Assorted links


What I had forgotten about was that Carter's original mentor was Charles Ives. Talk about a living link with the past now gone!

as of 4:11 pm, the second link doesn't work...

The corrrect link:

Alternate headline: Cockatoos "don't get" division of labor.

As a longtime FT print subscriber (almost 20 years) who just balked at renewing for $299/year (vs. $199 a year before and $99/year a few years ago) I found this quote revealing:

"The new owner, of course, will want to get $1 billion of value out of his investment, but he won’t be trying to get there by using the FT’s current playbook of constantly raising subscription rates. That, along with its paywall paranoia — the determination with which it attempts to prevent non-subscribers from reading all but the tiniest amount of FT content — means that it is actively repelling the population which is its best chance at future growth and relevance."

FT is fooling itself if it thinks a) it has no competition and b) that willingness to pay is irrelevant. And newspapers wonder why they are going the way of the Dodo?

I had the same reaction. Adding insult to injury, they also charged me a non-negligable fx fee when I paid with an american credit card, even though they quote the price in $.

Do yu think that if Washington DC voted, like PRico, to become a state that it would stand a chance.

What's happening to the hearts of all the young men raised by single mothers?


We can now add Nash Equilibrium as another possible driver behind the longevity of the traditional PG, SG, SF, PF, C line-up alongside status quo bias and division of labor.

That traditional lineup is being usurped by the contemporary post-C NBA. They - and by they I mean Stern and Silver - announced that the all-star ballot would no longer have a reserved spot for centers. There's an odd analogy between the ebb of the stalwart, low post center and the decline of the rugged, working class head of the household in America.

That dynamic you claim is in direct contrast with the ascendance of the TE in the NFL.

I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that in the past ten or fifteen years (say since around Garnett entered the league?) the distinctions between the SG/SF/PF positions have schrunk. Now you see more 6'6" shooting guards and "power forwards" who step out to shoot 3s.

Hi there! I really want to try this out, however I don't want to put the vinegar in my hair. Its known to take out your color (mine has a very hard time by itself, I don't want any extra lift.) Is there anything I can use as a substitute?, melt your man's heart review, hiqym,

Surely it is not that our hearts have changed. It is just that large organizations reward conformity and non-assertiveness. Which means sons raised by an overly dominant Mother will do well. The economy has changed, not just the people.

The Chomsky link is interesting, in part because of a seeming gap between the two perspectives. To give a tiny example from the article, a statement which the author feels undermines Chomsky's point -

'Search engines: 100% of major players are trained and probabilistic. Their operation cannot be described by a simple function.'

Except that google's critical insight into searching the web was that the web was already organized - by linking, and thus, meaning could be extracted where it had already been applied by those doing the linking (of course, in an ongoing process, people learned how to game this, thus ruining its effectiveness).

But this just may be Chomsky's point - language is not about mechanics, it is about meaning. And models which are unable to handle meaning are worthless when dealing with language in any meaningful way.

Or not - it has been decades since my last linguisitcs course anyways.

What's the Nash Equilibrium in the NHL? Actually I'm afraid to ask.

Talking of cockatoos, what about Central Bankers?

There's an interesting comparison to be drawn between the Chomsky v. Norvig and the Pundits v. Nate Silver, another theory/"real" understanding v. statistical methods. There's a revulsion that complex algorithms over massive data sets produce a result which works magnificently -- and better, but which we don't understand. In another interview (search Youtube for Chomsky Ghost) Chomsky follows the revulsion along another thread all the way back to Newton's towards action-at-a-distance.

Is there a consistent and comprehensive explanation awaiting discovery by the persistent rationalist? Perhaps the best we will ever do going forward is big data analysis and we've entered a Hard version of the Fourth Paradigm in which more and more give increasingly accurate answers without explanations? Son of Watson may wash your clothes, cook your meals and educate your children, but we won't know how it does it, (as is the case with people who perform those functions now).

Maybe we're on the threshold of a statistical singularity.

#5 made me think of "The Nurture Assumption".

Comments for this post are closed