Usenet.
William
On the other hand, “lonely voices of reason” are unlikely to overrun a community of idiots the way idiots can overrun a more intelligent community.
Agreed. TVTropes works very well without any but the lightest semblance of neutrality.
Warning, though: It is horrendously addictive
The idea of a null hypothesis is non-Bayesian.
The use of “some of which” suggests that he considers most of the holes to be Fruitful Voids, merely not all of them.
Of course, in a dating context, it’s at least as important to know the answer to the Shadow Question: “What do you want?”
It already is a socially accepted factoid. People are afraid of AI for no good reason. (As for Wolfram Alpha, it’s at about the same level as ALICE. I’m getting more and more convinced that Stephen Wolfram has lost it...)
On the other hand, 4chan’s view of “fun” includes causing epileptic seizures in others.
What does IAWYC mean?
As a sidenote, it’s a very good sign that this discussion has followed the path of
Case studies in medicine are most interesting when all the student doctors disagree with each other.
Star Control II did something very similar—as time went on, the world changed, and eventually one of the villains would start their omnicidal rampage.
Next time, you can use ^W ;)
You can force yourself to parse the sentence but I suspect that the part of your brain that you use to parse it is different from the one you use in normal reading and in fact closer to the part of the brain you use to solve a puzzle.
This also shows the dangers of such a method—if Rush gets too powerful, it goes from “You naughty boy, Rush!” to “You naughty boy, critic of Rush!”, like what’s happening now with respect to Michael Steele. And too much extremism can result in evaporative cooling.
One warning though: Gambler’s ruin is very possible with betting systems, even if your strategy has a positive expected value.
But should stupid adults have no rights?
But if the tribe expands?
I know that PUA is “pickup artist” but what is AFC?
Speaking of differential equations in economics, a friend of mine has had an idea that there should be an economics textbook for mathematicians, because it annoyed him so much that they seem to dance around mathematical concepts—for example, marginal anything is clearly a derivative, although normal econ textbooks never call it that.
Personally, I think the word “win” might be the problem. Winning is very binary, which isn’t how rationality is defined. Perhaps “Rationalists maximize”?