snek_boi @ snek_boi @lemmy.ml

Posts

49

Comments

433

Joined

4 yr. ago

Thanks! I changed the post so that it reflects the broader concept rather than the specific indicator :)

"Elections", " representative", and "federal" could exclude many non-American and non-Canadian countries.

Edit: Oh, silly me. I misread. I thought you wanted to exclude American stuff, not "political" stuff. Well that's another conversation. Is there something that is not political? Is there something that doesn't comment on the distributions of political goods such as significance, relevance, resource allocations (including time and attention), or value judgments?

I know encapsulation is desirable in part because of security. I figured something similar could happen by removing the ability to import anything from another program. However, I struggled to think about other situations in which no imports were desirable, and so I wondered…

That sounds exhaustive in the good sense. Rigorous. Would you say your math education was particularly good compared to that of, for example, the rest of your country? Could you know, perhaps through standardized testing, if it was good compared to the rest of the world? Would you attribute the exhaustive domain and range statements to just the book, just the teacher, or just the school administration, or some combination of them?

Fair enough, I changed "never" to "rarely" :) I'm actually curious, did you have to specify the 'type' often?

lol I see how this shower-thought can seem obvious.

What lead to the shower-thought was thinking about dimensions in linear algebra. If you want to represent a function with more parameters, you need more dimensions.

For example, two parameters could be represented by ax + by = c where a, b, and c are constants and x and y are real numbers. Note that this equation describes a 2-D plane. Three parameters would require an additional variable and an associated constant: ax + by + cz = d, where d is an additional constant and z is an additional real number. Note that this equation describes a 3-D space.

Can you see how if you wanted to represent four parameters, you would need four dimensions?

However, facet plots seem to override this need for more dimensions in a particular way: splitting up axes, like cutting up a cake. If you have four parameters (in which two of them can only take up discrete values), instead of requiring four dimensions, you can split up two dimensions in discrete chunks, like a cake, and represent four parameters in two dimensions. That was interesting for me to realize.

I guess for cake-cutters, this post is silly and trivial. But for someone trained to think "more parameters = more dimensions in the sense of going from ax + by = c to ax + by + cz = d", it was surprising to realize facet plots break that rule.

https://plotly.com/python/facet-plots/

In case you're curious about why I'm saying what I'm saying: here's what I said in another comment:

In the socialization process, I think there’s a tension between the already-existing abstract world that language conveys, and the flexibility and creativity that kids have. I say that because I was reading a book on wonder, and how children are immensely curious. However, over time, socialization can lead to the internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In effect, older people are much less curious because they believe they know exactly who they are and believe they already have good-enough answers to the questions they care about.

That is what makes me wonder if the reason for the new slang that comes from young people has to do with the experimentation that young people do with their identities as well as the lack of internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In other words, if I am a child and I don’t have a (relatively) rigid mind, to what extent could that explain my slang?

Fascinating!

In the socialization process, I think there's a tension between the already-existing abstract world that language conveys, and the flexibility and creativity that kids have. I say that because I was reading a book on wonder, and how children are immensely curious. However, over time, socialization can lead to the internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In effect, older people are much less curious.

That is what makes me wonder if the reason for the new slang that comes from young people has to do with the experimentation that young people do with their identities as well as the lack of internalization of rigid identities and worldviews. In other words, if I am a child and I don't have a comparatively rigid mind, to what extent could that explain my slang?

I'm glad to ser a fellow grammar connosieur. Stressed syllables can be hard to spot sometimes.

Not to be a killjoy, but you can make out the two back legs and the tail… so the dog wasn't having a blast. Instead, maybe the dog was pensive and reflexive.

?

Even snakes are afraid of snakes

Steven Wright

My ex's dad worked for someone that would get a new phone for each member of his family yearly and then would give his old phones to his employees. I ended up receiving year-old iPhones until 2020.

My local library had an iMac lab. I spend countless hours doing my work and hanging out there, all using iMacs. Eventually, I also bought an Apple Intel laptop with the awful butterfly keyboard, only to sell it a couple of months afterwards.

So I have tried Apple hardware. Up until 2020 it was the only smartphone hardware I ever used. It was the computer hardware I used for the vast majority of my middle and highschool years (heck, even in college there's an iMac lab that I spent quite some time in).

I spent most of my life using Apple hardware with Apple software and when I switched to repairable hardware and libre software exclusively, my life improved.

You know? It isn't that bad! The punchline could be punchier, but I like it!

Not actually, but it could be someone's predicament

Joke's on me I was homeschooled

No one here has acknowledged the difference between classical economics and neoclassical economics (or even the difference with post-keynesian economics). Classical economics makes descriptions and predictions that can be falsified.

It also takes into account social context by understanding the social forces that come into play in a society at a given point. For example, the profit motive is understood as a historical force reinforced by capitalism itself.

All of this is modeled in a stochastic manner, which reflects both the variation in human behavior and the strong tendencies in human behavior. Once again, these models are testable.

All of this contrasts with the idealized and unscientific notion of economics that was cooked up at the end of the 18th century: neoclassical economics. This is what is taught to most people.

Neoclassical economics doesn't seek to describe the forces that motivate human beings as much as assume that people are utility maximizers. Therefore, social context is explained reductively. Predictions are harder, because what leads the way isn't evidence, but assumptions. Of course, there's a political component to not show capitalism as a historical reality as much as both a reflection of universal truths of human nature and a desirable social arrangement.

It's sad to confirm that neoclassical economics has dominated the economics departments and school curricula of the world. However, many scholars fortunate enough to be given a stable job despite not believing in the contemporary doctrine are doing amazing work. For example, Shaikh.

With this in mind, classical economics has to resemble physics to the extent that physics describes stochastic processes. In fact, Shaikh explicitly recognizes that pressure as a measure is a stochastic measure because, even though you can't predict the trajectory of a single atom, you can predict how many atoms will interact on an aggregate level. The same happens with humans.

A great alternative is majority judgment!

I think real shit https://www.denverpost.com/2023/07/03/slackline-hero-mickey-wilson-heroism-award-carnegie-medal-arapahoe-basin-ski-lift-rescue/