nmrm

8 ms·

31.
by nmrm 12y ago
I have a feeling that the problem is students show "If the equation is true, then 0=0" instead of "Note that 1=1; now, we derive P". Even if all facts used in the proof are true "in both directions", it'
32.
by nmrm 12y ago
Shouldn't be too difficult. I haven't done much teaching and could write a short list. Unfortunately, I don't think it would be very surprising to most people (just as this list probably isn't surprising to most math maj
33.
by nmrm 12y ago
First of all, your statement is meaningless. What exactly does it mean to "know math"? Here's an alternative explanation: math students do lots of computations, and sometimes make mistakes which they would be able to identify
34.
by nmrm 12y ago
No, it doesn't. I thought this was clear from context, but: these are not constants. They are functions of many, many variables, many of which are probably shared; and probably also their dynamics are non-trivial. For instance, changes
35.
by nmrm 12y ago
> Although I contend that the two really aren't that different as government spending is just the aggregate of individual spending on government itself. America has a progressive tax system, so this sort of aggregation argument is o
36.
by nmrm 12y ago
This premise is also faulty; this isn't the calculus of most consumers of higher education. The calculus is more like "I need a college degree to get where I want in life. Period." > I don't see the logic of both comp
37.
by nmrm 12y ago
> I do think, as we look at the for-profit sector, there are a lot of best practices there. The support systems they’ve had, the student tracking. The way they use capital assets. This presupposes that these aren't present in the no
38.
by nmrm 12y ago
> Ok, http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx Ironically, software engineers aren't even listed here except for in an aggregate group (possibly many) which undoubtedly includes many other occupations. It&#x
39.
by nmrm 12y ago
> if the student had done some rote learning of algorithms, they wouldn't have come up with 1.5 at all. When you see "7/12 is 1.5", is your first thought "one sec, let me calculate that and see if the answer is c
40.
by nmrm 12y ago
Immediately means "without executing an entire algorithm".
41.
by nmrm 12y ago
> Can you provide some evidence regarding intelligence of truck drivers? Sure. This very article. Some non-truck drivers were apparently pretty impressed with the truck driver's book: The review, written by the eminent atomic histo
42.
by nmrm 12y ago
I think "type safety" is one of those things that's so well-defined in theory that there's always a huge disconnect between people who know the theory and people who don't. Therefore, I always like to explain the &q
43.
by nmrm 12y ago
Another committee of scientists -- another IRB board -- probably would have not allowed the study. Therefore, the parent's appeal to the IRB process as the harbinger of ethics is misguided. If any IRB would deem a study ethical, then
44.
by nmrm 12y ago
> Next step: Buy good shoes and convert some of that walking distance into running distance I highly recommend going to a running shop and getting fitted. They'll watch how you run and give you the correct sort of shoe. If it's
45.
by nmrm 12y ago
The #1 item on Aida specifically mentions breaking backward compatibility is an option. The #1 item on Don Giovanni is "clean up syntax".
46.
by nmrm 12y ago
> I could give a trivial example Please do, because this thread is hard-to-read deep and the only examples you've given were discussed at length in other subthreads before you even posted them. > but do you mean the material adva
47.
by nmrm 12y ago
> From your comments here, you do believe that, I think? I think bitcoin-as-exchange-medium is reasonable. I think bitcoin-as-a-currency or bitcoin-as-money per se is not workable, or at the very least is a solution in search of a prob
48.
by nmrm 12y ago
I absolutely agree. edit/justification: given the length of this thread and other interactions, I think this 'agree' post is a non-trivial recognition of consensus on a point rather than a non-contribution.
49.
by nmrm 12y ago
> In other words, the costs of making mistakes is internalized. I think externalities are a bad thing. "undo" is a pretty important, nearly mandatory feature for a transfer mechanism. Especially if you're talking about lar
50.
by nmrm 12y ago
> Maybe that's where we're talking past each other. I think we are :-) I was referring to legal regulation and oversight, which is there for very good reasons and is the primary reason most banks/cus have someone whose job
51.
by nmrm 12y ago
I thought through this some, and your comment resonates -- it's not right to set aside scientific code from other code with a complicated domain. But I think complicated program segments related to business practices etc. also deserves
52.
by nmrm 12y ago
> I'm not conflating them, they go together. No, they really don't. > Cryptographically secure algorithms are better than goons with a printing press. Again, technology cannot solve political problems. There are two scenario
53.
by nmrm 12y ago
That's an interesting hypothesis about why the dominant rhetoric has changed. I think another one is that people are starting to use bitcoin for real-world use cases, and finding and addressing specific pain-points is far more likely
54.
by nmrm 12y ago
edit : TL;DR: I think the only interesting non-technical discussions about Bitcoin start with a specific use case. We should latch on to technological solutions because they solve problems , not because we agree with the dominant ideolo
55.
by nmrm 12y ago
It's uninformative to conflate monetary policy with the underlying material/technology used for currency. The two are totally and entirely unrelated. It's like claiming that changing from paper to (still fiat) coins is good b
56.
by nmrm 12y ago
Thanks, that's a perfect analogy.
57.
by nmrm 12y ago
> BTC don't need regulations. Yes, it does. For the same reason that any other mechanism for transferring arbitrary sums of money across international borders needs regulation. (It's also worth mentioning that I "bank&quot
58.
by nmrm 12y ago
> which has been solved more efficiently in the Bitcoin network. Except bitcoin hasn't solved the problems with international transfers. Bitcoin's just ignored them. There's a huge difference, and I don't think igno
59.
by nmrm 12y ago
Strawman. I'm not advocating for large banks, and even specifically mention non-bank fiat->fiat cash transfer companies as a viable and even more likely alternative to BTC. > There is no reason why banks cannot use BTC Yes! Exact
60.
by nmrm 12y ago
> There is no reason why the payment processor can't implement some security in case of errors. Sure, and banks already do that. A lot of it, in fact. My point wasn't that these things aren't possible with BTC. Rather, my

More ›