devilsavocado

Napkin math: For just 1 person to intersect: Each of those 10000 people have a (10000/30000000)/100 % chance to get selected, or .00000033%. Multiply that by a thousand selections = 0.00033% chance. Those selections are refreshed maybe 100 times a year so 0.033% chance per year.

There are billions of facebook users, so this should be happening all the time by pure chance. But of course it's not pure chance. Facebook will be selecting from a pool much much smaller than 300 million, and the selections won't be random.

Those terms are used all the time on hn but not usually italicized, but that's fair, I get your point.

When you respond twice in a row in a comment chain saying that they are using a logical fallacy, and nothing else, you've done nothing to add to the conversation, but are playing the role of Logic Studies 101 Professor. That's probably what they meant by the looking back on on your writing comment.

I have no idea why you are italicizing types of logical fallacies. I can't think of a good reason to do that.

And just pointing out that you believe they are committing a logical fallacy without any explanation is a very lazy discussion technique.

Try out your thought experiment again with a machine that can predict markets with 55% reliability, or 50.1% reliability . This more likely reflects reality.

If someone had a machine that could predict the stock markets with 100% reliability, or even 55% reliability, do you think they would make those predictions known to the public? Or would they start a hedge fund and become one of the wealthiest individuals of all time?

I haven't had time to read the entire thing, so I've skimmed over lots, but there doesn't seem to be much mention of complexity theory in the way I believe idlewords is talking about.

I'm very curious: What happens if the algorithms for general artificial intelligence, and the ability for an AI to improve itself are all NP-Hard problems? Is that covered?

It might be similar to the "intelligence combustion" scenario outlined. But that appears to be a scenario where do not need to be fearing superintelligence.

Picketty's book does at least attempt to address this. He proposes a switch from income tax to wealth tax. He shows that most inequality is a result of the growth of existing wealth (most of which was inherited). Taxing wealth instead of income can help reverse, or at least stop the increasing levels of inequality. A very small percentage of wealth would need to be taxed to accomplish this.

Picketty definitely does not ignore wealth inequality. Most of his book is devoted to explaining why the return on existing wealth is the most important factor in inequality. He proposes a global tax on wealth, not income, to help combat inequality.

For a more in-depth, but still funny and entertaining, explanation of quantum computing check out 'Quantum Computing Since Democritus' by Scott Aaronson, the co-author of this comic.

What counts as 'proven skill in communication' to you? Other than how they communicate throughout the interview process, I'm not sure how else to test for this.

7 Habits of Highly Effective People. It's one of the best selling books of all time for good reason. It's much more than tips and tricks for getting work done.

I really wasn't a fan either. I found that the first two sections contained very little useful information/ideas/instructions, and then the third section started talking about muses and angels and it totally lost me. But it's talked about a lot here so maybe I'm missing something too.