search results matching tag: recursive

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (15)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (1)     Comments (72)   

Why I’m ALL-IN On Tesla Stock

vil says...

If youre a normal country you are always living on credit, if for no other reason, then because it is super easy and cheap to borrow. Also you have to, to make it to the next pay check (tax collection). First your subjects have to produce and sell, then you can collect taxes.

You dont base the value of the dollar on anything. You offer it as a commodity to the market. If your economy sucks or you print too much money the dollar goes down, which can help the economy. Printing money doesnt automatically help the economy though, it just creates space and time to make it possible for the economy to improve.

Improving the economy means creating more or better products and services that are in demand at a competitive cost. Governments in non-dictatorial countries cant really do that directly, they can only create the conditions for this to happen.

Moderate inflation hardly plays a part, except as a moderator (is that a pun?) of shocks. Deflation (and a strong gold standard in a developing economy IS deflation) is deadly, it makes the economy less flexible, less able to adjust.

If you never improve your ecomomy, all you will have left will be to bitch about inflation.

What is too much debt, too much inflation, too much intervention? I wish economics was a science.

Theoretically the economy can get to be so bad that the structure collapses, there are countries which have notoriously bad historical records, and yet every time they restart they have to borrow money to get things going again. Reserves in general are useless. Production, services and a functioning market, recursive production of valuable goods and services which freely and easily find customers is the only thing you can consider a reliable pillar of civilization. Currency is one of those goods and services.

If for any reason yor currency cant freely circulate (see China or the USSR errr... Russia) you can hardly be a superpower, at least not in the economic sense.

Adopting a gold standard so strong that it would destroy the international dollar standard has no advantage for the USofA or for any developed first world country. Even just having the Euro wreaks havoc in weaker European countries economies, but that is another can of worms.

A lot of what is wrong about the gold standard would apply if a country decided to adopt bitcoin as its sole currency btw.

newtboy said:

The fed printing money is (one reason) why the economy is a disaster.
Every dollar the fed prints makes every dollar worth less….and eventually worthless.
The fed keeping a moderate reserve and releasing some to stabilize the economy AND RECAPTURING IT LATER keeps economy swings moderate. (You just have to not listen to morons who don’t ever want to rebuild the reserve because it cools off hot economies, and instead they want to live on credit).
Printing money is NOT a permanent solution to not having enough money, and doesn’t keep the economy stable long term. Ask Venezuela.

Basing your dollar’s value on gdp means another 2020 and it might disappear altogether instead of just seeing high inflation for years….no advantage there

Magnetic Face Mask vs Giant Neodymium Magnet

FizzBuzz : A simple test when hiring programmers/coders

ChaosEngine says...

I got distracted by all the blinking lights. Where is he... the Death Star control room? Frankly, I'm mildly jealous that my work place does not look as awesome as that.

As to the test itself, it's way too basic. I would expect any beginning programmer to be able to write that with only a few hours training. You could make it slightly more challenging by adding some arbitrary restrictions like "don't use a for loop" (i.e. use recursion) but those are pointless academic wankery.

I actually wrote tests and hired a coder earlier this year. This test wouldn't have got you an interview, never mind a job.

You want to impress me? Start out by writing a test that verifies the output. I don't care if it works, I want to know you can PROVE it works. While you're at it, if I see a console.log or a printf or a cout or any kind of output in your algorithm (unless it's just there for debugging)... instant fail. Learn to separate presentation from logic.

Finally, if you REALLY want to impress me, make it scale. 100 numbers? Meaningless. 1 million? 194ms on my machine.
Write me a version that can do several billion and take advantage of whatever threads/cores are available,

The Nightman Cometh Special Edition

Babymech says...

Writing: All of these shows are what we might call 'clever,' which is generally a big selling point for me. Unexpected, heavily layered, structurally complex writing for comedic effect - a lot of recursive, iteratively growing humor. They're all also quite big on dialogue, and are comparatively 'dark'.

