the standard counterargument "but you never know what might be useful in 50 years!" ignores opportunity costs. we're allowing some of the smartest people around to nerdsnipe themselves and each other into spending all their time on beautiful useless shit
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
a bigshot professor at berkeley once tried to dunk on ML by saying that it basically only relied on 18th century math; imo this is a much bigger dunk on math
Prikaži ovu nit -
the other standard counterargument "but muh beauty of math!" - look. we are already drowning in beautiful math. we have a disgustingly beautiful hoard of it already, more than we could ever need. i'm talking full RPG inventory of megalixirs and all that other shit you never use
Prikaži ovu nit -
actually it's more like an RPG with a crafting system where you can craft really powerful weapons and armor that you don't yet have the stats to equip, and instead of leveling or figuring out what you really need to craft you just keep crafting more and more powerful stuff
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Do you want us all to starve? Most of us are only good at this one thing.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
Learn about all the ‘useless’ things Reimann, Leibniz, Euler and Gauss discovered - that are now the fundamentals of how computers and their algorithms work.
-
the last of these men died in 1866. you got any examples from the last 50 years?
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Do you suspect this is true for more academic subfields besides math?
-
probably, wouldn't be surprised if this was true for large swaths of philosophy
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

