When I hear "Bias toward action", it reminds me of von Hammerstein's typology:

> I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage. [0]

So reframed, TFA argues that one must be "hardworking and clever" instead of "hardworking and stupid".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord#Cl...

> How about a Faraday box, by the door?

Not as easy as one may think. If you put a phone in a generic waterproof metal box (metal junction or biscuit box for instance) and call it with another one, most of the time it will still ring...

A Faraday box that doesn't block signals is just a box.

The point is how do you know it's a Faraday box?

Presumably if you're driven by paranoia to buy or make a Faraday box you will be paranoid enough to try putting your phone in it and calling it

The problem is a Faraday box only attenuates signals. And it usually does not attenuate all frequencies identically.

So your test may seem successful, but the box not be enough closer to a tower, or if your neighbor added a new AP, or if cell phone frequencies changed since you bought and tested it. Moreover, if you have to open and close it often, you have to be careful that the attenuation doesn't degrade.

All that to say that the "Faraday box solution" would mean testing it regularly with professional instruments and all that. It is far simpler and cheaper to ask guests to leave their phones in their cars.

I bought a Faraday box for my car keys. I made sure it was big enough for my phone, then used a network monitoring app.

Car keys usually use a wavelength of 1 meter; networking on your phone is going to be typically shorter than 15cm (though varies widely based on geographic region and carrier). A faraday box for your phone might not work for your car keys.

Indeed. That's one of the reasons why the "Before Present" time scale (that uses 1/1/1950 as the epoch) is sometimes called "Before Physics" (another one being that 1950 is less and less "present", of course)!

> that uses 1/1/1950 as the epoch

I guess we can say this is when humankind reached adulthood, became able to drink and got a driver’s license. And a gun.

> Jevons paradox happens when the cost of a resource goes down, but the total spend on that resource goes up.

I would argue that is not Jevons paradox but standard supply and demand (and this "reverse Jevons paradox" too). Jevons paradox occurs when a more efficient use of a resource leads to an increase in its use (instead of a decrease as a first order analysis would suggest).

Supply and demand says when something is cheaper (or produced more efficiently), people will use more of it. But the critical part is that it doesn't say people will spend more on it.

Jevon's paradox is a special case of supply and demand, where people actually end up spending more money because something is cheaper.

It's interesting because consumption then grows in unpredictable ways: it can drive innovation even in cases where markets are constrained by monopolies, for example, where in non-Jevons cases producers would have no incentive to lower prices.

> Jevon's paradox is a special case of supply and demand, where people actually end up spending more money because something is cheaper.

No, this isn't what Jevons says. Jevons isn't concerned about money being spent on something, just total consumption of it. Whether more money or less is spent on it depends on the price elasticity of demand. Inelastic demand will lead to less money spent despite more of the resource/service/whatever being consumed. Elastic demand will lead to more money spent.

That's fair, it actually has nothing to do with money.

It's just saying that if $IN is more efficiently converted to $OUT, more $IN will be consumed.

The original paradox was $IN = coal and $OUT = work, i.e. more efficient coal use increased coal use.

With prices you have $IN = cash and $OUT = product: more efficient conversion of your cash to products can increase cash use.

I was using this special case, but indeed the more general case doesn't have to involve cash at all.

So like buying the larger jar of jam that costs more than the smaller jar because the cost per ounce is less for the larger jar.

More like: (1) oil getting cheaper makes (2) cars possible which means (3) the average person can now go further to commute which means (4) they buy a car and get a higher paid job which mans (5) their oil consumption goes from "cooking and an oil lamp" to "transport to a job that pays better than the best you could get before automobiles displaced horses".

What would the food example be? Vanilla ice cream going from a rarity only the rich could afford, to a standard desert for all when the synthetic form was invented?

Not OP but yes if you consume more jam (not if you consume the same over a period of time, because you're then just paying less for jam over a wider time scale).

The example I've heard given is accounting and spreadsheets. It made accountancy cheaper, but people then started asking more questions and analysis became a thing.

Rather than just taking the reduced spend as profit, companies wound up increasing their accountancy spend overall.

Well consuming more jam per unit time would still be supply and demand, you have to spend more on jam overall because you can buy a cheaper jar.

Not exactly, unless you still wind up eating the larger jars at the same rate as the smaller ones.

