rweba's comments

(1) I don't think this is necessarily the right place to ask this. HN is not particularly known for mathematics, it's better to ask at a math focused site like https://math.stackexchange.com/

(2) My generic answer to the question is - NO. You can be a good quant, engineer, etc. without having the knowledge of how to prove the theorems in a real analysis undergraduate course. However, knowing the proofs may be helpful if you decide you want to do write theoretical research papers in a particular area, even just for the sake of "mathematical maturity".

I understand that people are reacting to the "missed expectations", but the reality is that everyone knew that their original production goals were very aggressive.

Here's the bottom line: If Tesla originally planned to produce 250,000 Model 3s in 2018 (5,000 per week * 50 weeks) and only ends up producing 150,000 (1,000 per week for 6 months + 5,000 per week for 6 months) I don't think that's going to be a problem in the long run.

Their only real competitor right now is the Chevy Bolt.

The Bolt has similar range and price to the Model 3 but it has at least 2 disadvantages:

(1) GM is not really aggressively pushing the Bolt, allegedly because it is selling them at a loss

(2) Tesla has the super charger network.

Conclusion: These delays don't like they will have any long term impact.

Really surprised this did not get more comments.

I have thought about these questions for a long time.

The issue is precisely what Haier brings up : "IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes."

The problem is that as a society we don't believe this, we believe that having high IQ makes someone more morally worthy of consideration than someone with low IQ. There is a reason people it's considered OK to insult "stupid" people.

People will boast about overcoming poverty and becoming very successful, but how many people will brag that they succeed despite having a low IQ?

A below average IQ is seen as shameful, a sign of moral inferiority, something that can should not be acknowledged or admitted. The assumption is that all the "good" people who need to be listened to and followed are ones with high IQs and those with low IQs should at best be ignored and at worst be pitied and shunned.

If the technology to enhance IQ does become available, ideally it should be like compulsory public education now: Something that is made freely available to all citizens at birth. This would address a lot of the concerns that research into the genetic basis of intelligence will only be used to justify the existing social order, particularly if high continues to be seen as signifying moral worthiness.

Should say 2015

We Americans do tend to overuse superlatives. It's just part of our culture. A restaurant you enjoyed can't just be "good" or "decent", it has to "great". A nice vacation can't just be "relaxing" or "enjoyable" it will be described as "awesome".

"Amazing" is another word we tend to overuse.

I just randomly came across this very relevant TED talk given by a prison inmate yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F89eycANUrQ

I definitely feel that American prison policy leans way too far on the side of moral judgement and retribution than rehabilitation. In my personal opinion, anyone who has served their term has already paid for their mistakes and we, as a society, should be more concerned with helping them get back on their feet than with further punishing them for their mistakes.

I also think the practice of denying former felons the right to vote is completely ridiculous. So if you commit a felony at 18, you can't vote even when you're a 100? What kind of sense does that make?

This article makes me respect Bill Gates more. You never hear of him being involved in cringy stuff like this.

Yes, it may be legal, but it definitely doesn't look good.

Also, is it just me or is Zuck becoming rather paranoid about his privacy and security?

(1) He apparently has SIXTEEN bodyguards at his house: http://pagesix.com/2016/02/14/mark-zuckerberg-has-16-bodygua...

(2) He bought all the houses surrounding his in Palo Alto to protect his privacy: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-zuckerb...

(3) He tapes his laptop camera and microphone: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...

(4) He goes jogging with FIVE bodyguards: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464044/Isn-t-work-T...

(5) THIS current article.

Obviously a famous rich guy will need more security than the average person, but other billionaires don't seem to take it this far.

There are 3 possibilities:

1) Russia hacked the election

2) Russia did not hack the election but the intelligence community wrongly believes they did

3) Russia did not hack the election and the intelligence agencies don't believe they did but have decided to lie to the American people for their own reasons.

Some of the reasons to believe they did:

[1] They had the motivation

[2] They have the capability

[3] They have done similar attacks in the past (as has the US)

[4] Russian linked hacking groups like Fancy Bear have been tied to the attacks

[5] The choice of targets and leaked information appeared to benefit Russia.

I think there is enough evidence to point to Russia hacking as the most probable explanation.

I went to their DC location on Friday.

It's really not THAT different than any other fast food place in terms of the speed of service or the number of staff. Even the price ($6.95) was about the same as what a typical fast food meal costs.

So I think the "disruptiveness" has been a bit exaggerated.

The quinoa portion was reasonably generous and tasted pretty good, but I don't know that I would eat quinoa every day. I didn't realize that they had no meat options before I got there.

As far as whether this model will become more pervasive, I'm not sure. But even if it does, I don't see the big deal since they are not really that different from what's already there.

Now, if they somehow got the costs to be MUCH CHEAPER than existing fast food options (let's say $2.50 for a big bowl of quinoa), THAT would be a game changer.

I actually LOVE reading biographies, in fact this year I made a special point of reading as many biographies as I could. And yes, like this guy I read biographies with the very specific goals of learning life lessons and ideas that I could implement in my own life.

