Readit Newsrguzman commented on Linear Algebra Done Wrong (2004) math.brown.edu/streil/pap... · Posted by u/sebg
Why does linear algebra elicit so much confusion despite being an elementary topic. I think part of the problem is that the connection between matrices and matrix operations and their applications is not explained well enough. Linear algebra is typically one's first foray into abstract mathematics, and if taught poorly sets one up for failure down the road.
one issue that comes to mind is the nature of the determinant. when one considers the determinant defined by the recursive definition, it seems like a highly contrived object that is difficult to work with (as it is from that definition!). avoiding that confusion requires that a lot more scaffolding be built (ala Axler in the "Done Right" book). either way you have some work: either to untangle the meaning of the weird determinant or get to the place where you can understand the determinant as the product of the eigenvalues.
I'm wondering if there is a research about which percentile of these two groups became rich:
People who started a company vs People who worked for Tech companies.
it really depends on what you mean by rich: the surest path to end up with $2-5M over ~10 years is job at ~FAANG, do it well to get promoted, and manage your savings/investments well. that path is very unlikely to get you to $10-100M in the same 10 years, and starting a startup seems to be one of the best ways to do that.
rguzman commented on Ask HN: Books that gave you different perspective on religion · Posted by u/kaycebasques
3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated by Donald Knuth
rguzman commented on BloomTech, previously Lambda School, cuts half of staff techcrunch.com/2022/12/01... · Posted by u/lxm
Just wanted to say you have done a good job explaining here. Unfortunately people love to concentrate on negative outcomes without thinking about the positive. On balance the few, arguably "bad" things Lamda has done seem to be hugely outweighed by the positive.
i was going to sit this one out, but i want to +1 the above with more than just an upvote. Austen seems to be arguing and explaining all the happenings in good faith with someone who appears to be hell-bent on "catching" him with something by misconstruing things.
i have never understood why Lambda/Bloomtech has so many haters but the other commenter here appears to me to be in that camp.
> Apart from network effect, and Google's Ad Monopoly
This is like asking "why don't we live on the moon except that there is no atmosphere there and it's pretty far away?". Those two reasons are the main reasons Youtube is the clear winner in its field, saying "apart from that" does not make a lot of sense. If you'd want to start a competitor to take on Youtube, you either need to focus on a tiny niche not well served by Youtube (extreme far right or far left personalities perhaps, or porn) or you would need to find a way to match Google money (maybe partner up with FB/Microsoft/Amazon/etc) so you can buy popular creators away from Youtube.
this is all accurate and i'd add that it is deceivingly hard to make something that sustains itself via advertising. when youtube was acquired google had a large part of that already figured out.
one of the things that helps generate new ideas that can be cultivated is the ability to be playful. once a given problem or subject is sufficiently loaded onto a brain, if that person can relax and have child-like naivete about poking and prodding, novel insight is usually not far.
cultivating this ability is fairly well understood in a lot of domains, i think. two examples that are top-of-mind are improv and jazz.
rguzman commented on LA jet pack guy captured on video nypost.com/2020/12/25/dra... · Posted by u/caballeto
Red Alert called it! https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Rocketeer
rguzman commented on CEO of Uber: Gig Workers Deserve Better nytimes.com/2020/08/10/op... · Posted by u/mitchbob
This isn't how I see the discourse. The way I see it is people are starting to question if executives and shareholders deserve the pay they get. Instead of the majority of profits going to them, more should go to workers.
The author of this article was paid $42 million last year. Uber's top 7 executives received: "$11.4 million in salary and cash bonus, plus $71 million worth of equity awards." [0] Maybe instead of paying their CEO and executives that much, Uber should pay their workers more?
[0] https://observer.com/2020/05/uber-ceo-pay-shareholder-backla...
> The author of this article was paid $42 million last year. Uber's top 7 executives received: "$11.4 million in salary and cash bonus, plus $71 million worth of equity awards."
it's misleading to call equity compensation "getting paid". there's a strong argument that executives are being over-payed, but say the CEO receiving a salary of ~1.6M (11.4/7) is a lot less egregious than them being paid $42M. surely the equity conferred to the execs gets them some cash availability in various ways, but it isn't exactly the same as just giving them money (eg what would happen if the CEO uber sold off all of his stock?).
maybe the cash portion of exec salaries ought to be much lower or maybe their equity compensation ought to be much lower, but i don't think either of these things by itself or in combination is going to solve the structural problems of the american economy such as healthcare being tied to employment.
The author should write a similar article about himself, because the whole article is filled with dubious claims and misguided evidence. The two main claims are "Since the GI is a measure of how much of a negative response your body has to certain sugars" and "research showing harms from canola oil". Neither can be ascertained. A big problem with nutritional science is that it's complex, therefore it is neigh impossible to discover the truth how specific foods really impact the body. I'm also of the opinion that the term "healthy" shouldn't be really used. Here I go with Paracelsus: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."
The author invites us to his newsletter "on getting healthy, wealthy, and wise." Yeah, it's all a baseless marketing ploy by, and for, the author.
I want to note, I'm making no argument that Oatly should be considered healthy though.
i agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your comment, but saying "nutritional science is complex" or "the dosage alone makes it so that a thing is not a poison" does not help people figure out what foods to choose or how much to consume.
looking at the glycemic index is a useful heuristic and some of the research on canola oil makes me skeptical of it, and i think it is good for the author to point that out, as it suggests that oat milk might not be as safe as it is marketed to be.
another heuristic is biasing in favor of food that is processed less eg eating a bowl of oats is probably a better idea than drinking the analogous amount of oatly. similarly, it is a good idea to eat foods that people like you have been eating for long times, which in the oats vs oatly example favors the oats.
the precautionary principle suggests that the onus is to verify the safety of a given new food, not to prove that it is unsafe.