Going a little further with this idea: how well do unequal outcomes reflect equal treatment? People like Pareto would say some people get better outcomes only because they make better life decisions; people like Veblen would say some people get better outcomes because they make better life decisions, like the decision of which parents to be born to.
It's highly likely that outcomes reflect both decisions and chance (including initial aptitudes for decision making), but I'm unsure anyone to this point has been able to demonstrate what the breakdown between those two factors might be.
(and indeed Pareto predicted that people will tend to fundamentally lean to favouring one or the other explanation, and only secondarily come up with rationalisations that support their basic worldview)
In fairness, honest evaluations of those factors is nearly impossible for humans. We all have some level of emotion that affects our thinking in this regard.
I’ve not seen anyone convince the girl who got into Stanford or Harvard with straight A’s and a 36 ACT; that the girl who also got straight A’s and a 36, but didn’t get in, was less privileged. (After all, the girl that didn’t get in likely landed at Northwestern or Duke, or what have you.) The Harvard/Stanford person will almost always reliably come up with reasons outside of privilege that they were selected.
As would most of us if we were in that position. It’s almost human nature level impulses evoking our thoughts in these kinds of situations.
What is the difference between 'decision' and 'chance'? What 'decisions' we make are illusions created by chance; discourse is saturated with this false dichotomy.
Yes, or rather, that things are determined. I think such an idea is plainly correct. The idea that people have the ability to 'make decisions' or to 'do otherwise' has no physical or even logical basis. It is the kind of life-centric thinking that we are special bits of matter that somehow has some ability to transcend cause and effect. Most philosophers resolved this by redefining free will to mean something other than 'the ability to do otherwise' since that definition is logically incoherent.
I submit that what pple should focus in trading are ikigais… (although i suspect Pareto could have hidden a hint or two. — here , i have a set of locally pareto-optimal short term life goals, how to make a market?)
(Previously i had wanted to trade experts’ (meta)underwear, but that turned out more to be like the market for million-dollar abstract art which nobody has seen in person! The seller of ikigais, otoh, has almost certainly a glimpse at the very least — Citoyen, dissect his favorite joke!)
EDIT: do. Not. Trust a physicist who tells you that the calculation (or optics alignment) was fun. However. Trust a mathematician (or economist) who happily flips burgers to support their habit. Informatiker/logician: depends on how alexithymic they are, the correlation may surprise you :)
Update: eg Kip Thorne highlighted the joy of having detractors eat crow. Thankfully did not pass on the bag of having “his intuition shredded” or “trying his best to stay away from being bored” or some such inanity :)
Doesn't pareto-optimality require first agreeing on which cone be the positive one?
A market for million-dollar abstract art which it's possible[0] to see in person: https://www.artbasel.com (also suspected by artist friends to be a good way to reward questionable deeds with KYC-friendly[1] gains — pecunia non olet)
KST as a Bartle Killer[2]? That, more than "low stakes", might explain the apparent knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth nature of academic strife?
What is the physicist's equivalent of a favourite wheelbarrow? Best quick and dirty breadboard damping kludge? Honeycomb vs sheer mass?
[0] ok, I haven't been, but I was in town during it once, so I'm pretty confident it exists and is visible.
[1] let's not even mention the cash-onion that is the restaurant business.
[2] there is a theory that all the working dog breed behaviours can basically be explained by selecting for overexpression of a particular phase of prey drive and underexpression of the rest. I guess Nobel Prizes in Physics grew out of some small ur-mammal wanting to model its meals well enough to figure when it'd zig and when it'd zag, and overexpressing this to the point that humans attempt to model the whole damn universe?
It would appear that our cones align well enough to keep the intersection positive (the conversation semiprocrastinative)
I shant say that artbasel doesnt exist. Shall we align yet more finely to note that the various subtypes of the highest level “markets” serve to distort the market so as to stay (mildly) (dys)functional? A taxonomy of the various markets for lemons/_lemons is in order? Restnt biz is further enough off the manifold that i might not find it that interesting, convince me.
>honeycomb… sheer mass
It might be nice to expand on what senses of these words are alluded here.. “honeycombs“ are nice skeletons that (math)phykers found they cud feed into the vN (inker) blackbox & get out some interpretable Rorschach zombies. (Plausibly) Marketable Schlep to put off the potentially ikigai busting hard thinking ?
[2] coevolution? The mainstream, prodded by NPs, might evolve towards dropping the interpretability/identifiability reqs?
Judging by the fact that we've managed to converse* for over 1Q now, when the generic HN convo intersects at a point, or at most a thread, I'd say we're pretty well aligned (and maybe on a collision course? — maybe approaching vs receding is how one could distinguish alignment from anti-alignment?)
Restaurants shall have to wait for a lull; for now I just wonder if Shnur pays his hosting service or if they (spb tochka ru) pay him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2ixHXhSDs
Rorschach zombie? ("I'm not stuck in here defending my thesis to you, you're in here offending my thesis to me!") I'd just meant alu honeycomb and sheer mass as in stiffness techniques for optical tables (tho it appears the resonances mean stiffness/mass matter, not stiffness per se, so granite isn't so good — but maybe granite honeycombs?)
Kip Stephen Thorne. interpretability/identifiability? (if it's the ML term set, you'll have to enlighten me) Recall BAWR: "The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken."
* insofar as both parties can only read the public part of the other's state, and can write only their own state, it'd be pretty difficult for an online convo to be anything but pareto-optimal, as it only proceeds when both parties are satisfied with its progress? [insert IETF and voluntary collegiality/near-unanimity here]
KST blackhole that he is, might be only approximating his inner state as Killer for better transmission.. recall that he was highly involved in Interstellar, had he been involved in Oppenheimer Bohr might have posed “can you smell the magic” to Oppie instead, dragging Nolan out of the unnecessary composer envy
wish I hadn't missed Nagle's flagged comment (though I can get the drift); sounds like he (who's been thinking about AI much longer than some flaggers have been alive) went beyond C'Mell and Жестокость?
Sorry, I was trying to remember a Spruch from an Imkerwagen that I used to pass and cribbed that one off the 'net instead. (and got a laugh from my wife with "what goes mus, mus...")
Thorne-Weiss rules? (still have to read the Weiss art. so ignore if it's in there)
It's highly likely that outcomes reflect both decisions and chance (including initial aptitudes for decision making), but I'm unsure anyone to this point has been able to demonstrate what the breakdown between those two factors might be.
(and indeed Pareto predicted that people will tend to fundamentally lean to favouring one or the other explanation, and only secondarily come up with rationalisations that support their basic worldview)