|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: You have lost (Read 11771 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
The Kohr-Ah (Donald Trump) is taking over the Sa-Matra (The White House).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 05, 2016, 11:11:30 am by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Atleast we will all die instead of being subjected to slavery-hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
ZANTHIUS!
HEEEEY! Wow, long time since I've seen you! How's the old philosophical/religious/Star Control thing going? Any more trips to exotic locations?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I am working on an ideology to fight against the Kohr-Ah (Donald Trump and his supporters). Unfortunately, the ideology is not very efficient against the Kohr-Ah (Donald Trump and his supporters), as they are somewhat immune to facts and reason. It might however work better against other species that are more vulnerable to facts and reason.
http://archania.org/ideology.pdf
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 06, 2016, 07:53:09 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Wow, that's a lot more coherent than I remember your writings being in the past.
Point 1 is rather non-actionable. I'd put it last.
I'd note that figure 4 has a scale that starts around 35500, which is not great graph-making practice. Rainforest destruction is really, really bad. We have not already destroyed over 90% of it.
Figure 14 shows a formula, not a theorem. The degree of applicability of this formula to real-life situations is non-obvious. In particular, failure and diversity do not have comparable units, so they need to be scaled relative to each other based on contingent factors. That is, individual success rate could end up more important than diversity or vice versa in any given situation, based on which one you're worse at. Also, this assumes a particular model of overall success, which again may or may not be applicable to any given situation.
I agree with the general notion that diversity is good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Placing yourself intellectually above your enemy is the biggest mistake you can make. Doing so makes you unable to learn from them and unable to fix your own mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Sure. I thought it was horrible of Hillary to call you a basket of deplorables. Bernie Sanders would never have said anything like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
It was paywalled. But generally speaking, the only thing the article could contain that would help would be identifying a wide variety of cases that it's good for. They describe it being good for making predictions, which is a good case. Especially since that means that there's a coherent way of combining successes and failures, and it also allows one to put units on the diversity and make it commensurate with skill.
If you change "groups with a high level of diversity are predicted to be more successful than groups with a low level of diversity" to insert 'at predicting' after 'successful', then I agree totally. And predicting is important to a bunch of other things, so that's still important. Just, now it's a more justifiable statemtent.
One thing about the rainforests - The new graph may be more accurate, but now it promotes the opposite error - the slope is so slight, it makes it seem like it hardly matters at all. (We've still got around 90% left!) But forest area, even rainforest area, is not fungible. This isn't destroying 10% of 100% of the forests, which would be very recoverable if done right (though it never would be in real life). If that's what the graph looks like when shown straightforwardly, then I don't think comparing the totals is actually relevant. Maybe if you were to break it down by individual forests and show dramatic drops, or something? Maybe show an extinction count? Or you could send the time scale back to well before 1970 and show what there used to be? I don't know, this is a tricky one.
Or you could present it as '# years it would take to halve the forests at this rate' as a function of time, and then you look at it and realize that it's not all that long.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I have been trying to figure out of this proof by identity. I don't understand the second last step (Simplifying), and I am unsure of if it is a valid proof or not. If the proof is invalid, then professor Scott E. Page should lose his job. Another reason why I am a bit doubtful of the proof, is that I barely can find any information about it when searching for it. Such an important proof should have its own wikipedia page, and there should be tons of information about it on the Internet.... I am tempted to make a computer program to test if it is valid or not. Simply because my math skills are so bad that I don't understand the second last step 
I have written more about the diversity prediction theorem now, but I don't think I am going to include the proof of identity. I agree with you that the graph doesn't look so good when I set the y-axis to zero. But starting the y-axis at a higher number than zero isn't necessarily cheating. It is also a bit like zooming in on the area you want to talk about. I have started the y-axis a bit lower than at first now, so the graph doesn't look as steep as it did first.
And btw. If you are into piracy, you can download most scientific articles from http://sci-hub.ac/ (scientific articles should be free anyhow)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 07, 2016, 11:11:26 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
The proof is above my ad-hoc qualities too...
(scientific articles should be free anyhow) Not wanting to start a full discussion on piracy or not, but that statement is an oversimplistic generalisation.
IF the research behind it has been paid by public money, AND there's no chance to cause problems elsewhere (national security, .blah blah., already proven to be wrong but has not yet been marked so, ...), then I agree, it should be available to the taxpayers of the country that paid the research free of charge, besides an administrative fee to give access to the papers (which in modern, electronic times, is in the margins of cents) (you would pay for a book containing the paper, and in the past that was how you could get access to other papers).
It's a controversial issue, and the current control of the papers by one or two big publishers who use their leverage to make big money is an issue.
But piracy is not the solution. It helps putting pressure in finding a fairer system.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I found a better proof, and I think I am going to include something like this in my text:
And yeah, piracy might not be the solution, but big pharma is certainly not the solution either, and if research is more openly available I think science will develop faster. With the prices we have today, many universities in poor counties like India and China probably cannot afford to pay for scientific articles for their students.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 01:42:27 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
China just pirates it as they should. Let america live in their idiocracy bubble where only the wealthy can be educated .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
[offtopic]Indeed, China sponsors the education pretty well, also by sending their students all around to world to receive higher education in Europe, Australia, Japan, US,... and bring back the knowledge...
And buying public papers for their universities. (They tend to buy 10--50 licences, but copy the data into their own systems, thus avoiding paying the actual of of 1-10k licences. Thus they are leeching on our western knowledge without appropriate return to fund our next research. - Japan did so too, back when we forced them to open their society - and it brought them to the knowledge top of the world for a while.)
The main issue with US education is not necessarily the cost of university degrees, but the low level of basic education due to lack of funding.[/offtopic]
From here on I'll revert to lurking this thread.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 02:01:48 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
Happy Lurking, Krulle
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
|
|
|
|
|
