If your employer gets you a nvda card or openai subscription, it doesn't automatically mean you are getting richer, agreed?

And the richness of life it's another philosophical discussion altogether...

Yoir choice between the red pill, the blue pill or no pill is pretty obvious but this choice is highly subjective.

Also pfizergate featuring von der leyen.

I'm with you on this. People who pathologize themselves or others - assuming they're malfunctioning rather than acknowledging they might simply be living a life that doesn't fit - have a very limited way of looking at things.

> ... in professions where skill is essential and performance is both visible and attributable to a specific person, particularly in fields such ... fund asset management ...

Laughing out loud)))

How is it unstable? It's one of the most reliable pieces of software I have used honestly.

In any case 'nix-shell -p erlang|elixir' does not seem too complicated to me.

Flakes is still experimental despite being very widely used.

Flakes is also more stable than many "stable" projects. Flakes is more stable than Python 3, for example.

Well Nix is the only sane way I know to manage fully reproducible envs that incorporate programs/scripts spanning multiple ecosystems. Very common situation in applied data analysis.

Nix is a 10x force multiplier for managing Linux systems. The fact that I can write python, go, bash, jq, any tool that is right for the job of managing and configuring the system is amazing. And on top of that I can patch any part of the entire system with just that, a patch from my fork on GitHub or anywhere else.

Top that off with first class programming capabilities and modularization and I can share common configuration and packages across systems. And add that those same customized packages can be directly included in a dev shell making all of the amazing software out there available for tooling and support. Really has changed my outlook and I have so much fun now not EVER dealing with tooling issues except when I have explicitly upgrade my shell and nixpkgs version.

I just rebuilt our CI infrastructure with nix and was a able to configure multiple dockerd isolated daemons per host, calculate the subnet spread for all the networks, write scripts configuring the env so you can run docker1 and hit daemon 1. Now we can saturate our CI machines with more parallel work without them fighting over docker system resources like ports. Never would have attempting doing this without nix, being able to generate the entire system config tree and inspect systemd service configs befor even applying to a host reduced my iteration loop to an all time low in the infrastructure land where 10-15mins lead times of building images to find out I misspelling Kafka and kakfa somewhere and now need to rebuild again for 15mins. Now I get almost instant feedback for most of these types of errors.

Yeah I think there's no point denying that we humans need and are affected by narratives. At least on the psychological level, which, in turn, may have impact on the body as well.

Moreover, the republicans are reported as having lower T on average but the difference is not statistically significant.

It looks weird to me they don't report how age behaves across groups and don't correct for age in baseline comparisons.

"but the difference is not statistically significant."

So,... Republicans are reported as having basically the same T?

Modelling isn't the higher intellectual pursuit it's made out to be. Imo designing theoretical models post-hoc to "support" a desired conclusion is not unheard of in econ/finance.

It's tautological but models are models.

It doesn't really change anything to their inherent value that you build them from the hypotheses up or from the conclusions down. It holds the same that this set of interactions lead to this behaviour.

Sometimes going down can be equally interesting: "What would a system where tariff improves the overall well being of a country inhabitants look like?". Contrast the model requirements with empirical data and you have an interesting paper.

The 2019 economics prize went to empirical research.

The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks) are usually more obviously pursuing an agenda, but they definitely usually don't have better empirical evidence.

> The non-mainstrean economists (aka heterodox, aka cranks)

L M A O

M

A

O

Mate, this is not physics. This is not a field with a measurable reality where you can, in fact, say that those who reject the empirical evidence are cranks. Economics allows for multiple incompatible interpretations of the same empirical observations.

Economics has several characteristics that make it unlike other sciences: basically the "underlying observable" is not an objective thing with an independent existence; unlike an atom, the object of economics changes when it's being studied and changes with the underlying changes in political and economic structure. Even its aims are open for discussion! Economics has more in common with sociology or philosophy than any of the hard sciences.

It's easy to see, if nothing else, because economic theories fall in and out of fashion just like political ideologies do.

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with non-mainstream economics, or to criticise it on some concrete grounds. But to pretend anyone who disagrees with $current_view is a crank... Well it's symptomatic of the quasi-orwellian reality which certain sectors want to impose: it's not enough to say "ours is the right way", they want to say "ours is the only possible way".

The bait-and-switch rhetorical tactics from the cranks like "not a science" is to feign that empirical evidence doesn't exist (for thee) and therefore we should embrace ideology (theirs). This is why the Is-ought problem is frequently brought up. Though this mostly only flies in sloppy online space; in academia, progressives became Rawls acolytes and eschewed Marx, because of baggage and serious errors that can't be overcome. This seems to have translated to a chimera everything-bagel ideology on social media, where they're Rawlsian (qua social justice) but also many don't want to give up Marx, 'cause Capitalism bad, and this doesn't square.

Precisely. To quote the famous economic dictum: it works in practice, but does it work in theory?