the last time you saw a New Zealand film on general release that wasn't directed by Peter Jackson?
If it helps, consider the vast number of worse American remakes of foreign sitcoms.
No, Americans are stupid. I don't know if it's distributors or audiences that are to blame, but good films from most other countries don't show in most American cinemas, so other countries can't make films for that market to compete. You probably get a few British films and that's it.
religion relies on faith - sticking to your beliefs no matter the evidence presented.
No, that's not what "faith" is.
"Faith" means "trust" and "loyalty". This is what it has always meant. This is how we still use the term today all the time: "semper fidelis", "keeping the faith", "assume good faith", "acting in good faith", "faithful boyfriend"... I could go on.
In a religious context it has an additional shade of meaning, something along the lines of "being true to what you believe". It still amounts to the same thing.
About a hundred years ago, some fundamentalists decided that "faith" should mean something like "believing without evidence" or even "believing contrary to evidence". This is yet one more thing that fundamentalists are wrong about.
I consider my marriage "faithful". I do not mean that I believe it in the absence of evidence, nor do I mean that I would stick to this no matter what evidence is presented. Neither do you.
The actual Luddites were not anti-technology. They were on one side of a labour dispute over working conditions. They damaged machines because some labour disputes involve property damage.
We already know what happens when people can't sell their labour because there is no industry that can employ them and all sides of politics do nothing: they vote for the first candidate who sounds like they're taking their grievances seriously even if said candidate is just exploiting them. In the most recent case, that would be Trump.
The way we avoid Luddites is to make sure everyone gets a share of the productivity dividend, of which the most practical proposal so far is a UBI.
Ah, yes. I did think about the multiplication by two, but then thought that it was due to a "move" being both players' turns.
Just for comparison, the best known lower bound on the longest chess game is 545 moves. Either way, the point is that there are a finite number of chess games.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe Professor J. Cocker discovered that in 1975.
The terminology has been in a constant state of change.
1950s - Electronic brains
1960s - Perceptrons
1970s - Neural networks
1980s - Expert systems
1990s - Intelligent agents
2000s - Machine learning
2010s - Deep learning
Give it a couple of years, new terminology will turn up.
Of course it's sparsely populated. There's no water.
What do you read to get your wisdom?
I'm not the person you're responding to, but the place where I get my thinking on public policy and economics is empirical studies.
Ageless wisdom can help you decide what the goals of public policy should be. When it comes to working out how to achieve those ends, principle usually has to take a back seat to practicality. I don't live in fantasyland. My government should implement policies that demonstrably work.
A decent rule of thumb is to find the candidate who has the answers, or who knows who or what is responsible for the problems, and then vote for literally anyone else.
You can definitely be a libertarian and a globalist at the same time.
The main difference, I would imagine, is that a libertarian globalist would believe that people have at least as much right to move across borders as money and goods do. Most globalists talk a lot about free trade and free investment, but free migration is taboo.
Wake me up when September ends.
At some point the people need to leave.
Or more people need to arrive.
Kind of. The problem with incentives is that people never quite respond to them in the way you want.
For example, I'm not sure why coerced relocations are a viable alternative to, say, infrastructure investment. Depopulating an area, it seems to me, would have flow-on effects which would make the economic situation in those places even worse.
I see what you did there.
The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork.
Ah, yes, the Economics 101 theory of incentives.
You are not looking at the broader problem, which has little to do with welfare programs: The poverty cycle incentivises being poor. If you want to get people off welfare, you don't want to make it shittier to be on welfare, you want to make it attractive to transition off welfare.
Here's one random example that I pulled out of an orifice: Did you get a full-time job? Great! You get to keep your full welfare benefits for the next fortnight while you adjust to your new financial situation. Then it's scaled back, but only to the point such that you're always ahead compared to when you were not working. The government is ahead, society is ahead, and you're ahead.
Significant whitespace is the least objectionable thing about Python. Just ask any Haskell programmer.
I always thought that MIT could do with an AI lab. Nice of IBM to finally help them get one.
MULTICS had email in 1965. It was written by Noel Morris and Tom Van Vleck, though it was designed a little earlier. The credit for coming up with the idea usually goes to Glenda Schroeder.
Maybe in niche environments. For most software for which C++ is the language of choice, Java isn't a realistic option.
This is a strict subset of all software, of course. My point is that Java and C++ don't play in the same spaces for the most part. Desktop apps are probably the only area of significant overlap.
Basically 8k reduces aliasing, which is something that the eye is quite good at spotting and makes the image look artificial. That's why most of the 4k demos you see are careful to select images that avoid aliasing.
I find that with the first generation of any new format (be it DVD, BD/HD-DVD, whatever) all I can is compression artifacts writ large. It takes several years for encoders to get good enough.
It wil probabaly be a decade or more than C++ has the tools and libraries Java has, based on LLVM.
Nobody seriously thinks that Java and C++ are competitors.
I think they acquired Sun (and Java as a result) as a dick move towards Google.
I think they acquired Sun because Oracle was the only thing that people used SPARC and Solaris for at the time.
I do think it's that American distributors are stupid, not that audiences are stupid.
New Zealand and Australia are no slouches when it comes to acting quality and effects. Australia has Animal Logic. All the best Hollywood actors right now are Australian. Hell, NZ has Weta. When is the last time you saw a New Zealand film on general release that wasn't directed by Peter Jackson?
If it helps, consider the vast number of worse American remakes of foreign sitcoms.
the rest of the world is stupid.
No, Americans are stupid. I don't know if it's distributors or audiences that are to blame, but good films from most other countries don't show in most American cinemas, so other countries can't make films for that market to compete. You probably get a few British films and that's it.
religion relies on faith - sticking to your beliefs no matter the evidence presented.
No, that's not what "faith" is.
"Faith" means "trust" and "loyalty". This is what it has always meant. This is how we still use the term today all the time: "semper fidelis", "keeping the faith", "assume good faith", "acting in good faith", "faithful boyfriend"... I could go on.
In a religious context it has an additional shade of meaning, something along the lines of "being true to what you believe". It still amounts to the same thing.
About a hundred years ago, some fundamentalists decided that "faith" should mean something like "believing without evidence" or even "believing contrary to evidence". This is yet one more thing that fundamentalists are wrong about.
I consider my marriage "faithful". I do not mean that I believe it in the absence of evidence, nor do I mean that I would stick to this no matter what evidence is presented. Neither do you.
The actual Luddites were not anti-technology. They were on one side of a labour dispute over working conditions. They damaged machines because some labour disputes involve property damage.
We already know what happens when people can't sell their labour because there is no industry that can employ them and all sides of politics do nothing: they vote for the first candidate who sounds like they're taking their grievances seriously even if said candidate is just exploiting them. In the most recent case, that would be Trump.
The way we avoid Luddites is to make sure everyone gets a share of the productivity dividend, of which the most practical proposal so far is a UBI.
goodbye 3rd world countries.
Strictly speaking, there are no third world countries as of the end of the Cold War.
Ah, yes. I did think about the multiplication by two, but then thought that it was due to a "move" being both players' turns.
Just for comparison, the best known lower bound on the longest chess game is 545 moves. Either way, the point is that there are a finite number of chess games.
What I'd like to know about the LSD bad trips and PTSD is whether the bad trips did come from LSD.
I don't know, but regular users often talk about the importance of having a co-pilot, especially for novices.