I wonder why he didn't argue against the point by using an actual billionaire to illustrate. Instead he chose someone who is not a billionaire, and imagined them becoming one with nine and a half months of constant 93% growth. Couldn't his counterargument become stronger without the underpants gnome logic?
Funny that it use to be the millionaires everyone hated. I guess there are too many millionaires these days and vilifying them means turning yourself or someone you know into the villain. That’s probably a little too uncomfortable.
Well, I would reframe it. A comfortable retirement nest egg is now over a million in most parts of the US, and the people who used to rail against millionaires were never intending to argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy a comfortable retirement.
Inflation has made so many "millionaires" (8% of US households), and at the same rendered it a meaningless title - a salaried worker who paid off their 30 year mortgage and has a little in their 401k is quite likely to cross the million net worth threshold.
A million is hardly buying mansions, yachts, and champagne-filled swimming pools in the current economy
Meaning is derived from real usage, not from dictionaries. Descriptivism has won. And in the real world, it's simply used as a cheap shot to claim that certain policies or thoughts are only for the winning of votes rather than well thought out or other "ideology" based.
Do all the non politically affiliated people who hate billionaires not count? Or why is the granularity here important? Your point is stronger the other way!
Populism is a "thin" political ideology that often gets layered on top of other political ideologies, both left- and right-wing. It simply means "policies that appeal to ordinary people" (vs. a rich and perceived corrupt elite). By definition, someone who hates billionaires simply because they are billionaires is a populist. They might hate other populists that have attached themselves to other political ideologies (and have different scapegoats or preferred policy prescriptions to rectify the inequality), but they are still a populist.
There’s no reason to invent your own head canon, the influence was openly acknowledged when Swift was new and it continues now that the language is developed out in the open (see Swift Ownership Manifesto)
My salary adjustment didn’t doesn’t keep up with inflation, but his ability to monetize his position in public office far outstrips it. Why would he care? He can point a firehose of public money straight into his own pocket with no consequences.
So they’re taking advantage of the marketing push behind Disclosure Day hitting theaters to make a stupid “aliens” pun about immigration. What a bunch of dimwit fascist tools.
When one is talking about two things gradually diverging, isn't "drift" a natural, descriptive verb to reach for? I've heard it often when discussing an implementation diverging from a specification, for example.
Oh of course -- the unusual part is that they apply it to basically everything. Gravity is caused by inertia drift, consciousness is coherence drift, the economy is governed by power drift, etc.
Rutherford said that "all science is either physics or stamp collecting."
In his view, a field either explains the underlying mechanisms of the universe (physics) or it simply collects and labels data without real understanding (stamp collecting).
Carr was saying, in a hand-wavy way, that we'll see a step-change in technological advancement when AI innovation in physics bears fruit, and that other applications of AI are less likely to be as transformative.
I had no idea Jimmy Carr was a graduated physics student! Surely he's not just some comedian who is talking about a subject he doesn't truly understand and then trying and convince others that his level of knowledge is far greater than those that study this subject.
I wasn't quite sure what he was about there. I think there are a couple of different things - firstly AI making a breakthrough on the fundamental laws say combining quantum mechanics with gravity which would be interesting but I don't think was really what he meant. The other thing is using robots and the like to produce better and more stuff which I think he was thinking about though that's more engineering really.
Don't miss that you can click through to aperiodictable.com to see it live.
Also: when did everyone stop calling this quasiperiodic and start calling it aperiodic? I feel like the almost-but-not-quite translational symmetry was a useful distinction. Has it fallen out of favor?
I believe it is just "as of" the XKCD comic, for which "aperiodic table" seems more sensible than "quasiperiodic table" for how the comic was written. The exciting thing about using the Penrose tiling is that you get "aperiodic" without it just being completely arbitrary. For that it is natural to borrow XKCD's terminology for this particular project.
I don't think mathematicians are going to change their term to "aperiodic". Almost everything is aperiodic. Quasiperiodic indicates something much more interesting is happening.
Everyone's focused on the aperiodic part, meanwhile I'm wondering just what about this visual qualifies as a "table"...I suppose "aperiodic voronoi" doesn't quite have the same ring.
reply