energy123

How do you know this? Anthropology?

Can't they use ML to predict where I'm going to click, and pre-cache the predicted page whenever the predicted button doesn't mutate important state? Or skip the difficult ML and have some basic rule of thumb that pre-caches frequent button clicks, using a markov chain, and conditioned on those pages being low bandwidth to pre-load.

That hypothesis requires substantiation. Just because 10 people in a room came up with a breakthrough doesn't mean a sociological process contributed positively to that breakthrough. People generally like socializing, so the base rate is going to be high by default. The breakthroughs might have been more numerous if they had each followed Grothendieck's advice (who is a contender for the world's most talented theory builder) and intentionally decorrelated from one another to free themselves from convention.

Referring to my list of examples as exceptional in the sense of being rare is rather unfair, given how numerous these examples are relative to the body of mathematical work we would consider incredible and especially relative to the desire of the average human to socialize. The fact that such a large % of that body of work occurred while the individual was in relative isolation is something we should pay attention to.

Not error rates which implicitly assumes all errors are of equal consequence, something like 1/N*∑(magnitude of consequences of error) * (did error occur)

Many eminent mathematicians did their best work while not talking about it with anyone, sometimes in isolation. Newton's calculus, Perelman's poincare, much of Grothendiek's work, Wiles's fermat, Ramanujan's earlier days. That's not all top mathematicians as you can look at Von Neumann as a sociable counter-example. But it shows that discussion of your current ideas is not a requirement. Grothendiek goes so far as to say it is a net negative for mathematical creativity because it is difficult to resist thinking like the herd without some level of seclusion.

This is relevant, but only after AI has solved all the open problems including Millenium problems. Until then, as AI keeps solving harder open problems, people will pay attention and be interested.

I was referring to the gases from the cars on the highway more than easily removed indoor sources.

It's a good start, but for VOCs and gases you'll need activated carbon. Those 2-in-1 filters do exist but cost more. And many are scams because they don't have enough volume of activated carbon.

You have activated carbon to filter out the VOCs?

It's a dumping ground for poor people.

Viktor Frankl's body of work deserves a plug. Meaning can be found in the worst conditions, it's quite subjective. With meaning comes contentment. Buddhist teachings also deserves to be mentioned. Suffering comes from clenching to what the external world should be instead of just accepting how it is.

That's a good thing to note. The same can be said of Newton, Wiles and Perelman.

Grothendieck's later years or more extreme isolation were less productive, same with Perelman, so maybe there's some balance that needs to be struck. Although age is a confound with these two cases.

Biden's ARP independently caused inflation according to multiple central bank analyses.

However, you are also correct that Trump pressuring OPEC to cut oil production at the end of his first term did cause additional inflation in Biden's term.

I actually think primatology is quite useful here. We aren't that different from other primates. We selfishly attach extreme morality only to things that impact us, which we would never do when we analytically study primates doing the same kind of thing (stealing and killing). To be frank, your kind of comment makes me more suspicious of human morality itself (as a social tool to mask resentment or overcome collective action problems towards some kind of aggressive action) than it does of humanity.