A List of Open Questions • Hacker News Board

Re: A List of Open Questions

#71

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #53

nafey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats the minimal change in the rules that will bring a striking based martial art to the top?

I would guess, the following rule changes will help a lot. * Increase the minimum size of the wrist padding and gloves. Which makes it much safer to throw punches. Additionally, the design of the gloves can be regulated so grabbing someone is harder than it is now. * Perhaps, add rules about how long you can stay on top of someone on the ground without doing significant damage. A lot of matches end up with a takedown…

One of the more famous Royce Gracie wins was against a western wrestler (Severn) who maintained control on top for almost all of the 15 minute match before being caught in a triangle choke.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#72

Post by hammock » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

jhallenworld wrote: post #32

hammock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate?

Oral hygiene has been improving over time, see: https://fluoridefree.org.nz/fuoridation-status-countries/cou... Perhaps people with the bad oral hygiene of the past had a different gut biome, had more stomach infections, or just had less pain when eating and this led to less calorie absorption.

It's not obvious to me how more cavities leads to less calorie absorption - this is your pet theory can you explain it?

In regard to gut biome and stomach infections, there is a lot of evidence that fluoride actively destroys your gut - disturbing the microbiome, breaking down the gut barrier and promoting inflammation - so I'm not sure that part holds water.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#73

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

nthompson wrote: post #10

The question about Gracie jiu-jitsu is not so interesting anymore: In the early 90’s, there were simply very talented jiu jitsu practitioners who were close to the UFC. Now we’ve witnessed many strategies used successfully in MMA, like American college wrestling (Ben Askren, Matt Hughes), Thai clinches (TJ Dillashaw), kickboxing (Holly Holmes), and Judo (Ronda Rousey). In fact very few fights end with an interesting…

Don't forget also that the Gracie family had significant Vale Tudo experience, and those rules were very similar to UFC.

Also, BJJ grew out of early Judo, which was less calcified when it was brought to Brazil. Helio Gracie was manhandled by the Judoka Masahiko Kimura, despite home-field advantage[1].

Catch wrestling also had similar rules, but had a culture of secrecy, so was not going to spread in a similar way to Judo.

Yet another reason is simply the fact that weapons were invented many thousands of years ago, so unarmed combat has been unimportant since at least the bronze age.

1: Of note, the Gracies thickened the padding of the mat used because Kimura's throws were known to be capable of concussing people; after throwing Gracie around like a ragdoll for the entire first round, he switched to trying for lock submissions, which he eventually did get (and BJJ names the shoulder lock used the "Kimura" even today).

Re: A List of Open Questions

#74

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #70

matt-attack wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit logically where was he wrong? It seems like a bit of a paradox to me. You keep say it’s wrong but can you point out exactly where his reasoning is wrong? My vote yesterday simply didn’t change any of the outcomes. That is a fact. None of the races were won by a single vote.

I pointed out the error in reasoning. You are repeating the intuitive heuristic, which is that a single vote doesn't change outcomes. I'll try to explain my point more fully, but there isn't much more ground to cover here. glastra made a good sibling comment covering the basic probabilistic points, so I'll try a different direction. If your bar for voting to have meaning is that your individual vote will change outco…

> if you made 2 points in a basketball game and your team lost, were those 2 points meaningless just because you didn't win?

If your only goal is to win, then yes those 2 points are meaningless.

> Should you recuse yourself from playing because it's unlikely your team can win?

No because people play basketball for more reasons than just to win.

> How about raising money for a Kickstarter - was it a waste of time just because you didn't raise the goal and won't receive the funds? Should you not try to raise money and find as many donors as you can, just because there's a minimum cutoff for payout?

That is absolutely a waste of time, yes! A Kickstarter is significant effort and is done with the intent of funding. That's a major opportunity cost for the limited effort one has before giving up and working on something else.

> There is no perspective from which it is irrational to vote. It costs you nothing and can only have upside for your party affiliation. If you disagree we're separated by an axiomatic impasse, not a logical one.

There were something like 40 things to vote on for my ballot. I spent about 20 hours figuring out which way to vote. If I had spent that time consulting at $300/hr that's $6000 of my time. The fact that I would rather have spent that time on leisure activities means that I personally value that time at more than $6k. I literally only did it because I value my relationship with my wife any more and she was most insistent.

Can we agree that the value of my vote is roughly equal to the odds that it influences the election times the value I place on that? We can debate the odds, but if this were a lottery, I would be called a fool for buying that ticket for $6k.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#75

Post by mactrey » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #70

matt-attack wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit logically where was he wrong? It seems like a bit of a paradox to me. You keep say it’s wrong but can you point out exactly where his reasoning is wrong? My vote yesterday simply didn’t change any of the outcomes. That is a fact. None of the races were won by a single vote.