Themes: All of them also feature self-destructive and dysfunctional characters, to different degrees. In addition to this:

Rick & Morty: Does brilliant deconstruction of science fiction concepts without a condescending outside perspective. An amazing example is (spoilers) the time that Rick makes Cronenbergs of the entire global population, or the time that Morty's indecisiveness creates split quantum timelines.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5A5Mb__fiA

Always Sunny: Never shies away from exploring the darkest consequences of its incredibly self-absorbed, idiotic, low attention span, high energy, self-destructive cast.

Potentially good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_49P1RtqU0

Arrested Development: ...I'm not good at writing these synopses; I just wanted to see if I could figure out why I love these shows so much. Anyway, Arrested Development is the most heavily layered of all of them, so in just a few episodes it builds up an incredible library of call-backs, double meanings, etc. It's also less abrasive than the other two, if you have something against offensive shows.

...I don't know if there any good example scenes. You should just watch it.

artician said:

Yeah I don't watch TV at all, this is completely foreign to me.

Educate me: I've heard of Rick and Morty ( vulgar Back to the Future ripoff cartoon, isnt it?) Why is that worth watching? Clever jokes? Social commentary?

Arrested Development is on my "to see" list, but I have yet to see it. What makes it worthwhile?

edit: Oh, and of course, I've never see this Sunny in Philadelphia show. Why is this worthwhile? This clip seemed like it could go either way, but it was meaningless to me without context.

Stephen Colbert Mocks Jeb Bush's Colbert Raffle

entr0py says...

I had no idea where 'Jeb' came from, so you're saying his first name is dependent on his first, middle and last names? He's known by a recursively defined acronym? Suddenly I have more respect for the man; even his name punches logic in the face.

newtboy said:

Go Stephen.
OK. I must point something out. JEB is not the candidates name, it's his initials (John Ellis Bush). He uses his initials to attempt to get people to forget he's a Bush. When you say JEB Bush, it's like saying PIN number (PIN stands for Personal Identification Number, BTW, so saying pin number is saying personal identification number number).
Please stop calling him John Ellis Bush Bush. Let's agree to just call him Bush.

Kylie Minogue---getting her dry cleaning again, again, and..

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Digital manipulation, Dance, Multiplication, Backgrounds' to 'Digital manipulation, Dance, Multiplication, Backgrounds, recursion' - edited by xxovercastxx

Beauty of Mathematics

vaire2ube says...

they were showing what they could, for comparison to the other algorithm-representation model of the other slides.

they chose the amino acids triplets... then showed a string of DNA (codons) and the PCR/electrophoresis was a visualization again of the strings of DNA... and make up fingerprints eventually with the protein they output.

the mathematical themes here are recursion, at least

Humans Yelling Like Goats Yelling Like Humans

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Just Wrong!

messenger says...

The answers to all your questions are in the previous post. I'm not interested in arguing logically with you about why I don't want to argue logically with you. I'm personally satisfied you don't understand science and that it's beyond my power to get you to understand that you don't understand. This belief of mine means I don't want to talk science with you anymore. Arguing with you is an infinite recursion loop and I'm stopping it here.

So, if you like, you may read my previous message carefully, if only to understand the impression you have formed on me, and by inference, probably on others as well. I don't care if you accept my opinion about you as correct. I don't need to be right. I don't need to demonstrate that I'm better than you at scientific thought. My ego is not at all wrapped up in anyone's perception.

Now, all that only applies to talking about science. If you want to talk about anything else (though probably not in this thread since this is a scientific one), I'm still here.

shinyblurry said:

You do a lot of talking about what I do and don't know, with vague accusations of not speaking scientifically, or thinking scientifically. Give me a specific example, with a fact based argument backing it up, and we'll talk about it.

I never said I provided enough evidence thus far to convince anyone that the theory of Uniformitarian geology is fundamentally flawed; however I did present many substantive arguments, particularly to bicyclerepairman. You didn't really address any of them, but rather came back with your routine argument from incredulity (how could the scientists be so wrong?). I provided the video to give you a more thorough explanation but you refused to even look at it. If you don't understand the argument then what case do you have against it? What you are saying basically is that while you don't understand the argument, you know what science *sounds* like, so therefore you can dismiss everything I'm talking about. I really don't think you understand it as well as you think you do..so let's talk about it. Show me where you think I'm going wrong. Don't give me a vague generality (you dont use critical thinking) but lay it all out, point by point..since you're a self-proclaimed expert, break it down and make your case.

