Newton was a smart guy and he devoted a lot of time to his occult research. I bet that a lot of that occult research inspired the physics. The fact that his occult research remains, occult from the public, well that is natural aint it?
> Eugene Wigner once wrote an article titled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” I don’t know what he wrote in the article, but it is certainly a fact that, up to now, especially in the domain of fundamental physics, we have had striking success with our use of mathematics
It is odd that he mentions it only to say that he doesn’t know it.
I didn’t find the article main point particularly strong, but all the references and overall mentions were interesting.
On the surface: The world would be premises and stories would be proofs.
Linear Logic for Non-Linear Storytelling by Anne-Gwenn Bosser and Marc Cavazza and Ronan Champagnat has an example.
Then generating proofs means generating valid stories. Linear logic is tough though, it is a logic that admits contradiction so straightaway most logicians are clueless in how to handle it.
I appreciate measuring productive when profit is the objective. Still, there exists code that does resonate and evoke emotional response. Quines, code golf, adding a paradigms to a lisp in a few lines of code, categorical haskell or the Doom wtf algorithm.
Beauty is something to strive for, it is just not the purpose of business programming. Unless you are Dijkstra.
I'm glad I read this comment. I had conversations with people who used "skin in the game" and "intellectual yet idiot" constantly, but I always had other books on my to-read list. The added context sheds some light.
You still have the problem of two famous persons named the same. It would be better to have separate checks. Have a check that means "this person showed us their passport" and another that says "this account is owned by the famous person mentioned in this news article".
Interesting, that definition of "prequel" creates a strange conceptual symmetry with the word "sequel".
Both "prequel of A" and "sequel of A" imply "published later than A but set in the same universe", with "pre" and "se(q)" referring to the timelines, we can factor out "quel" to mean just that. I guess "Back to the future III" would be neither a sequel not a prequel, but definitely a quel.
Seeing how smoking cigarettes went from being popular to being rare in a lots of places I would say:
1 - make it uncool (no more james bond smoking in cinemas, packaging that reminds of diseases)
2 - make it expensive (tax the hell out of it)
3 - make it a hassle (no smoking in closed spaces, airplanes, universities etc)
The thing is, both weed and social networks became popular right about when smoking stopped being popular. So maybe there is an extra step, a perverse one:
>Ask yourself: How does Elon Musk work 80/90/100 hours per week in his early 50s
My guess is that he is exaggerating, he has a track record of doing that.
Or that what he means by "work" is actually way more layback than what a cashier at costso means by "work".