A problem with mythologizing past defeat is it can lead to sacrificing the present and future. Some people have the need to live in a grand mythic narrative. Others just want decent lives for themselves and their children with security and a future.
Readit Newsjshaqaw commented on Defeat as Method cabinetmagazine.org/issue... · Posted by u/akbarnama
jshaqaw commented on Lotus 1-2-3 on the PC with DOS stonetools.ghost.io/lotus... · Posted by u/TMWNN
Lotus 1-2-3 on PC Jr cartridge in the era before widespread availability of hard drives was the only good thing about that awful platform
jshaqaw commented on Welcome (back) to Macintosh take.surf/2026/03/01/welc... · Posted by u/Udo_Schmitz
Apple hasn't been able to ship software in decades.
They got bored of computing. Writing was on the wall when they started producing movies because Hollywood people are cooler than nerds and hey why earn a giant cash pile if not for some execs to have fun with it.
This is a company which hasn't done anything meaningful to innovate since Steve Jobs died.
Yeah I have all Apple gear. It's fine. Whatever. Nicest commodity on the block. But they could have done so much more in the last 15 years.
jshaqaw commented on Approaching 50 Years of String Theory math.columbia.edu/~woit/w... · Posted by u/jjgreen
No, its subsidizing a handful of people sitting at whiteboards at the expense of different camps of people sitting at whiteboards and the result is nefarious because you dont see what could have been if we minimized string theory funding after a decade or two of poor performance instead of going all in on it for five decades. We gave up decades of potentially actually figuring something new out by going harder on string theory instead of diversifying physics spend as performance failed to show up.
how the government wastes money elsewhere is irrelevant to the conversation. Its about proper management of research funding and how string theorists managed tp trick us into funding failure for whole academic careers.
Since I sadly must return to the real world (but thank you everyone for the well spirited debate) -- string theory is funny to me because its a bit of a Rorschach test as such a tiny number of people who follow the subject can actually evaluate string theory vs. alternative models. It's just an abstract blob people can project their worldview onto. To the extent someone reading this is in the group who does understand the topic, this isn't about you--
As a society we can't place excess faith in the orthodox positions of institutions. We all know they can be rigid, wrong, and lock out dissenting views. But society today seems to embrace heterodoxy for its own sake the way perhaps in the past orthodoxy was just accepted on pure faith and there is a vast media ecosystem happy to promote (ie monetize) this worldview. Just because something is heterodox doesn't make it right.
Have a wonderful weekend all.
jshaqaw commented on Approaching 50 Years of String Theory math.columbia.edu/~woit/w... · Posted by u/jjgreen
I know absolutely nothing about string theory, or the culture of high-energy physics, but I don't buy the pecuniary argument you are making. You aren't considering the downwind effects of allowing academic rot. The Bourbaki—and their acolytes—also sponged up only a tiny amount of academic funding, but a fever in the pulpit can spread out into the pews; we've seen the "New Math" paradigm damage a generation of primary-and-secondary-school students. Even today, we have issues with engineers not understanding that a derivative is a slope and an integral is an area—due in no small part to a cartel of bad actors in mathematical research. Allowing bad behavior in high-value and influential positions has consequences beyond a waste of government expenditure; a president could turn a democracy into a banana republic, and we would have issues beyond his salary of a few hundred thousand dollars being wasted.
How many primary school students can't add fractions because string theory may be a less promising approach to a ToE versus loop quantum gravity or geometric unity? I know nothing about this stuff. You know nothing about this stuff. Since we both do know about the Bourbaki school of mathematics despite having different opinions on the value of building mathematics upward from foundational principles I'd say we are in the top .5% of the planet re general mathematical/scientific literacy. So I don't buy that even if string theory is wrong there is some massive spillover effect.
jshaqaw commented on Approaching 50 Years of String Theory math.columbia.edu/~woit/w... · Posted by u/jjgreen
No, its subsidizing a handful of people sitting at whiteboards at the expense of different camps of people sitting at whiteboards and the result is nefarious because you dont see what could have been if we minimized string theory funding after a decade or two of poor performance instead of going all in on it for five decades. We gave up decades of potentially actually figuring something new out by going harder on string theory instead of diversifying physics spend as performance failed to show up.
how the government wastes money elsewhere is irrelevant to the conversation. Its about proper management of research funding and how string theorists managed tp trick us into funding failure for whole academic careers.
Again, I'll accept your premise for the sake of debate (which I welcome, and sincerely thank you for doing so respectfully).
Let me try to rephrase where I am coming from. I'm going to accept there is a good argument that some science funding should be redirected towards theoretical physicists pursuing alternate approaches.
