I actually don't think you are commenting about the casualness, but the usage of the term "stole". Correct me if I'm wrong.
I can say I view my own time in jail very transactionally and I have run into many people that don't understand that. They expect a sob story about how you were innocent, or how you turned your life around.
I don't think I'd ever say my life was "stolen" from me, but it definitely feels that way in the moment. Having a bunch of armed people come and throw you in a cage certainly leaves you with a new perspective to process.
Until I remember seeing someone saying "MCP is dead, we just give agents command line access now". Then I start to think that looking at this in the context of ai is helpful.
It’s not that. Consider the definition of the limit. The idea existed for a long time. Newton/Leibniz had the idea.
That idea wasn’t formally defined until 134 years later with epsilon-delta by Cauchy. That it was accepted. (I know that there were an earlier proofs)
There’s even arguments that the limit existed before newton and lebnitz with Archimedes' Limits to Value of Pi.
Cauchy’s deep understanding of limits also led to the creation of complex function theory.
These forms of creation are hand-wavy not because they are wrong. They are hand wavy because they leverage a deep level of ‘creative-intuition’ in a subject.
An intuition that a later reader may not have and will want to formalize to deepen their own understanding of the topic often leading to deeper understanding and new maths.
Yes, and it's pretty common knowledge that Calculus was (finally) formalized by Weierstrass in the early 19th century, having spent almost two centuries in mathematical limbo. Calculus was intuitive, solved a great class of problems, but its roots were very much (ironically) vibes-based.
This isn't unique to Newton or Leibniz, Euler did all kinds of "illegal" things (like playing with divergent series, treating differentials as actual quantities, etc.) which worked out and solved problems, but were also not formalized until much later.
Euclid tells me otherwise. Rules, no art, no bullshit. Rules. Humanities people somehow never get it. Is not about arithmetics.
Vibe-what? Vibe-bullshit, maybe; cathedrals in Europe and such weren't built by magic. Ditto with sailing and the like. Tons of matematics and geometry there, and tons of damn axioms before even the US existed.
Heck, even the Book of The Games from Alphonse X "The Wise" has both a compendia of game rules and even this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chess
where OFC being able on geometry was mandatory at least to design the boards.
I think that I just take issue with the term "hand-waving" as equated to intuition. Yeah it lacked formal rigor, but they had a solid model that applied in detail to the real world. That doesn't come from just saying, "oh well, it'll work itself out". I guess if you want to call that "hand-wavy" we'll just have to disagree.
Euclid disproves every bullshit posted by LL Mediocres unable to understand that before Calculus there were proto-calculus based ideas such as Zeno's paradoxes and some writtings from Archimede which pretty much are Calculus 0.9.
Americans and British geeks/nerds are blinded down by Newton unable to realize that there was tons of previous work since the Greek and in Middle Ages, where the British love to depict as brutish people with no culture at all.
And the case is that they weren't dumb at all and without Euclid and Archimede there woudn't be any Calculus.
Would you do that if you were an ex-law enforcement officer who's racial profile puts you under the protection of criminals on the yard that largely support the person you heckled while not knowing that it was only going to be 37 days?
You know, I am usually one to immediately jump to "to hell with that" when someone brings up Hanlon's razor, but I think it may apply here.
He certainly is creating a false equivalency between AI and immigrants, but with how tone-deaf this speech is, it may not be deliberate. He likely already has this association.
So then the question would be: why would he have this association?
My only guess is he has a fairly shallow view of both as cheap labor. Which is pretty malicious after all.
It's a song by "The Who". Though given the controversy their lead songwriter (Pete Townshend) has been through, I personally would refrain from quoting him on the topic of kids.
I'd argue that if we don't abstract away resource usage behind currency, we are pretty firmly in negative-sum territory and zero-sum is a pretty rose colored glasses way of looking at things that is currently obscuring us from pending horrors.
These people aren't satisfied with themselves having more, everyone else must have less too.
Not that I am interested in changing your mind on this. I would, though, encourage you to actually say it's "positive-sum" if that's what you believe instead of hinting and then being vague about it for some reason.
I can say I view my own time in jail very transactionally and I have run into many people that don't understand that. They expect a sob story about how you were innocent, or how you turned your life around.
I don't think I'd ever say my life was "stolen" from me, but it definitely feels that way in the moment. Having a bunch of armed people come and throw you in a cage certainly leaves you with a new perspective to process.
reply