Jesus H Christ Explains Everything

messenger says...

@shinyblurry

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve … to maintain order in His kingdom.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing or off topic. I'll state again what I think I have heard you say or suggest: God gave us humans free will. He loves us, and knew what would be the best way for us to live, so, out of love, he gave us a set of laws to follow for our own good. In order to encourage us to follow those laws, he established hell as punishment for choosing to violate those laws: the worst possible eternal torture.

Have I made any mistakes in there?

[me:]What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

[you:]God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love.


I said and I meant "want" (not "need"). You've said many times that God wanted/desired us to exist and behave in certain ways, and you used words like "(un)satisfactory" to describe God's opinion of us/robots, and so forth. Any understanding of those words necessarily implies a lack of something. You cannot want/desire/be unsatisfied unless that thing addresses your lack of something that would make you better off in some way. Every single human action can be attributed to a lack or want (or need). But a perfect all-powerful God would have none of these. He would be at Nirvana, a persistent state of satisfaction with nothing but the self. So "want" and "perfect" make a contradiction. Can you address either my founding statements or my logic?

[me:]You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

[you:]Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Again, you didn't answer. Why did it have to be Jesus? God is all-powerful, so he could have sent a puppy or a bamboo plant or a paramecium to bear our sins and be killed. Or he could have decided it required 40 children of his to be sacrificed. Why just one man?

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

Cool. Is there Biblical reason to assert that this is the correct interpretation of "in his image"?

[me:]What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences … forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin?

[you:]I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.


I'm asking you all this to see if there's ever going to be an end or a logic to the trail of dots without having to presuppose the conclusion that gave rise to the dots in the first place. Every dot seems to give rise to another dot. Like you say about secular morality, it's a recursive chain of dots off to infinity, each dot raising more questions than it answers. Such a system would, by literal definition, not be rational: if it goes on to infinity, then it can never be rationalized.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

Are humans satisfying to God in whatever capacity we were created?

When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai … What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice.

So humanity had no laws from God for all that time (hundreds or thousands of years) until Mt. Sinai? We were allowed to do anything at all we wanted without fear of any punishment from God?

Steve Hughes - Political Correctness and Offence

OH MY GOD... WHO THE HELL CARES!

xxovercastxx says...

It's about to get recursive up in this bitch.


Why does 1=0.999...?

GeeSussFreeK says...

>> ^charliem:

This is patently wrong.
0.999 recurring != 1.
0.244 recurring != 0.25.
The value 0.999 is equivalent to 1, not equal.
The correct 'notation' to use follows;
0.999 recuring ≃ 1.
Note: This is not an equality sign, it is an equivalence sign.
In mathematics they are vastly different.
One infers solid equality.
1 = 1, no ifs ands or buts.
1 ≃ 0.999 means that 0.999 and 1 are close enough that you can, given set boundary conditions, claim they are equal, when in reality they are not.
This is why we have surds and fractions. Use those if you want to express recursive decimal accurately.


Ya, he is trying to solve irrational numbers...rationally, oops. He seems to bypass the notion that some irrational numbers can't be expressed by a surd or fraction, and you can't just go truncating them without changing the value from absolute to an estimation. Bad mathematician, bad, get your hands out of the science jar!

Why does 1=0.999...?

charliem says...

This is patently wrong.
0.999 recurring != 1.
0.244 recurring != 0.25.

The value 0.999 is equivalent to 1, not equal.

The correct 'notation' to use follows;

0.999 recuring ≃ 1.

Note: This is not an equality sign, it is an equivalence sign.
In mathematics they are vastly different.

One infers solid equality.
1 = 1, no ifs ands or buts.

1 ≃ 0.999 means that 0.999 and 1 are close enough that you can, given set boundary conditions, claim they are equal, when in reality they are not.

This is why we have surds and fractions. Use those if you want to express recursive decimal accurately.

Recursive Ventriloquism



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon