pinguin7

I think "discretize" is the opposite of using continuous functions, if I understand correctly.

They probably meant to play golf in some kind of grid system and using only a few different strengths and angles.

But interestingly, most complex games have some kind of mixture of both: basket ball having discrete points, but fouls are remedied with a free shot on a continuous plane.

Ice hockey, on the other hand, has only a discrete set of places where the game can continue after a foul.

This is also what keeps me coming back: the frequent appearances of an insider to the events that are mentioned in an article or post.

I wouldn't be too surprised if in a comment thread about an article about the first moon landings Werner Braun would chime in with a few anecdotes and correct some errors in the article.

And Buzz Aldrin would debate him on that.

Fun fact: the "learning curve" was initially meant as having time on the x-axis and knowledge on the y-axis.

Thus your expression "an absolute wall" would mean that you immediately grasp everything there is to know.

But since the meaning since has unintentionally shifted and the original meaning is universally ignored, we all understand you.

I think Graeber makes the assumption that the statement "my job makes no (net) contribution to society" is as closest to reality as we can possibly get.

The interviewed person is probably the best to know if the job is valuable. Even if they falsely assume that their job makes no difference, the sentiment is a problem in itself.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just giving my interpretation of the intent.

While I agree on your basic premise, this might be one of those times where a horrible article makes valid points and is correct in its assessment of the situation.

I think this is one of the greatest flaws of current journalism: By increasing the "feel good value" for its intended audience and confirming their respective biases, an author can completely disenfranchise readers coming from a different point of view.

You and me were both repulsed by the sweeping statements and lack of nuance and, since time is precious and the article looked like yet another propaganda tool, you rejected its value. Rightly so.

Yet in it where description that were correct and pointed to a deeper issue of whom we believe and why.

So by writing for just a section of a possible audience any discussion is impossible.

I won't read the National Review (just this article) and thus their content will be irrelevant to any good discussion I'll have in the future.

From my experience: Indiegogo has less quality control. If you are running a scam or physically impossible product, use Indiegogo.

Not really. Volt is pronounced like a soft w, not like an F.

But they must have known that people won't know that, so you still have a valid point.