I pointed out the error in reasoning. You are repeating the intuitive heuristic, which is that a single vote doesn't change outcomes. I'll try to explain my point more fully, but there isn't much more ground to cover here. glastra made a good sibling comment covering the basic probabilistic points, so I'll try a different direction. If your bar for voting to have meaning is that your individual vote will change outco…

What if the claim is not that my marginal vote is worth 0, but rather that the worth of my marginal vote is very small - so small that the marginal cost of driving to the voting booth and waiting in line is overwhelmingly higher. What mathematical or logical argument can you use to convince someone that is convinced by this weakened line of reasoning?

Even in my own state, which has a relatively convenient vote-by-mail system, there is still a cost associated to voting - educating yourself about the candidates and measures (the complementary booklet explaining measures and including for-and-against arguments is 50+ pages), filling out the ballot, and the cost of the stamp on the envelope, at least. It is also widely understood that my state is quite liberal, so that the democrat's victory is all-but-certain in most races. It's not hard for me to understand why the average resident would not even bother.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#76

Post by thrower123 » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

matt-attack wrote: post #57

gnulinux wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally believe carbs are mostly to blame (as opposed to fats and protein). In the Western world there is this idea that fats are bad, carbs are good but somehow this idea coincidences with astronomic increase in obesity. We load everything with high-fructose corn syrup and kick fats out of our diet. There is not much research behind this and my claims aren't evidence based either. I'm more than happy to refuted…

But bread had been a staple diet for quite some time. On London in the 19th century it was heavily regulated even to the point of how big a loaf of bread must be. It was literally the main diet for the working class.

Bread even 100 years ago was a far different beast than it is now; historic bread flour was far less processed, and often was padded out with other cheaper grains.

On the other hand, the availability of corn and sugar has exploded. I wouldn't be surprised if the base metabolism of most people 100 years ago burned 1000 calories a day more than the typical westerner as well, just being on their feet, moving around and doing the work that was required for daily existence.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#77

Post by hazz99 » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

thecatspaw wrote: post #46

hazz99 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you eat 'well' but sit at a desk all day, calories in != calories out and you'll probably gain weight. How can this be true? Energy cannot be created - it has to come from somewhere.

they are saying that gaining weight is by taking in more calories than spending them, and that sitting all day lowers the calories out

Ah, I misunderstood. Cheers!

Re: A List of Open Questions

#78

Post by throwawaymath » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #74

throwawaymath wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pointed out the error in reasoning. You are repeating the intuitive heuristic, which is that a single vote doesn't change outcomes. I'll try to explain my point more fully, but there isn't much more ground to cover here. glastra made a good sibling comment covering the basic probabilistic points, so I'll try a different direction. If your bar for voting to have meaning is that your individual vote will change outco…

> if you made 2 points in a basketball game and your team lost, were those 2 points meaningless just because you didn't win? If your only goal is to win, then yes those 2 points are meaningless. > Should you recuse yourself from playing because it's unlikely your team can win? No because people play basketball for more reasons than just to win. > How about raising money for a Kickstarter - was it a waste of time just…

Based on your last paragraph, we're in (apparently violent) agreement. I would not call you a fool for playing a lottery where you pay nothing to have a nonzero chance of winning $6,000. Voting does not cost the voter anything, but it has a non-negligible chance of gaining the voter an upside.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#79

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #78

aidenn0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you made 2 points in a basketball game and your team lost, were those 2 points meaningless just because you didn't win? If your only goal is to win, then yes those 2 points are meaningless. > Should you recuse yourself from playing because it's unlikely your team can win? No because people play basketball for more reasons than just to win. > How about raising money for a Kickstarter - was it a waste of time just…

Based on your last paragraph, we're in (apparently violent) agreement. I would not call you a fool for playing a lottery where you pay nothing to have a nonzero chance of winning $6,000. Voting does not cost the voter anything, but it has a non-negligible chance of gaining the voter an upside.

I think you missed my point. When I vote, I'm paying $6000 to play a lottery where I have a nonzero (but very small) chance of affecting policy.

Re: A List of Open Questions

#80

Post by throwawaymath » Wed, Nov 07, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

mactrey wrote: post #75

throwawaymath wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pointed out the error in reasoning. You are repeating the intuitive heuristic, which is that a single vote doesn't change outcomes. I'll try to explain my point more fully, but there isn't much more ground to cover here. glastra made a good sibling comment covering the basic probabilistic points, so I'll try a different direction. If your bar for voting to have meaning is that your individual vote will change outco…

What if the claim is not that my marginal vote is worth 0, but rather that the worth of my marginal vote is very small - so small that the marginal cost of driving to the voting booth and waiting in line is overwhelmingly higher. What mathematical or logical argument can you use to convince someone that is convinced by this weakened line of reasoning? Even in my own state, which has a relatively convenient vote-by-ma…

That's a bit different. I can buy on principle that it's possible the value of your time is so high it doesn't make sense for you to e.g. vote red in a blue state. But if we ground this back in reality, most people do not hyperoptimize their time based on marginal utilities because it would be nearly impossible to achieve that kind of efficiency. So I'll buy it principle, but I'd need some convincing it applies to any given person in particular.