hackerblues

> Productivity be damned, RTO makes fiscal sense when you have a 15 year lease on a building you can't get out of. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you'd want warm bodies in seats when you pay 20,000 (or more) a month for your modern-tech cube farm.

Could you explain your thinking this further, please?

In your example the company is paying for accommodation whether it is used or not, it seems to be a sunk cost. The fiscal decision making should hinge purely on what gives the best ROI given that money has already been forsaken.

What you're describing seems to be more aligned to "it makes sense psychologically." A large and very visible commitment has, due to unforseeable reasons, been made partially unnecessary. Following through regardless saves face.

I'd be interested to know if you might be able to if you could find problems by looking at invariants over partitions of the space.

Like

Is the number of solutions with v1=false plus the number with v1=true the number with v1 free?

If we have n constraints then there 2*n variants where you negate subsets of constraints. Is the sum of solution counts over the 2*n subproblems equal the size of the variable space?

CF: effective altruism or 80,000 hours for more in this vein.

It was an accomplice who used the information.

"Mr Obama's senior science and technology adviser John Holdren had his personal accounts hacked and Gamble passed all of his personal details to an accomplice who used them to make hoax calls to the local police claiming that there was a violent incident at Mr Holdren’s house resulting in an armed swat team being deployed."

Anecdotal, but my grandfather has always advocated building physical fitness in your youth primarily to to have a strong base to carry you into old age.

I of course have no idea what the real answer is, but if you play out the hypothetical this is hardly a paradox.

NK hacks Sony. US uses technique x to attribute the attack to NK. In the course of a shared investigation NK learns what technique x is. NK changes their future operations to counter technique x. The US loses the ability to use technique x to attribute attacks.

In your jewellery store example I think it may be reasonable to prosecute the person.

In increasing levels of seriousness:

1. The person is walking by the store and, in the course of their everyday activity, sees that the door is ajar; they then contact the owner. This seems fine to me.

2. The person is walking by the store, sees the door ajar, and then altering their normal activities decide to actively test the door to see if they can break into the store; they can and then contact the owner. This seems dodgy to me.

3. The person chooses to visit each jewellery store in town to see if any have a door ajar. This definitely seems inappropriate.

The reason I come down opposed to the person in the second example is two-fold.

Firstly, ignoring intent, where do you draw the line on an acceptable level of 'break the security' activity?

- Thinking that the door is ajar and pushing on it?

- Seeing that the lock is vulnerable and picking it?

- Finding a ground floor window and breaking through it with a brick?

The resolution I choose is that if you have gone out of your way to subvert the security of my stuff without my consent then you have crossed the line. Gray is black.

Second, I don't care about your intent. Every security system will break at some point, and so I view the existence of doors and locks as mainly being about roughly outlining the boundaries that I expect to be respected. If I want to improve my security then I'll hire someone to advise me on how to do it. If I come home tonight to find a stranger who has broken into my house in order to prove that it's possible then (1) I already know, and (2) they have just caused the harm which they are nominally trying to protect me against.

My argument is that the public paying for a thing is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the public should have use of that thing.

Since knowledge creation and nuclear weapons are both examples of things which the public pays for, I defend the comment as it stands. The distinction between IP and physical property does not enter into the claim.

[BACKGROUND INFORMATION]

When a person makes a claim like "All X's are Y's" then it is sufficient to provide a single example of an X which isn't a Y to demonstrate that the claim is false. The example is referred to as a counter example.

[THE CONTEXT]

The most reasonable interpretation of the previous commenter which I could identify was:

"When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for...[but it is expect that] the public that paid for it, [must] pay more and more [to use it]."

To restate this in the counterexample language

(1) 'All [things which the public pays for] are [things which the public owns]'

(2) 'All [things which the public owns] are [things which the public should be able to freely access and use]'

Which combine to produce the claim

(3) 'All [things which the public pays for] are [things which the public should be able to freely access and use]'

with "knowledge" being one of the things which the public pays for and so "knowledge" being one of the things which the people should be able to freely access and use.

[MY ARGUMENT]

In order to demonstrate the flaw in this claim as just presented#, I brought up nuclear weapons as a counter example. It is an instance of something which the public pays for but of which the public shouldn't have free access to and use of.

[MY POINT]

In order to maintain the truth of the claim the previous commenter must show that my example is not a counter example by arguing that the public should have access to/use of nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, they can agree that the claim as presented is false, and then perhaps provide a different argument for the conclusion that 'the public should get use of the knowledge created.'

