And this is why it is ludicrous to believe that ultra-rich people earn their fortune with hard work or good ideas. Being rich generates its own money. Being poor is expensive. There should be no billionaires, for any reason. Such concentrated wealth is very bad.

While I disagree that “billions is beyond being halved”, there is some truth to the idea that numbers can get so big that halving doesn’t make much difference. That seems very very counter-intuitive, so I’ll try to briefly explain.

Consider (10^10 + 2). That’s 10000000000+2. I think it’s fair to say that the +2 doesn’t make a lot of difference. It’s still approximately 10^10.

So then, consider 10^(10^10)×100. That’s a huge number, too big to type here, then multiplied by 100. So the result is 100 times bigger than the huge number. But… writing it down we see this:

10^(10^10)×100 = 10^(10^10+2) ≈ 10^(10^10).

So although ×100 does make it one hundred times bigger… that just doesn’t really make a lot of difference to a number as big as that one. As numbers get bigger and bigger, they start to take on properties a bit like ‘infinity’. Addition stops being important, then multiplication, then for even bigger numbers exponentiation doesn’t huge much of an impact either.

Mathematically, I think this is really cool and interesting. But I don’t think 1 billion is that big. 10^9 is big enough that +2 doesn’t matter much, but not so big that ×2 doesn’t matter.

[edit] (I’m struggling to get the nested powers to look right… So hopefully my meaning is clear enough anyway.)

To this very day, I know nobody - NOBODY - who even comes close to Gmail’s spam filtering capability.

I disagree. Perhaps you need hard evidence for a claim like that.

I have a gmail account, and a proton mail account. My gmail account is packed with spam. It has so much spam its crazy. The account is basically unusable. Which is fine, because I no longer trust google. It’s been years since I’ve told anyone to use this account.

On the other hand, I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve got a spam message in my inbox on protonmail. In fact, I remember. It’s 2. The account isn’t as old, but I’ve used it to sign up for at least as many things. It’s my main account now - partially because I’ve turned anti-google, but also because its not choked by mountains of junk.

(To be fair, I suspect the main reason that my gmail account is so bad is that it has a popular username, and other people have accidentally signed up for things with my email accidentally instead of their own. Nevertheless, the fact is that the gmail is spam-central, and the protonmail account is clean.)

Cascading Style

I think modern AI would know that though, since it follows almost immediately from Fermat’s Little Theorem.

At the same time as Pink Floyd singing the same line?

Yeah, especially given that so many popular vegetables are members of the brassica genus

Nar. A statement and its converse are not equivalent.

If you just start talking to some random person about it, then you’re unlikely to get a high-quality conversation; because most of the stuff people will say about it is inane or obvious or obviously wrong, etc. But there are definitely interesting discussions and thoughts that can be had about it. I’ve had countless garbage conversations about, and a handful of good ones. Probably my favoutite take is from Daniel Dennett’s book “Freedom Evolves”. He is very careful to build up a strong picture of what is it that we’re talking about and what the ‘obvious’ problems are, before then carefully and systematically showing those things aren’t really problems with what we were talking about anyway. Before reading that book, I was hard line in the camp of “obviously free will doesn’t exist; that’s a scientific fact”; but after reading it… well, I’d now say “it depends exactly what you mean, but probably the free will you’re talking about does exist.”.

I’d say this comic is more relevant:

The meaning of free will is exactly what people are discussing when they talk about whether or not it exists. What does and what doesn’t count as free will is what’s up for discussion.

It’s a geometry puzzle. Of course they aren’t going to get out a protractor to carefully get the 80° drawn to scale. The point of these puzzles isn’t that we actually want to know what the angle is. The point is to navigate a maze of logic. (A very short maze in this particular case.)

deleted by creator

Yeah, cars suck.

nar. HDDs don’t require power to maintain their state. So that’s an advantage they’ll always have over SSDs, which means there will be use-cases where HDDs are the better choice.

That’s true, Mozilla’s vision of ads is much better than Google’s. But is there any reasons it will be one or the other? Is there any reason to believe that Mozilla’s ads will displace Google’s ads? Or are we just going to end up with more ads: Google’s very bad ads plus Mozilla’s less bad ads.

[edit] Just to be clear - I don’t want to sound any Mozilla. Mozilla hasn’t actually acted on this yet. Firefox is still good right now, and will continue to be good at least in the short term. It’s just that Mozilla have stated their intention to work on making ad systems. So when that actually happens, it will be bad.

I sure hope so. I’ve been on team Mozilla for a long time, but right at this critical moment they are starting to wobble. Their CEO seems to be steering them in a direction that I don’t agree with.

(I still believe Firefox is the best option right now; but I’m a little concerned for the future.)

The name use to be closer to the truth, but then money corrupted it - as it always does.

Nar, I don’t think that’s quite right. I reckon it’s more like nice looking cubicles (with normal walls) but also lots of cameras from all different angles.

Privatization seems like a really bad idea to me. Helium is non-renewable resource. Privatization is about being ‘efficient’ at maximising profits. Do you think the people / companies that own the helium reserves are going to be interested in keeping helium available for centuries in the future? I’d say probably not.

For a profit based company, the only motivation to preserve the helium for future use is that maybe it will be worth a lot more money in the future. But there are two big problems with that. Firstly, the timescale is likely to be too long for the profit to be of interest. And secondly, the main reason the price would go up is scarcity; and that scarcity will come sooner if the helium is wasted in the short term. (Unless one company actually has a monopoly on helium, in which case they can create artificial scarcity by just not selling it. But that would obviously be bad for other reasons.)