1. The focus towards this matter in online media circles is vastly disproportionate to the relative impact this has on anyone's life compared to the multitude of other intra-silo disputes across the federal budget. It's not irrelevant to the conversation or at least my subsection of the conversation. It is interesting to me what debates burst through the noise and get traction outside of their own little world. Maybe 1% of the people debating string theory online actually understand a micro-fraction of this stuff. To be clear, I don't claim to be in that 1%. I'm interested in how that happened and the cultural+platform reasons for it. I'm interested in why alongside those genuinely interested in alternative approaches to theoretical physics this topic attracts tons of people who just lump it in with their "they are all lying to you" worldview. Nothing this obscure, incomprehensible, and yes irrelevant to most peoples lives should have organically reached such breakout status. I can ask some of the 22 year old bros at my jiu jitsu gym what they think of string theory and they will tell me it's all part of the omni-conspiracy. It's literally the only science thing they know. It's not like they understand a word of the debate or know of/care about a single other intra-discipline debate about the allocation of resources. 2. No small part of this is the unfortunate emergence of the online narcissist huckster and nothing plays better in online circles than "they" don't want you to know the truth that "I" have the true answer but "Big X" won't admit it. This clown show distracts from the real merits of the relative positions. But it does get the charismatic narcissist a slot on general interest "they are all always lying to you" podcasts. 3. Obviously this doesn't apply to legit physicists and good faith normies who simply disagree with the existing dogma. That's not who I'm talking about. That said, theoretical physics is bargain basement cheap. I don't need to build a supercollider the size of Mars. I don't need to sequence a trillion genomes. I need a laptop, a whiteboard, some time to think, and a bit of ancillary budget. Surely there are enough allied tech/crypto heterodox rich dudes at this point to fund a Center for Heterodox ToEs and staff it with 50 bright people to prove they have something to add. I can't pretend to have the chops to analyze Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity vs String Theory. I do know if I really thought I had the answer to the universe and his bankroll/connections I'd just fund a real research effort to prove it vs. doing the podcast circuit ad infinitum.
jshaqaw commented on Approaching 50 Years of String Theory math.columbia.edu/~woit/w... · Posted by u/jjgreen
i dont think it has anything to do with threats to way of life. It has everything to do with public subsidy of physics that has pushed peripherary mathematics forward without much to show for actual physics advancements. New observations cause changes to string theory not validation of string theory. String theorists can keep do*ng their string theory but its time to subsidize something(so else and see if that leads to actual advancement. I think sabbine hossenfelder is largely correct about this
Theoretical physics is subsidizing a handful of people sitting at white boards.
Even accepting the premise that string theory is wrong I can list hundreds of ways the US budget spews money down black holes orders of magnitude bigger. The spending on string theory isn’t even a rounding error compared to the way my tax dollars are allocated to special interest pork.
But only string theory impinges on a generation of cranks who are convinced they alone have the insight into the true ToE and would be recognized as the new Einstein were it not for some entrenched cabal. Maybe I shouldn’t reflexively trust “big science” or something but it’s also not great to evaluate science by who is more charismatically narcissistic on a podcast.
Again, I don’t have a big axe to grind on the merits here. But it’s hilarious that folks with zero science background past middle school hear some of these cranks on YouTube and feel worthy to decry Witten as an enemy of the people. Between the podcast bro who was just told his ToE was right by ChatGPT and Witten I’ll take Witten.
Dead Comment
jshaqaw commented on How exchanges turn order books into distributed logs quant.engineering/exchang... · Posted by u/rundef
You could do this but the cost would be wider bid/ask spreads for all market participants. If you make it harder for market makers to hedge their position, they will collect a larger spread to account for that. A whole lot of liquidity can disappear in a second when news hits.
I’d rather have penny-wide spreads on SPY than restrict trading speed for HFTs. Providing liquidity is beneficial to everyone, even if insane amounts of money are spent by HFTs to gain an edge.
Would be interested to see real numbers around societal value from marginal added liquidity versus aggregate spend into the zero sum arms race.
I have also seen enough to be quite sure that many hft strategies are quite normie investor predatory.
Again, I’m not zealot. I trade stuff. I love liquidity. I’m happy to pay someone some fraction of a penny to change my mind. Service provided. But the returns from vanilla liquidity provision commoditized long ago to uninteresting margins. That leaves a lot more of the hft alpha pool in the predatory strategies and capital flows where the incentives are.
jshaqaw commented on How exchanges turn order books into distributed logs quant.engineering/exchang... · Posted by u/rundef
This is interesting but also just hilarious at a meta level. I was a “low frequency” ie manual fundamental based hedge fund investor for many years. In general I think hft is a net benefit to liquidity when done in compliance with the text and spirit of regulations. But no real world allocation of resources is improved by having to game transactions to this level of time granularity. This is just society pouring resources down a zero sum black hole. Open to hearing contrary views of course.