p139, under slight substitution (keeping in mind that Mises wrote in 1940)
> The accomplishment gratifies [the grad student]
neither mediately nor immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more often even
greet it with taunts, sneers, and persecution. Many a [grad student] could have
used his gifts to render his life agreeable and joyful*; he did not even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny path without hesitation. The
[grad student] wants to accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he knows that he moves toward his own disaster.
see also footnote 23? (would Rao call Mises' geniuses Clueless or Losers?)
* it furthers the great man to enjoy the life of the sage?
I do respectfully interpret {pg,tlb,rtm} as preferring to become genius hunters that fail well to remaining grad students that succeed badly..
(Thanks for reminding me of the cases of Niedermeyer and Takesaki, more appropriate to remember as them grad students rather than geniuses?)
Albeit the more apt metaproblem would be the one of enabling these “grad students” to hunt “genius projects” in teams. not sure if YC itself was meant to be this kind of genius project— i cant tell if that project proved its salt by seducing the {OGs} with a barrage of noble, monastic yet fecund suffering… perhaps not, since they kinda moved on to comfortable spiessig lives (as have their successors, mostly)
::::
vM (good or bad faith?) sidestepped the “Rao Normalization” issue by citing only nonSTEM “geniuses”, YC embraced 2 rounds of “Rao Normalization”: “finding our ikigai by hiring G/GS to find what pple want”
> "After we had been married for years it occurred to me that he never puts salt on anything."
The fox doesn't quite manage to brush his tail over his tracks. What is the finest topology in which the "flunked over a hottie" stories form a convergent sequence?
(Yes. Low-discrepancy sequences are the WP link for "a special random number generator" in /unsort, and I considered that link to also cover quasi-Monte Carlo etc. I'm not immediately sure what you mean by "φ in a circular space" though.)
My bad, I'd just ^F'd with a purely syntactic search on a few terms.
If you can arrange your space from 0,..1 and identify 1 with 0 to make it circular, obviously (consider 1/3, 2/3, etc.) advancing by any amount in ℚ will fail to explore a lot of the space. The flip side of this is that φ, or 1/φ, are the least-ℚ-like regular things in ℝ: if we consider good approximations to be places in the continued fraction where there's a large entry, that never occurs. (their continued fraction representation is repeated 1's)
This comes up with "how do sunflowers know about φ?", the answer to which seems to be: they don't, they're just creating new seeds in the least-correlated place to all the existing seeds, and because of the property above, that tends to result in apparently-spiraling placements which can be fitted with fibonaccis or φs.
That sounds like the perfect swith* for me as well — I'd already been meaning to hide some imperative O(n)s behind functional-seeming O(n log n)s, but if soft heaps have no huge constant involved, maybe no rabbits have to be hidden in hats?
Heh, not that any of us would be willing to tolerate getting stuff back in corrupted order ;)
If the constant factors aren't intolerable, it seems like one really ought to be able to do something with the fact that corruption (galois connection connexion?) only happens in one direction (corruption monad as closure)...
I would, ipso facto(rio), in the hope that some of these corruptions, like Shakespeare's monkeys, would rephrase the muddled messages I get from the aether in something worth remembering for all time..
Maybe you could get a professor from the Academy of Projectors in Lagado to agree to advise, whereby you could get allocated some time on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engine for your own research?
(thanks for reminding me of "Have not I the most reason to complain, when I see these very Yahoos carried by Houyhnhnms in a vehicle, as if they were brutes, and those the rational creatures?"!)
Its also worth placeholdering that PG’s role model is the aanglo neoEdwardian(?) (Bloomsbury) jMKeynes rather than the teutonic (neoVic) vonMises, considering the diverging hypernormal interpretations of their legacy.
(Compare with anglophile GCL?)
Refactoring KST’s (from Rainer?) “only 2 games worth playing, the opening game and the endgame”, i propose: “only 2 things worth doing: showing its possible or making it easy”
That's beautiful. It not only gives us a relatively objective measure of genius, but it also explain's my fencing teacher's opinion that the most beautiful move is "feint direct; direct":
- the feint direct shows a touch is possible
- the direct is the easiest possible touch
Of course, that almost never happens. RPF (like TAE) says that if you want to show it's possible, you have to schlep a lot beforehand discovering what's impossible ("you are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike"); Moore's Crossing the Chasm (1991) says that if you want to make it easy, you have to schlep a lot beforehand providing value to people who can make use of your stuff even before it's easy ("You are in a twisty maze of passageways, all different").
p139, under slight substitution (keeping in mind that Mises wrote in 1940)
> The accomplishment gratifies [the grad student] neither mediately nor immediately. It does not gratify him mediately because his fellow men at best are unconcerned about it, more often even greet it with taunts, sneers, and persecution. Many a [grad student] could have used his gifts to render his life agreeable and joyful*; he did not even consider such a possibility and chose the thorny path without hesitation. The [grad student] wants to accomplish what he considers his mission, even if he knows that he moves toward his own disaster.
see also footnote 23? (would Rao call Mises' geniuses Clueless or Losers?)
* it furthers the great man to enjoy the life of the sage?