You can rephrase it as the demand curve times the price (i.e. total spend on something vs the price) sometimes has a slope of less than -1.

> I would argue that is not Jevons paradox but standard supply and demand (and this "reverse Jevons paradox" too).

Kinda yes. How do you derive total spend from supply-demand curves? Multiply price and quantity at an intersection point. Likewise, you can predict total spend by multiplying p and q on the demand curve.

The difference in total spend is difference between these areas. For the total spend to increase with a drop in price, the the demand must rise faster.

Jevon's paradox implies that the price equilibrium is at the highly elastic portion of the demand curve.

> Jevons paradox occurs when a more efficient use of a resource leads to an increase in its use

While that's mostly true in practical reality in established economies, that does not strictly have to be the case. On the consumer side, especially in manufacturing, there's very little difference between unit price of a good falling and input unit per output units dropping as both lead to decreased COGS. In both cases, market realities might unlock alternative approaches (the classic being robot replacing Robert), leading to increased demand.

> Jevons paradox occurs when a more efficient use of a resource leads to an increase in its use

I think these are the same, because efficiency is value over cost. In the original formulation of the paradox, a more efficient steam engine lead to a rise in coal consumption. You can look at this as a "money buys coal, coal drives locomotion" system, where the latter part was improved. Modulo practical issues with coal (transport, storage, etc), dropping the price of coal would (probably?) lead to the same effect, since the end result is that locomotion per money is increased. For an outside observer, it doesn't matter if you get more coal per money or more locomotion per coal.

> standard supply and demand

Standard supply and demand doesn't say anything about increase of spend. If food prices drop, I'm not going to buy more food. I might buy better food for the same budget, but there's no reason why my total food spend should increase.

Hoarding out of fear of the price going up later due to tariffs or other economic instability/inflation. The Trump paradox?

Not for perishables, but for non-perishables.

I think it's still valid to see this as an example of the Jevons paradox: Your resource is money, and reduced per-unit cost means you are using your money (resource) more efficiently. If the total spend now goes up instead of stagnating or decreasing, you've got Jevons

you are absolutely correct, the author is putting the cart before the horse.

Just received mine. Sure, the interface is far, far slicker than what is available on the Librem 5, but there are already hints of "you are not really the owner of the device" (for instance default "safety" contacts in the contact app that you cannot delete, the inability to easily use "reverse tethering" (getting Internet by USB through a computer) and so on) that will make me keep the Librem 5, with all its own issues, as my daily driver for the foreseeable future.

(And the Jolla's "hardware privacy switch" feels like a bad joke: yes, the switch is hardware. What it does (if anything) is fully handled in software.)

The safety contacts issue is legislated in Europe. Removing them is breaking the law, I believe. Can be done if you really want to hack.

> This is actually the biggest reason I own a Remarkable 2/Kindle Scribe, let's me "destroy" the book while also not having to worry about losing my notes.

Well... I'm mostly back to paper after losing most of the notes I had taken on my own Remarkable 2.

> I imagine all of collective known knowledge as a sphere Which is finite which is depicted by boundaries or surface of the sphere And the sphere is growing . Uneven growth in all directions 4pi steridian.

Why a sphere and not just a circle or conversely a hyper-sphere in many dimensions? The idea of sphere and growth with 4pi steradian suggests you imply something on the fundamental number of dimensions of knowledge (that may or may not exists).

Regarding the growth of this "sphere": if you consider that a human brain is finite and can hold only a finite quantity of information, then there must be a point where any new concept is too large to fit. Hence, the growth stops somewhere, unless we find a way to go beyond this natural limit (but then, are we still speaking of human beings?).

I think humans senses are capable of observing only 3 dimensions That is the reason I wrote 4pi steridian And imagined a 3d sphere

And that is just a metaphor Based on my limited knowledge

I dont propose it as a serious Epistemological claim of structure of knowledge

I will improve my metaphors With time

Indeed. When publishing in a scientific journal, you usually (have to) give them an exclusive licence on your article.

Be aware that genetic algorithms are a type of evolutionary algorithms: Do you actually want to learn about genetic algorithms specifically, or more generally about evolutionary algorithms ?

Thank you. Initially the former, and maybe later the latter.

Some Linux distributions (Debian for instance, so probably most Debian-based ones too) have sets of legacy drivers for older nvidia cards.