jomtung

It's surprising to me that you would describe the field of statistics as a separate 'sociological artifact', but then refer to the actual definition of the term when using the abbreviated word 'stats', as in your sentence ' I have no stats to back up this claim'.

Statistics are tallied numbers and represent actual measured values. The field of statistics is concerned with tallied numbers collected, probability is concerned with the likelihood of those numbers being produced under specific assumptions, and machine learning is a process that uses statistics to verify and adjust the probability model being used for study.

Those are all definitions used by mathematicians and statisticians (who are a subset of mathematicians), not 'sociological artifacts'. Things don't sound like heresy to a statistician unless he is arguing implicit versus explicit logic. That is regardless of how it feels when he walk into his department.

There is no need to prescribe artifacts' if we can just keep the correct definitions clear and not conflate them.

Then by his definition they would be considered 'childish' people.

The code is for anyone who can understand the business requirements it solves to make a similar product by using the same techniques. Basically at this point it's like a bunch of notes on how to solve a particular problem.

Any business will require substantial investment of a resource to read that code and remake the solution. At that point most of the scaffolding and UX code is redesigned and you have another clone with a different IP. This is different from the old brand but solves the technical problems in many similar ways.

In business it turns out that the UX is the requirement most of the time and the business IP will follow who ever has the same UX. No one really gives a shit about the nuts and bolts of the code unless it's open sourced.

I have the preview and they are still porting a majority of the games over. Only a select few 360 games can be played on the Xbox one.

It's interesting that you view taxation as a violent fundamental wealth redistribution. Taxes do suck and I'm not going to argue that point, but it's interesting because without taxes we would be living in a fundamentally violent society (since there is no government support a monopoly on violence - e.g. Somalia - everyone then may be violent to achieve personal goals).

How about we all try getting rich (or just keep our wealth out of violent neighboring hands) without violence or a government. Try to even significantly increase any meager income in that situation.

My point is that without taxes and the government they support, there is nothing but violence to support any type of venture. This has historical bearing with places that were lawless yet aplenty with resource for ventures (e.g. North American colonies, Wild West, etc...).

If in particular you meant a progressive tax policy that increases the percentage of taxation with your income level is what you're describing as violent then I can see your point a bit more clearly. Why punish the people who are being more productive, right?

Well the thing is that the owners of capital get the most extreme benefit from government. Never the other way around. It makes sense to me that the biggest recipients become the biggest supporters.

For a brief anecdote, poor people who earn wages get social programs to help sometimes, which are then largely obfuscated from public comprehension so you'll need a social worker just to get started. Rich people who own capital get business subsidies in the form of cash on the books. They are both paid from taxes and supported by the government. Who do you think benefits most from the government here? The business owner or the wage earner? Who is being stopped more readily from using violence with this support from government?

So taxes support all of this precarious balance in a capitalist society because the government is the only thing we have found to solve this problem of violence.

Here's a Radiolab podcast about the tech they can use to capture people off the grid. They'd have to fly a drone for the day when the message is delivered and know who received the message.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Here's the repo - https://github.com/funtenna/REF_DESIGN

Eisenhower was a republican before the conservative military hawks entered the republican demographic (resulting after Nixon's Southern Strategy[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]) so they were the progressive and liberal republican party. More closely linked to a libertarian ideology of the time and would be likened by most modern liberal democrats.

It's like they took the idea of CRISPR from biology and applied it to the problem of replacing code in software instead of DNA. Brilliant method.

Killah Priest should be grouped with Wu-Tang.

using the definition in the article where X^n = 1 * X * X ...

x^2 = 1XX x^1 = 1*X x^0 = 1

From the article's example the simplicity of the binomial formula is extremely useful compared to a formula that would have to account for the case where k=0. Another commenter pointed out the useful elegance of 0log0=0 for physicists. These are the real world applications for mathematicians choosing definitions directly. Saying that an idea may be defined in many ways is correct, but choosing a working definition for the system helps to apply the definition to appropriate concepts. This is what mathematicians are doing when choosing a specific definition instead of saying that any definition will work.

One could argue the entire field of Real Analysis was formed because Calculus showed the world that we didn't really have those definitions, but they were needed. There are cases where the integral of the derivative does not equal the derivative of the integral (violation of the fundamental theorem of calculus) without having a specific epsilon-delta definition of limit.

Also, zero is not always the same as nothing or none. Zero is an abstract number that some have decided is useful to represent nothing or an empty set, but really comes from an abstract idea that you can count nothing and have a number. This goes back to the fact that numbers are pretty useful ideas regardless if you may consider one of them a function or not.

I agree with your example being a joke because McDonalds cheeseburgers cannot be traded for illicit services and goods as easily as laundered cash. They've admitted to systemic corruption and taken month of revenue in fines because of it simply because the DOJ is too lazy to actually fix the problem. This is a horrible stain on the record of the DOJ and is tantamount bribery disguised with legalese. Trying to sugar coat it doesn't change that fact.

Looks like they are looking for ideas and polish to get paid.

#AlwaysBeLearning

Would you please describe some of the faulty arguments for the "minimum guaranteed income" and also maybe link to the credible economic arguments to contrast? Otherwise you aren't really providing any information to further the discussion. Thanks!