---

I hope this clarifies the point which I am trying to make. Regretfully, the hyperbolic inclusion of nuclear weapons plays a key role my argument and so I did not remove it.

---

# I acknowledge that my interpretation of the claim may not have been what the author intended. Statement (1) seems to be strongly implied by the author, but (2) is inferred. The role of the questions in my original reply was to draw out a precise explanation of what ownership entails. But certainly in the case of "knowledge" the person want to be able to access and use the knowledge.

The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?

If you're trying to gain information and experience then it is silly to try to optimise for "How many pages have I looked at?"

You need to come to terms with what the author is claiming, critically evaluate the argument used to support those claims, and then decide the relevance of this new perspective on the world (eg, how will you implement it in your life?)

This all takes time.

The way you are talking about jargon in mathematics suggests you have a limited experience of what mathematicians do. Here's an illustrative example of mathematics as done by mathematicians.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Define: An integer n is `even' if there exists some integer m such that n = 2m.

Theorem: For any two even integers n and a, the sum n + a is an even integer.

Proof: Since n and a are even there exist integers m and b such that n = 2m and a = 2b. Now,

  n + a = 2m + 2b; by assumption
        = 2(m+b); by the distributive property
        = 2z; for the integer z = m+b

Therefore there exists some integer z such that n+a = 2z. Hence n+a is even.

~~~~~~~~

That is to say, in mathematics we introduce some definitions/gibberish/jargon (in this case `even') and then we use logic to reason about the implication of our choice of definition (the sum of even integers being even.)

The important thing is that the definition plays an essential role; definitions are the building blocks on which all of mathematics operates. To emphasize: if you strip away the definitions you literally have nothing to build on - we can't apply logic to nothing and arrive at something.

This leads to the point I made in my earlier comment: the reason we need definitions rather than intuitive explanations is that you can't logically reason about a concept unless you nail down the relevant details of what that concept is exactly. We can't do the 'proof the theorem' part of the above example.

So how does mathematics then fit into application?

Guy 1: In this basket I have as many stones as I have fingers and in that basket I have as many stones as I have toes. For each basket I can pair up the stones so that each has a partner. Will this still be the case if I combine the stones from each basket?

Mathematician: Well, lets represent the number of stones in each basket with the integer 10. Pairing stones corresponds to the integer being even and combining the baskets corresponds to adding the two integers. I note that 10 is even since 10 = 2x5 and so I can apply my theorem to conclude that the sum 10+10 is even. Thus I conclude that when you combine the baskets you will still be able to pair each stone with a partner.

Guy 1: Wait, wait, wait! I don't understand this 'even' jargon. Do it again without the jargon.

Mathematics: The definition of 'even' was central to my whole processes. Without it I can't even set up the problem, let alone apply the theorem used to justify the answer. I could perhaps just give you an answer, "MATHEMATICS SAYS YES", but then you wouldn't be able to repeat it yourself for different numbers of stones.

If the above is understood then I can quickly address the claims you have made.

> it's better to generalize upwards from reality and actual use cases instead of starting utterly removed from reality and trying to apply the generalizations downwards.

Mathematics is generalisation utterly removed from reality. This is why we have "Adding integers" and not "Adding together collections of dogs" and "Adding together collections of apples" and "Adding together collections of hats" and ...

> Sure, it's convenient for a mathematicians to be able to use shorthand gibberish to talk to other mathematicians.

Mathematics is the practice of defining new gibberish and then reasoning about that gibberish. The gibberish isn't a shorthand for something, it is the thing.

> It doesn't justify pushing this jargon on other fields.

Mathematics is definitions/gibberish/jargon. Applying mathematics to a field thus means applying definitions/gibberish/jargon to that field.

> When it comes to a point where gibberish becomes the only way to explain mathematical abstractions, then you should step back and ask yourself "where the hell did this go wrong?".

At least since Euclid's formulation of geometry.

>> So by the intuitive explanation we can make this single line any dimension that we want. > And if this makes sense in the given context - sure, why not?

The problem is that it doesn't. Your explanation of an n-dimensional space is more a description of the larger space in which our space of interest is embedded.

In all instances the space (the line) remains unchanged, the only thing which changes is how we are describing it. For the dimension of the space to be a property of the space it needs ignore how we choose to describe it.