Live data from Hacker News

Dull Men’s Club

theguardian.com

41–50 of 142 posts

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#41
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious response? In that case the set still has a smallest member which can then be removed, if we keep going eventually there will be no uninteresting numbers remaining.

The problem with that is the explanation of why each number is interesting becomes: the smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers the second smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers the third ... ... That version of "interesting" quickly becomes "not interesting". The concept simply defies mathematical logic.

This isn't how math works.

When you get to the point in a proof of the irrationality of root two where you've demonstrated that if it is expressible as a fraction p/q, then both p and q have to be even, you don't then need to proceed to prove that if they're both even, then they both have to be divisible by four, and then if they're both divisible by four, that means they're both divisible by eight...

I mean, you can, but you don't have to.

You can just say 'if it's a rational number then it has a reduced form where p and q have gcf of 1, so if p and q would both have to be even, that is a contradiction'.

Same with the 'set of uninteresting numbers'. If 'being uninteresting' is a property numbers can have, then the 'set of uninteresting numbers' exists, and it has a least member. Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers is interesting.

You don't have to infinitely regress from here and get tied up in knots saying that surely there is some 'first truly uninteresting number' to prove that the set is actually empty - you can just see that you must have gone wrong somewhere. Either:

1) Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume.

or

2) 'Being uninteresting' is not a property numbers can have

I think actually of the two, 1) is more likely the case.

But that doesn't defy mathematical logic. It is a consequence of mathematical logic.

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to block it because I realized it just completely overtook my feed and 99% of it was in that "interesting but ultimately forgettable within 30 seconds of reading it" zone that's filling up social media. I mean it lived up to its name - it's very "dull" if vaguely interesting.

this is the part of the internet that everyone would be better off avoiding: not bad but no long-term value. When the internet was novel and your engagement limited these were rarer, cool things to share (often face to face!). Now this content is internet sugar that will be the health crisis of a generation.

Isn't that most of Hacker News as well? "Oh that's an interesting technical solution - which is completely irrelevant to the work I'm doing"

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that is the explanation of why each number is interesting becomes: the smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers the second smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers the third ... ... That version of "interesting" quickly becomes "not interesting". The concept simply defies mathematical logic.

This isn't how math works. When you get to the point in a proof of the irrationality of root two where you've demonstrated that if it is expressible as a fraction p/q, then both p and q have to be even, you don't then need to proceed to prove that if they're both even, then they both have to be divisible by four, and then if they're both divisible by four, that means they're both divisible by eight... I mean, you can…

[deleted]

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that is the explanation of why each number is interesting becomes: the smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers the second smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers the third ... ... That version of "interesting" quickly becomes "not interesting". The concept simply defies mathematical logic.

This isn't how math works. When you get to the point in a proof of the irrationality of root two where you've demonstrated that if it is expressible as a fraction p/q, then both p and q have to be even, you don't then need to proceed to prove that if they're both even, then they both have to be divisible by four, and then if they're both divisible by four, that means they're both divisible by eight... I mean, you can…

There's a third option. The definition of uninteresting we're using may be flawed. Here's a quick stab at a more rigorous approach:

We could start by defining a set of "all numbers that are uninteresting other than by membership or position in this set".

That describes the set the proof naively called "interesting numbers" without the contradiction.

Then we could create a second set with all members of the first set except those that are interesting because of where they are in that set (smallest, whatever). This is a new version of "interesting numbers" that approaches the version in the original proof but is, in human terms, less interesting. As you said, "Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume."

We could repeat that, making a sequence of sets that approach the definition of interesting in the original proof, but the definition of each set is progressively less interesting in human terms.

Then if we really want to be rigorous, we could talk about "first degree interesting" (what most people mean), "nth degree interesting", or "asymptotically interesting", but the last one is an empty set.

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#45
post #25

> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks. i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.