But I agree with his logic:

(1) He is referring to autobiographies and not biographies. As he points out, plenty of biographies are critical and even extensively point out all the subject's flaws and failures.

(2) The value of reading biographies comes from aggregating them not extrapolating from one. If you read 10 biographies of entrepreneurs and you notice the same 3 recurring themes in all their stories, that's a good hit that those themes are not random.

(3) There is definitely a danger of survivor bias, but the best biographies do a good job of trying to figure how much luck played a role in an individual's success.

But the bottomline is that no matter what you read, you do have to take it with a grain of salt and consider that there are probably many other factors which were not included.

The bottom line is: how well do these "progressive ideas" work in practice? I couldn't find much evidence online that they're more effective in general than the "traditional" approach.

I have been a college professor for 7 years, here's what I have been able to PERSONALLY observe in that time:

(1) Frequent, regular feedback (quizzes, tests, homeworks, projects) helps a lot for most students. If you just have a final at the end the majority of students will finish the course having learned a lot less.

(2) Obviously students learn more when they're personally engaged and interested in a topic rather from just doing it to get a grade. But getting them excited is not obvious and engagement varies in predictable ways based on previous background knowledge and aptitude for the subject. A lot of the extra effort a teacher does is ultimately to try to get students more excited about a subject.

(3) One on one time with a teacher students can be very helpful. It will almost certainly produce a noticeable improvement in subject understanding, particularly for those students who are motivated but struggling a little bit. Unfortunately this requires a lot of time from the professor, so it's not really practical except with small classes and a small teaching load.

I think there is a cultural disconnect to some of the complaints about Wolfram's post.

Wolfram and Minsky both have backgrounds in academia. In academia "self-promotion" is actually not generally frowned upon.

People really do expect you to bring up your own work whenever possible and connect it whatever issue is at hand. This is not considered rude or offensive or "bragging", anymore than if someone told you they're from New York City and you mentioned that you'd lived in Brooklyn for seven years.

It's a way for people to find common ground and show how much they share intellectually.

Thus, I'm pretty sure Minsky wouldn't be offended.

And yes, for the record I have found Wolfram to be somewhat self-aggrandizing in the past, but I just don't think this is an example of that, he's simply reminiscing over his history with Minsky and describing some connections between their work.

I really find myself disagreeing.

Yes, I do believe Wolfram went overboard with his claims for "A New Kind of Science", but I don't think this very sweet blog post was in any way inappropriate.

It's not rude to reference your own work when discussing someone else's, especially when you're showing how much they influenced you and were important to your growth.

I did not find it to be inappropriate. He was noting his interactions with Minsky and the connections between their work which is a standard and useful thing to do in this kind of situation.

1) "The first half seemed utterly naive (apparently nobody was sexually assaulted in the golden age of the 60s?)"

- But should she be subjected to an investigation for writing a "naive" article? I think not, as surely the freedom of thought includes the freedom to have "wrong" opinions?

(2) "then took a very unwise turn with the recounting of the ongoing court cases."

-Disagree. These cases are in the public record. Why shouldn't she mention them? It's not as if she has sworn confidentiality or she had inside information.

(3) "What particularly struck me was the refusal to believe professors had any power over students"

- I don't think this is an accurate summary at all. You don't have to agree with her opinion, her point was that the new attitudes she's complaining about greatly exaggerate the power of professors over students. A professor has the power to give a student a bad grade or write them a bad recommendation. A student has the power to complain about the professor to the dean/chair and give him/her a bad evaluation. If a student alleges sexual harassment or assault the professor's career could be destroyed even if the charges are not proven. Basically a professor has some power, but not some kind of unlimited power over individual students, which seems to be what is being alleged.

(4) "if students aren't exposed to harassment at university then they won't be prepared for real life."

-Nope. I would phrase it as "If students are overly coddled and swaddled they will not develop psychological coping skills to deal with a real world which is not going to exquisitely cater to their sensitivities".

"Can a biologist fix a radio?"

http://www.protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v69/pdf/bc...

Funny and inspirational, and shows how primitive a lot of biological research really is: Almost randomly try a bunch of things and take note of anything that has any effect. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The current threshold is 100,000 and the petition only has 61,040 votes.

Important quote from that article:

“Increasing the supply is not going to increase the number of affordable units; that is a complete and utter fallacy,” said Jaimie Ross, the president of the Florida Housing Coalition.

As the article explains, the reason is that builders are going to prefer to build "luxury" units to "affordable" ones. So having a whole bunch of construction is not necessarily going to lead to anything affordable. A construction boom may bring the high end rents down a little bit, but they'll still be out of reach of most people.

Thank you. I think people are far too quick to imply every problem is caused by bureaucratic over regulation.

Manhattan is also the counter example that always comes to mind for me. If you have a lot of relatively well off people chasing the same thing the prices are going to be high no matter what.

Urban rents generally only come down if the economy crashes or an area becomes undesirable (i.e. a lack of people people willing to pay the prices).

I would love to see examples of an urban area (i.e. not a suburb) where rents went down MAINLY because of building new units, even while demand and the economy remained strong.