soyiuz

Minisforum machines are excellent in that regard. Sturdy little bricks with price and performance.

I did that for while, but recently switched to Bazzite. It's a much smoother experience.

Specifically, he believed he should share in his country's suffering.

The author doesn't get the most common problem with perfectionism. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Perfectionists often give up entirely, because of some perceived deficiency, instead of powering through to the end.

Of course, keep practicing to get better. Nobody says otherwise. But don't stop practicing just because you can't get it right every time. It's the ALL or NOTHING attitude that's the problem, where getting past failure requires SOMETHING in the pursuit of the ALL.

I've seen a bunch of his interviews now and his message is pretty controlled, actually. It all boils down to: (a) I don't know, wasn't aware, and (b) I messed up / lost focus. These appearances seem to play a therapeutic (instead of legal or financial) role for SBF (bad idea, obviously). Yesterday (12/12) he was still talking about returning in a "senior executive role" to help in the bankruptcy. He is also convinced FTX USA and FTX Japan were fully solvent and that they still have a future. Fascinating.

Wouldn't it be more meaningful to normalize these by student population? UT Austin has like 50k students to 6k at Dartmouth. Normalized, you would have .06 startups per student at Dartmouth and .01 at Texas. Many of the smaller elite schools would rise way up the ranking.

Serious question: the burn off in crypto should theoretically help with fiat inflation, correct? The Fed prints, and crypto evaporates.

True, but the financial incentives of many (most?) companies doesn't align with public benefits (see pollution, plastics, diet etc.) Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable?

I have several major problems with this explanation (often endemic in the discussion more generally):

1. Shannon's original paper relates "the capacity [of a channel] to transmit information" as well as the potential of a system (e.g. the English language) to generate information. In other words, your pipe needs to be able to accommodate the potential volume coming from the source ("the entropy of the source determines the channel capacity"). The amount of information in a message or the amount of surprise, as the author has it, should not be confused with the amount of potential information.

2. Instead of "system" and "channel" the author uses the word "variable" which I find misleading. Channel (like a telegraph cable) and system (the English language) are specifically relevant to Shannon's discussion.

3. The discussion of "surprise," as the author has it, is misleading. Shannon is writing his paper in conversation with Hartley and Nyquist---all three specifically attempting to bracket out the subjective psychological factors such as surprise, in order to describe the capacity for information transmission in terms of quantitative measures, based on "physical considerations alone" (Hartley). Surprise reintroduces a subjective, relative, psychological understanding of information the original authors wanted to avoid.

Alternatively, you can lease a car like Nissan Leaf for the same $200 monthly. This price point makes no sense, except perhaps in the case of the company wanting to save face instead of turning off the service entirely. What percentage of owners do you think will opt in?

This is not a good analogy for the same reason the Holocaust is not a good analogy for other things not involving the massive loss of human life.

Fair enough. I'll use "low pressure" and "low friction" next time.