Cobord

{}

But you should not be writing functions that make you think about the fact that Hask is not really a category.

Anyone could build such applications that they might hope become the biggest in the world, but there is still a conglomeration effect. You have centralization, but anyone can become the center. This is displayed by your "biggest in the world" winner takes all perspective. For decentralization, the graph of connectivity has to not have these large communities. There would be no single Twitter (unmoderated or otherwise) that is the biggest by far.

The Italian school was foundational in this subject, so you might enjoy reading the basic material as they originally wrote it. Just be wary that it's old so the mistakes there have since been fixed.

Overqualified

Comprehending orders of magnitude is the problem of humans not groking exponentials.

Do a simple lower bound calculation, and you see that Elon is talking out of his ass.

Or he doesn't care about burnout. Because of the branding of how cool space is, and robotic missions that actually advance the science not being as sexy, he has a fresh supply of excited people (rant about the science vs the sensation). Knowing former SpaceX employees informs that.

Yes. I do want the per capita and total GDP to be lower if that means raising the minimum of the distribution and reducing its variance.

But we need the counterfactual. When the labor they "optimized" would have done the same or better without their interference, we cannot tell. We just take the estimates from the manager themselves as the baseline. And of course, they would lie about that.

That is because it was proposed with cuts to everything else. That leaves people to fall through the cracks in the meantime. If you transition to UBI without those issues, progressives like the idea.

By how much absolutely does rent go up vs how much the wage has risen? Are the people better off or not? Don't just say rising rents as a catch all. This is all the more case for UBI vs rising minimum wage because in UBI there aren't the unemployed falling through the cracks.

Almost 2 decades before

I missed seeing the individual option. Thanks for that. See you around.

Meanwhile as a mathematical physicist, I learned about her through instantons.

Quite a wide career.

I tried my hand at editing it, but was definitely lost at the question that it's not that hard to understand geometrically what the idea is, but how it relates to physics means doing a lot more work. So hard to strike the balance. Why would one care about a rectangular matrix all of whose maximal minors are positive.

I think OP is saying they don't know anything about anything. Which has a point, they claim to know what they are doing, but just have such large capital that there is no way for them to fail even if they did everything wrong. So you can't use success as a barometer for knowing anything.

But otherwise it is a just show up event? Also if it is too late to give a talk, could one do a poster etc?

But it says call for participation ended 2 weeks ago. Are you going to have something else available?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00738 is really nice for general context. Plus can implement some of these generalizations from what is already here.

There is also the Zariski topology of Spec Z that is the topology of numbers in the sense of algebraic geometry. Or of Z[x]

That also invokes negative connotations of analog computing that occur because of it's problems in the old days.

On another note: There is also a sense of analog quantum computing when you use bosonic modes instead of qubits.

Shameless Plug: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08865

But I would think the same applies to your algorithms teacher. There should be just as many good and bad ones there. Yet it seems different level of what is counted as too rote and unusable.

Consider symplectic integrators. You would never come up with them or realize the problem of energy drift if you hadn't first paid attention to the fundamentals of the geometry and calculus underlying the problem.

This is just my favorite example, but it illustrates how understanding the fundamentals also explains the gotchas. Just getting a feel for them through experience is again just black magic by building up a table of what to use when without the generalizing principle behind it.

That is only if your allowing yourself to take the numerical methods as a black box. If you want to be sure that your method is okay, you prove error bounds as you take limits of 0 mesh size. Otherwise it is just building tables of black magic for what schema to use when.

Or you learn how to make the toy problem that has the same behavior as what you are trying to model. If you don't understand how to simplify problems, you end up just chucking the computation at it and calling it a day. If you have a solution to the basic problem you can give yourself a warm start.