Ok sure but in this sense it is already a rule (most people do not either prescribe these things to their kids or allow them to indulge in them) and what we're debating is how firm that rule.
As it happens, I think I disagree with you. I do value greatness. I value a culture that lauds greatness. The point of virtuosic musicianship isn't entertainment, or at least not a banal thoughtless kind (a symphony is not a substitute good for ragebait podcast clips with a subway surfers overlay), it's inspirational art. The examples I chose are particularly evocative, but there's no real difference between that and a parent who compels or allows their child to become ridiculously capable in some kind of mathematics or literature. Imagine if Terrence Tao's parents had insisted that he carry on with a typical pre-university series of broad survey courses for the sake of making him a generalist! Imagine all the less high-profile examples who were maybe even more important to pushing some practical effort forward.
Making it illegal is a nonstarter because I think it runs afoul of the categorical imperative in exactly the same way. I'm a strong believer in the idea that most progress (again, not intended to have a positive connotation) is made by a small group of people who were almost never generalists. Einstein was not a generalist. Kant, who I've been referencing throughout this conversation, was really not a generalist. The possibility of greatness is just as necessary as a certain number of pliable generalists.
What would the point of living in a world without greatness be? Since I meant that question rhetorically: is there a way to allow such greatness to be achieved without manipulating young people into obsession?
I think about this sometimes. On one hand, is it really "right" or net positive for adults to guide children into some specialized craft at a young age? Even if the kid shows some prodigal predilection (haha) for it, maybe it is the responsibility of their guardians to expose them to a number of alternative interests/possibilities?
It's interesting because the approach of encouraging your kid to foster highly specific skills fails to satisfy the categorical imperative: if everybody did it, nothing would work. Or at least it seems that way... it's probably a safe bet that having a sizable majority of adolescents who are somewhat flexible/aimless and can respond to a variety of market demands in terms of career specialization is a good thing if not a necessary one.
On the other hand, manipulating (not to be taken with a necessary pejorative connotation) a child into this kind of specialization is almost certainly a necessary precondition for greatness. If you aren't a competent musician by the time you're 8 years old it is vanishingly unlikely you are ever going to be a true orchestral soloist. Ditto for something like chess. So if we want a world with those heights of greatness in it, we need to accept that some people are going to compel or allow their kids to be specialists rather than generalists.
I don't disagree but you're moving the goalposts. I never said that they could achieve the profits of a typical tech business, just that they could be profitable. Also, the whole distilling problem doesn't happen if the model is proprietary.
They're doing about a billion per month in revenue by running proprietary models on GPUs like these. Unless they're selling inference with zero/negative margin, it seems like a business model that could be made profitable very easily.
Crazy that this (random blog post with no points and zero comments) is the only discussion of a major Ethereum upgrade on here. Even if the average commenter is firmly against blockchains this is still a very interesting and impressive feat.
Not only is Western Union significantly less reliable and significantly more expensive, as someone who gets paid in crypto the most expensive and painful parts of my finances are those that touch the traditional banking system at all.
Yeah, doesn't even make sense for something like this to be decentralized, it should be run by Rolex so they can catch edge cases and correct them by fiat
>It is certainly possible the court will disagree with the SEC, but I wouldnt bet on it.
I would (not a lot, but I would). They lost on the Grayscale trust, they lost on XRP being a security (extremely relevant here), they're seemingly settling with Binance... the court has been disagreeing with the SEC a whole lot on the matter of blockchain regulation lately.
No, you aren't, and it isn't vocal fry. Overtone singing is a distinct technique in Tuvan throat singing, and comparing it to a bandpass filter is accurate — as a whole, Tuvan throat singing is a set of techniques designed to induce vocal sounds with extremely rich harmonics, which can then be modulated and selected for by shaping the mouth.
What you're thinking of is called "Kargyraa", a particular subset of Tuvan techniques that involves singing with the vocal cords as normal, but also tightening the voicebox such that your "false vocal cords" (some flaps somewhere in your throat) are struck at a frequency an octave below the sung note — for every full cycle your vocal cords complete, the false vocal cords complete half of 1. It creates a rich sound which can be useful for the "bandpass" technique, but is fundamentally something different.
Take this with a small grain of salt, I came to this technique through the modern beatboxing community who independently discovered it as the standard "throat bass" and only bothered researching the Tuvan equivalent a long time ago.
There is a bass singing technique called "subharmonics" that uses something similar (identical?) to vocal fry to create interference with a sung note for a similar effect.
Are there actual perverse incentives that come with "it being married to crypto" — keep in mind that there are demonstrable positive incentives — or is it just aesthetic distaste?
In which Theodore Blackman, CTO of the Urbit Foundation, responds to the "Plunder and Urbit" piece that was submitted here yesterday (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37057471).
"...I find myself consistently reaching for the blog post that clearly articulates what Urbit is and why it is important, only to continuously be frustrated by the realization that this blog post doesn’t exist. I have yet to read an explanation of Urbit that captures the full scope of the project in language a normal person can understand.
The claim here is not that "all of mathematics is set theory", just that sets are sufficient to describe everything else. I don't know if that's correct, but it's certainly a more defensible claim.
So it sounds like it was fine? Why would this prompt (haha) a change in their approach to things?