There must be a confounding variable: are you an engineer-type? What traits are correlated with overing? Do underers look at the world differently? And it is a false dichotomy. Some people just don't care what direction when they replace the roll - what's a suitable name for that clade? And then there's the people who use the floor and ignore the holder.

overers see the world as it is and live to solve problems.

underers are frantically trying to fix their broken lives.

nihilists lacking opinions are empty shells.

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#46

One of my most favorite places in nearby oregon is the community of Boring, OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boring,_Oregon . Exceptionally lovely place. I've yet to visit it's sister town of Dull in Scotland, but I hope someday to remedy that, albeit with measured levels of excitement

Bland, Australia (NSW) joined the group in 2017.

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#47

> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks. i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.

Only if you don't have cats. If you have cats, "under" is the only sane choice.

It depends on the cat, and how your home is set up. In my lifetime, I've only had one cat that played with the toilet paper. In my current place, the toilet is in a separate room by itself, and the door is kept closed, so the cat can't even get in there.

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#49

This is a cool concept but I have an issue with one being "dull" on a conceptual level. Personally I think that every single person on earth is both the dullest person you have ever met and the most interesting person on earth, it just depends on your perspective. I have friends that play DnD which I personally find very dull but hearing them talk about it, it's clear they do not see it the same way. Conversely I lov…

I don't know why this perspective bothers me so much, but it does. This idea that people are alternatively dull or interesting feels wrong to me, on a kind of visceral level. So far so that I'm having trouble marshaling my thoughts enough that I can tell you why. It's like there's an intuition gap so large I'm getting vertigo. Nothing here is intended to say that the way you feel about it is invalid, but I need to write out my own feelings in order to put my brain's feet back on solid ground.

It feels entirely backwards to me that there is some kind of dull/exciting switch that flips and a person becomes dull or exciting, depending on whether the observer finds the topic the person is speaking about interesting. The one at fault (such that there is any) for the lack of interest isn't usually the speaker, surely?

I have a friend who works in a field that most people absolutely find completely uninteresting (and, to be frank, I am also uninterested in the field in general), but when we sit and have a pint after work and have a chat, I can't help but be engaged because there is more to learn about everything, and while the technical minutiae of his trade is unexciting, the conversation is not. I know more about turbidity now than I ever expected or needed to, but I don't feel like it was time wasted.

Swap me out for an analog of your wife, and the guy flips from interesting to dull? That seems unfair, for some reason, not that fairness should really ever into it. Just because an interest isn't shared doesn't mean it should be derided as dull, right?

And, y'know, conversely, I know a dull guy. Like, I like to think I'm a good conversationalist. I can hold my own in a chat with basically anyone. But this guy. He sink-holes literally anything you try to say. One word answers. You can drag out the most maniacal story of the past few years of your life, a story that every single person you've ever talked to about it has been engaged and you get a good back and forth and a bit of patter, but this guy: "Oh, cool". And he's like that with everyone. Play word association, you say salt, I say pepper, you say this guy's name, I say dull. All of this seems really mean, but I'm pretty sure he's happy being that guy. I mean who knows what his actual inner thoughts about the matter might be, because you'll never get him to say anything worth listening to about it.

And this, I think, is probably the crux of why I'm so not on board with the way you see it. My friend and my boring friend are not the same, vis-a-vis in a dullness competition. They're not even in the same weight class.

Anyway. Perspectives. Weird, huh?

Re: Dull Men’s Club

#50
post #20
post #8

The Dull Men's Club group of facebook is actually oddly interesting. I would classify it more as a group who point out the very small oddities of every day life that are not very interesting. There is a post where someone saw two geese with 42 bay geese, another where the rental company fixed a door with a piece of pool noodle. Its more like a "huh that's kind of weird I guess" group.

It's a bit like reading this site... Gentlemen, have you heard The curious tale of Bhutan's playable record postage stamps (2015)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44054775

That’s not dull that’s fascinating.
Post reply on HN