fchu
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
It's the fact that throughout the article, hard work is an implied imperative in life, the main thing to do (otherwise it brings a "feeling of disgust"), without questioning if that's healthy, right, or so absolute. Maybe instead of the how, I was expecting something about the why, a reflection on the bad aspects of working hard too, and its associated costs on other parts of one's life, whether it's Paul, Patrick or Bill.
As a user, I might have Germany as my country in Google while living in Malaysia: maybe I like its privacy law better, or I'm a German ambassador on a diplomatic mission, or a German citizen on an exchange program, or a Malaysian citizen who signed up for Google while on vacation in Germany and is now confused about some parts of their account.
The point is, only the last scenario needs some fixing, while in all other cases, the user will understandably prefer to keep the country unchanged. Yet Google forcibly and preemptively switches country in all these scenarios, with no real benefits to the user.
But if there is no real benefit to the end user, and not everyone wants this, why force this change in the first place? Something technical that has to do with local laws.
And that's where it's really bad: - It's bad as a principle, because if a person signs a contract with an entity under a specific jurisdiction, that person doesn't expect the jurisdiction to change unilaterally. - It's bad in practice, because instead of knowing with certainty that my data is under a specific jurisdiction, I'm now subject to some automated process that could unilaterally move my data to a random country, resulting in unintended exposure to its laws
Note that there are natural monopolies/oligopolies, which are the result of the nature of the market (eg need for scale) rather than legal lobbying.
Don't get me wrong, this is cool, but a research project becomes really cool when it gets well executed
It gives a disproportionate meaning to 0 without real physical consideration, eg:
- 0.1⁰C ± 0.1 (wow 100% relative error) - 273.25K ± 0.1 (meh 0.04% relative error)
Namely, that there is a path to financial viability
More specifically in mathematics, the interplay between formalism and intuition, like a mental danse or gymnastics, is a powerful process in furthering our understanding of mathematical truths:
From a formal perspective, mathematical objects can be created in so many ways, some constructions being more intuitive and beautiful than others (axioms, groups, rings, fields). The formalism itself let us see what intuition can't.
From an intuitive perspective, it's useful to latch on whatever concept one have to learn the next level of abstraction, while acknowledging that the intuition might not be 100% correct. Like using addition to intuitively understand multiplication, or addition and multiplication to intuitively understand fields. The intuition let us familiarize with otherwise novel ideas.
Ironically, this article wants to be very normative about which mathematical intuition is better (which there isn't, I'm sure many don't think of "multiplicand" as something special), while disregarding any cues from any formalism.
Same thinking probably applies to GitHub Copilot and copyright