teachingassist

5 ms·

1.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> All of which still ignores how wildly unlikely it is that such a high degree of similarity occurs by chance. It is wildly unlikely that I should exist through the process of evolution, to waste my afternoon on this argument, and yet: h
2.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> Even if I hadn't, what point to claiming authority on that basis? Oh, this was a direct response to the fact that you repeatedly implied that I was ignorant and hadn't done basic reading in the field. You were wrong about tha
3.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> no sign of apprehending I apprehended it perfectly well; I'm still in disagreement, since my argument is unaffected. > so contradict all available evidence It doesn't, and that's what you have missed. What I said is
4.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> Happily, the paper does not only do that! Yes, happily! Since, as I was saying in my first comment: I didn't agree with this part of the paper's abstract being relevant evidence, or your take on it; but I agreed with it in ot
5.
by teachingassist 5y ago
Even with all this 'trivial literature review', there still remains the possibility three fish might have randomly walked [or non-randomly walked] into the same solution with the same local maximum, which couldn't be distingu
6.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> On what basis do you hold any such expectation?... The paper explicitly contrasts its subject with several examples of convergent evolution producing functionally equivalent, but proteomically and genomically highly distinct, outcomes
7.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> that three species should have a near-identical sequence coding for a near-identical protein suggests rather strongly that this version of the gene arose in one species and was then acquired by the other two We'd strongly expect t
8.
by teachingassist 5y ago
Yours is an anti-capitalist take which I don't see as a criticism of VW specifically here. The reason this service can potentially exist is only because Tesla is charging such a high upfront cost, and because it may be more accessible
9.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> no one has really approached this type of bet sizing from a rigorous perspective beyond the relatively simple Kelly Criterion. Kelly Criterion takes into account your bankroll at the point of betting, so it does take that into account
10.
by teachingassist 5y ago
This comment is right - and the study began shortly after Ohio's peak of infections. As such, most infected participants would have been recently infected in a situation with low and decreasing virus circulation. Nobody thinks there&#x
11.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> This is a "no brown M&Ms" kind of violation. I see it more as a "no brwn M&Ms" violation. We would all assume the intent was to say no brown M&Ms, rather than imagine that no action was required.
12.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> It would push us a lot closer to a world where people don't own anything anymore besides their own houses (maybe not even that) and the government owns everything. I'm really struggling to understand this point of view, given
13.
by teachingassist 5y ago
London's transport strikes have been shown to ultimately benefit the wider economy, as people have broken out of their local maximums and found more efficient ways to travel around.
14.
by teachingassist 5y ago
Ctrl-F "federal government" suggests otherwise. This is now really a bad faith argument. You've moved the goalposts (again), and declared that your new goal wasn't met (when, in fact, you just ignored that part). It&#x27
15.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three The "Today,..." claim is is simply false (both when the article was written, and now). Wikipedia lists examples including six countries in Eu
16.
by teachingassist 5y ago
I would say in general that you want to motivate money to move as much as possible - and the problem with excessive wealth is that the money is not moving. In an ideal world, I would tax money only when it is static.
17.
by teachingassist 5y ago
First, this is not true. I live in a country in Europe and I paid a wealth tax today, in fact. Second, please re-read my comment above as to why you might have understood that.
18.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> Basically zero support for it. Wealth taxes are extremely well-supported, despite the media as an industry [and politicians] being owned by people strongly motivated to campaign against it all costs, e.g.: https://www.reut
19.
by teachingassist 5y ago
Regarding the government's ownership of real estate, I suggest you are simply mistaken, e.g.: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bisnow/2017/04/11/solving-the-m...
20.
by teachingassist 5y ago
As best I can tell, Bitcoin has moved more than [it has so far today, ~6%] on 42 days in the last year, and 38 days the year before that, considering open-to-open values. 10% daily moves happened four times in May: twice in each direction.
21.
by teachingassist 5y ago
I'd wager it was passed as a message in the ANOM app. I don't think it's coincidence that these were news-worthy on the same day.
22.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> once the government can own stocks and portions of real estate, I'm sure it will seek to incrementally increase its benefit from doing so. There's nothing stopping the government from owning these things already (governments
23.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> But....shares are useless until sold. This is clearly untrue. At least they have use in the ongoing option to sell. I can use them as collateral to borrow at least as much as, and probably a multiple of, their value. If you genuinely t
24.
by teachingassist 5y ago
OK. You seem to be agreeing that this would be a fine system with those caveats. So: Exemptions specifically covering residency already exist in finance law. If you go bankrupt, you can still live in your house (only if you owned it, mind).
25.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> So if I wait to sell shares when it suits me I a some how a monster now ? Being asked to pay tax on your wealth is not a judgement about your moral character. We ask people to pay tax to benefit society, not because we hate them. Given
26.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> Forcing people to mark-to-market? The Netherlands manages to do exactly that. > There's no way to (fairly) tax capital gains The fair part is that it's taxed - otherwise, it's unfair on people who are unable to exploi
27.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> Would it have been fine if Capcom had re-created near identical patterns without use of the book's original digital files? In copyright law this is usually fine, yes.
28.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> "the CD images can be used be artists and designers in developing concepts, preparing presentations for clients, and communicating visual information with others" This effectively is a license. It's implied that the co
29.
by teachingassist 5y ago
If we must go back 2400 years, "his father minted coins for a living" doesn't really make it sound like he came from a deprived background.
30.
by teachingassist 5y ago
> WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY WANT THEIR WORK AUTOMATED AWAY? Because any radiologist directly involved in the work of automating it away could capture multiple salaries. > but mostly dragging their feet and hindering real progress, presu

More ›