cgmorton

Eh. Your construction is perhaps easier to understand if you've never used the language, and are trying to learn it just by reading arbitrary source code. But who writes code for such a person?

You might as well spell out:

int iterator; for (iterator = ...

But everybody uses 'i', because it's faster and simpler, takes less time to read, and doesn't fill up your screen so that surrounding elements can be easily associated (e.g. a[i].do(x) vs myArray[iterator].doCoreFunction(element_x) <- yuck)

The correct solution would be to tell you what's happening.

"Your data will be deleted in 24 hours. You can undo this deletion at any time before then."

There's a reason 'Phobia' is a clinical diagnosis, not a policy justification.

> Second: Six months, you say? Can any of us think of a cohort of job seekers that routinely needs to contend with 6+ month employment gaps? I wonder, maybe, just maybe, do you think that has a powerful "objective" stigma attached to it disproportionately often might find it difficult to compete equitably in the job market? I wonder which 50% of the population I might ask to find out more about this.

Oh, wait, you mean women? For a most of that rant I thought you meant ex-convicts, because there is definitely an objective stigma against them (and they're certainly out of the job market). Now that I think about it, it's possible that the amount of ex-cons in the 6-month+ unemployment bracket, plus maybe ex-mental-institution or ex-rehab individuals, is significant enough to skew the results. The original paper doesn't address this, at least not that I can see.

Man, $1 million is more money than I will ever need.

So I'll do it for $3 million. Your move.

They wouldn't even need to trade securities. Just search the future data for some successful tech IPOs and then invest in those companies early and heavily. Returns would be fantastic, and the risk of feedback from your future-influenced actions would be much lower.

Or, one was a good salesman and the other was not. Or maybe the second one was strapped for cash and really needed the sale.

I'd rather not theorize until we get some more data points.

I played a different game called 'which one appeals to me more on first glance'. I ended up with a perfect 10/10 split.

Could it be that different fonts will be more aesthetically pleasing for different uses? Even if they're typographically similar??

My question is, what are you doing 'enjoy[ing] things that you can buy with money'? Hasn't it been well enough established that things don't make you happy? The Greeks figured that out two thousand years ago, guy!

Let me tell you, I bought a used car just this year and I appreciate it way more because I didn't bankrupt myself to do so.

This sheds some light on this comment about the pawns: '(Move "forward" indicated in white.)' The 2006 picture has white lines and this new one doesn't.

This argues equally well for completely supporting the family indefinitely for any reason. The only difference between paying medical bills and paying for the whole lifestyle is a matter of cost, and medical bills can be really expensive.

Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity?

But then you can easily, heck trivially, argue that people should be forced to exercise or to eat a particular diet that makes them more productive. Look, more goods and services are rendered! It's a public situation!

People should be forced to live within 5 miles of work, because they're not being productive during their commute. Also, HackerNews and reddit should be forcibly taken down because of their contribution to idleness at work.

"Thank you for your placing an order with NASDAQ. Please do not hit the back button or refresh this page, or your order may be registered more than once."

Hold on. I might have misread, but I thought the point was he -didn't lie-. He put 'Mensa' because he was in Mensa. It stood out because so many other people had an 'education' section at that spot on their resumes.

If the universe is infinite in size, does that automatically imply that it is infinite in mass?

That is, I can imagine a mass distribution that decreases as it moves away from the center, such that the total amount of mass is finite. In which case these problems don't apply.

I'm not sure whether that's possible though. If space-time is flat, that means there's a specific mass density in that universe, in which case infinite mass exists. For an infinite universe to have finite mass would mean a density that tends to zero, in which case we should observe a saddle shape in the experiments described. That is, unless space is just -locally- (in 14.6 billion light years) flat.

I don't claim to be right. But, you can use this possibility to ease your existential dread at being one of infinitely many near-identical copies. Of course you still have to deal with many-world quantum physics...