Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 33
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
There's a childish saying meant for nerds and braggarts (don't take it personally, it's just a suggestion -- but it might help you learn something new and even do you some good): "I am, yes, I am -- the butt of the boogeyman."
My point is this. There is a good old Soviet movie. Here's the plot. There's a meeting of classmates, everybody gathers and tells about themselves, what they've achieved, what they've done that's useful for society. And one classmate says, "I'm a mother". And people start snickering, you know, we're all mommies and daddies here. And this mum turned out to have 12 kids -- she's a heroic mother.
So don't narcissistically point your finger at your chest and tell me that raising children -- as you cleverly put it "multiply" -- is of little value to you.
Sorry to interfere with your productive championship discussion -- but for many pages now there has been a free-flowing discussion of topics that are far removed from the championship. That's nothing more than a rejoinder of mine, you can leave it at that.
Once again you've tainted the whole thing...
I'm asking you, what have you done for the community? - Besides breeding, planting a tree, and crossing your grandmother's path.
Instead of breeding a starving population, build schools and hospitals.
Instead of "planting one tree in a lifetime" - develop a filtration, regeneration, recycling system.
Instead of spending your life near the road and transferring grandmothers here and there - build an underground passage with auto-lifts.
Develop a little, but your own theory and tell it to your children and friends on the forum.
That's what "useful to society" is all about.
PS. There was a time when I mistakenly thought that I would not see you in this thread. I was wrong.
1. Once again you've made a mess of everything...
2. Instead of fostering a hungry population, build schools and hospitals.
Instead of "planting one tree in a lifetime" - develop a filtration, regeneration, recycling system.
Instead of spending all your life near the road and transferring grandmothers here and there - build an underground passage with auto-lifts.
Develop a little, but your own theory and tell it to your children and friends on the forum.
That is what "useful to society" is all about.
3. PS. there was a time when I mistakenly thought I would not see you in this thread. My mistake.
1. Not denigrated, but called things by their proper names. Yes, that's not to everyone's liking. Illusions and self-deception are more comfortable.
2. Demagogy by people who have not actually done anything useful (don't take it personally, just a comment on your conclusions). I have seen and spoken to such people. In the "science" you have rubbished with posts above -- there are 95% of them -- demagogues and mediocrities. Yes, with titles, degrees, publications (articles, monographs, textbooks), even students. But their real mark in science is a "fart" (understand as a well-known physiological event).
3. Since the forum is not yours, the thread is not yours either. And yes, wrong. I'm around (but as soon as you start discussing the championship again, I'll shut up).
Any near-exchange activity (scientific and practical, so to speak), including the exchange itself, is anti-social and does nothing but harm to society. It is impossible to call what the exchange is an economy. Aristotle introduced the notion of "chrématisme".
Another thing is that we (in this case) are involved in this activity in one way or another -- but that is "another matter".
Any near-exchange activity (scientific and practical, so to speak), including the exchange itself, is anti-social and does nothing but harm to society. It is not even possible to call it an economy. Aristotle introduced the notion of "chrematics".
Another thing is that we (in this case) are involved in this activity one way or another -- but that's "another matter".
So you, being engaged in exchange activities, are clearly and specifically aware that you do harm to society?
Once again you have tainted everything...
Instead of fostering a hungry population, build schools and hospitals.
Instead of "planting one tree in a lifetime" - develop a filtration, regeneration, recycling system.
Instead of spending your life near the road and transferring grandmothers here and there - build an underground passage with auto-lifts.
Develop a little, but your own theory and tell it to your children and friends on the forum.
That's what "useful to society" is all about.
PS. There was a time when I mistakenly thought that I would not see you in this thread. Wrong.
Nothing in this world has only one side.
The benefits of any invention or innovation on one side can turn out to be detrimental on the other.
People are used to thinking in a straightforward way.
1. Hungry populations are more active and resilient than well-fed ones. They are looking for ways to survive and maintain their natural qualities. Natural selection does not atrophy in such a society. Hungry populations are looking for food, not waiting for it to be served. It is more capable of development. (There are expressions like 'nothing ingenious is born in satiety' and 'the cunning of the ox'.)
2. Perfect filtration and recycling systems will lead to production being able to become as toxic as they want. After all, everyone will be convinced that their waste treatment systems will neutralise any poisons and regenerate the environment. In case of local failure of these systems, a global environmental catastrophe could happen (Remember Chernobyl).
3. it is good for grandmothers to move around more. People age prematurely precisely because they do not move enough. Danger on the roads forces people to be toned down.
All scientific and technological progress inevitably leads to the physical and mental weakening of man and the loss of his valuable gene pool. This is the price of development.
What good is society to be served by the huge amount of pseudoscientific theories that pseudoscientists push in the mass media?
What use is the huge amount of pseudoscientific but popular literature sold in millions of copies?
The pseudoscientific theory hastily exposed for review by laymen cannot be of any use for society.
A true scientist does not seek to be popular. He cares about science, not public benefit.
Public benefit is the concern of politicians and patrons.
A scientist will not make a show out of his discoveries.
And who are the judges? Your rhetoric is reminiscent of the rhetoric of the Nazi Reich in the 1930s when German science was almost completely exsanguinated (and American science, on the other hand, was augmented by talented scientists with Jewish-German blood).
Here you without appeal throw words "pseudoscience", and who you actually are, that you would establish criteria: "here it is pseudoscience, and here it is real science"? According to you, science is only what you can touch and see. But so very quickly you can get to a society of believers in a flat Earth (such a society really exists).
Nothing in our world has only one side.
The benefits of any invention or innovation on the one hand may turn out to be detrimental on the other.
...
Right. No more drinks for Sharikov... for stimulation. Zhirinovsky has put it even better - we should put everyone in jail to develop their creative potential. Dostoyevsky spent 10 years in prison and gave out The Idiot.
Right. Don't give Shariq any more... for stimulation. Zhirinovsky said it even better - we should put everyone in jail to develop their creative potential. Dostoyevsky gave 10 years in the penitentiary and The Idiot.
Your answer does not allow me to understand your opinion. Obviously, you are trying to draw some offensive hint, but it is in vain... State your opinion in a more elaborate way so that it can be discussed.
I don't know what associations you have with my words.
Nothing in our world has only one side.
The benefit of any invention or innovation on one side can turn into harm on the other.
People are used to thinking linearly.
1. Hungry populations are more active and resilient than well-fed ones. They are looking for ways to survive and maintain their natural qualities. Natural selection does not atrophy in such a society. Hungry populations are looking for food, not waiting for it to be served. It is more capable of development. (There are expressions like 'nothing ingenious is born in satiety' and 'the cunning of the ox'.)
2. Perfect filtration and recycling systems will result in production becoming as toxic as it wants to be. After all, everyone will be convinced that their waste treatment systems will neutralise any poisons and regenerate the environment. In case of local failure of these systems, a global environmental catastrophe could happen (Remember Chernobyl).
3. it is good for grandmothers to move around more. People age prematurely precisely because they do not move enough. Danger on the road keeps people awake.
All scientific and technological progress inevitably leads to the physical and mental weakening of man and the loss of his valuable gene pool. This is the price of development.
Materialism bordering on Nihilism mixed with Agnosticism. That's something I've never seen before...
Anyway... How does "denial" help the "search"? Not an idle question, I'm really curious. Instead of puzzling over whether the Cat is alive or dead, can we just say it doesn't exist at all? Quantum encrypted communication has been recently implemented in Russia, they do rubbish, don't they?