robinh

The color red is often associated with bad; needs to stop; wrong. Removal isn't such a big step from there, I think. The opposite probably applies to green.

Best of luck to you today, too.

Ha, fairy nuff. It's what prompts one to have such a day that matters, methinks. ;)

I'm pretty sure that's not even remotely related.

Thank you. :)

I suppose it's an OK sentiment, but I'm not in contact with my parents and on days like these I keep getting reminded of that fact. I was secretly hoping there wouldn't be anything about it on HN, but I guess I'll just have to learn to deal with it.

<goes back to reading a book in pyjamas, today is not a very good day. />

I agree that concurrency isn't fundamentally hard, but the reason everyone kind of prefers faster serial execution is because a lot of algorithms (extremely simple example: f^100000(x)) are fundamentally unparallelizable. Faster serial execution is just so much more straightforward.

So a common problem with concurrency tends to be not "How do I make these functions run in parallel", but "Is there an algorithm that does the same thing I want without relying on constant function composition?"

Okay, but that's not actually an answer to my question. My question basically comes down to this:

> Yes, that is intellectually dishonest, which is a huge problem. Scientists have two options: (1) accept parapsychology as real, or (2) accept that the "scientific method" (in social "sciences", at least) is insufficient.

I don't get why the whole thing is such a huge problem. The entire problem rests on needing parapsychology effects to not be real. If that need did not exist, we could just go "Okay, interesting, seems likely that there's something to it then. Let's do more research!" because, you know, we take that approach everywhere else. So my question remains: what is it about parapsychology that makes option two even valid to consider? All I can see is people just not liking that that may be how things work.

So... I know next to nothing about parapsychology itself, but have seen a lot of the drama around it, and I just have to ask: is it not intellectually dishonest to call something the 'control group of science' when their results overwhelmingly support the hypothesis? I have a hard time seeing how this is different from any other form of science denialism. "We don't like the results because they clash with our preconceived notions of how the universe works so we made up this thing to ignore your evidence"? That's hardly a valid complaint. Basically, on what grounds can people claim one field to be nonsense (e.g. calling parapsychology the control group of science) but not others? Can someone explain this to me?

I think you accidentally commented in the wrong thread. Gave me a hearty chuckle in this context, though.

Good god, if only mathematics professors would learn this. If I hear the word 'trivial' one more time I swear I'm going to scream.

Except if you post a comment in a dead thread, your account is practically banned from participating again.