As someone who is fairly steeped in the rationality-loving tradition and those ways of making sense of the world that are common in tech, I'd ask the following:

Can you or someone else on this thread point to a gentle introduction to the types of thought besides rationality that you're thinking of and how they're grounded? Is it possible for someone who accepts rationality to follow and credit these arguments without having to take any new beliefs as axiomatic?

Put another way, can rationality guide me at least part way to some of these other things?

This is the substance of Sam Harris's career and his debates with Peterson. It's a fundamental unknown if you can base metaphorical conversations in rationality.

Peterson will make biological/scientific arguments for religious metaphorical stories and Sam will reduce everything back to what is only groundable. Sam will then go on to argue we should only agree on the metaphors or qualia that are undeniable, burning fingers on hot stoves as a guaranteed shared experience and metaphor. If you can bridge the gap between rationality and metaphor you have found meaning (according to Peterson) or a million billion dollars if you have some business skills and world peace.

EDIT: Sorry, this was probably more fundamental than gentle..

There is a logic to metaphor. If you believe that touching the stove with your finger will give you a burning sensation and you believe that others experience roughly the same as you, you can build the metaphor that others consciously experience pain. It's not based on the objective scientific understanding of the pain chemicals in someone's consciousness, but you reasoned up from your own experience into someone else's.

The question is best answered by exploring where you perceive the edge of metaphor vs rationality to be.

Hi HN! This is a Thanksgiving holiday project I made, inspired by a Robin Sloan novel and the whole "X for Y" thing getting a bit silly :)

It's rough right now, because I wanted to launch something rather than obsess like I usually do.

I'd love to hear what you think!

This is a Thanksgiving holiday project I made, inspired by a Robin Sloan novel and the whole "X for Y" thing getting a bit silly :)

It's rough right now, because I wanted to launch something rather than obsess like I usually do.

I'd love to hear what you think!

In the course of discussing the formula, the book takes you through the birth of the MIT blackjack team, the genesis of statistical arbitrage, and mini biographies of people like Claude Shannon and Ed Thorpe. I can't recommend it highly enough.

My dad was a daytrader (read: armchair gambler) but this helped him curb his trading - he wasn't ready to do all the statistical analyses to keep rigorously investing.

We've used it in production since before it became public and its served us well.

Also: this is awesome! I'm a software engineer now working with hardware and built a straw man of this for myself a little while back (a sequence of python functions that generate eaglescript commands to make a PCB), but obviously it didn't even do 0.001% as much.

I checked out your site, but didn't see a way to launch the tool. How can I get access? (I'm working on a side project involving a BLE watch based around the nRF52840).

The tool is still internal for now. We're operating as a design service today, and our own engineers use the tool to produce designs quicker than other human-powered competitors.

Don't look at other videos until you've internalized the first sentence. Think long and hard about what that sentence means : differential equations allow you to find any function that you can make enough "what happens when it moves" observations about. Enough usually means one.

For instance you can find Newton's equations from the statement that "falling things keep going linearly faster" (because they're the simplest function that satisfies that differential equation).

On the more complex side, Google's pagerank is also the solution to a differential equation. Very technically it sort-of kind-of qualifies as a first-order one, just not in the real number space.

There's a separate branch of "differential equations" (let's call it "the physics branch") that studies how to work it with discrete time intervals rather than continuous ones, which is also interesting and useful.

Yes, the ISP could throttle anything they don't recognize, but that seems incredibly risky, given that VPNs are used widely across enterprises in the US, and degrading people's work internet seems like a really terrible idea...

Say you buy their "netflix" package. Then you won't even be able to turn on your VPN because you will only be allowed to watch netflix.

Now here is the deal: this kind of business model they are forcing does not work on the current switching model of the internet (but does on the phone/tv), because you can circumvent it down on the stack. Either by setting up a fake netflix server and/or forcing the routing table on your own machine, or some other kind of weird tunneling/workaround with packets to a supposed netflix server. Net neutrality is a hoax.