Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hello, World

m.whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: Hello, World

#111

Post by furyofantares »

CPLX wrote: post #93
simplicio wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brainteasers tend to follow a particular pattern. The amount of information the various Alices and Bobs and Charlies have seems at first glance to obviously be inadequate to the task they're given. Then a closer examination reveals that there's some sublte extra scrap of information, and you can generally assume than that the answer is to use that to trace out the possibilities to find the actual answer. So knowing t…

One of the main challenges, however, seems like it would rear its head as soon as you leave the confines of a defined brain teaser, where you know for sure that there is a "trick" even if you can't see it, and real world situations such as in programming, where you don't yet know if the specific problem is solvable at all.

I noticed something similar when I was studying math: Exercises of the variety "Prove x" or "Disprove x" were much more than twice as easy as exercises of the variety "Prove or disprove x".

Re: Hello, World

#112

Post by marvy »

javert wrote: post #102
pliny wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are no specific examples that will get you out of this. So you're saying that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind?

No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that…

You're right, it's possible to compete. But the playing field is tilted.

Re: Hello, World

#113

Post by marvy »

javert wrote: post #102
pliny wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are no specific examples that will get you out of this. So you're saying that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind?

No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that…

You said not to take the cheap shots, so I replied two minutes ago with a real comment. This one is a cheap shot: starting your own OEM will not help: MS won't give you a windows license. But you will say that just means you must try something else.

Re: Hello, World

#114

Post by pliny »

javert wrote: post #102
pliny wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are no specific examples that will get you out of this. So you're saying that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind?

No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that…

>No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true.

You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true.

this isn't a cheap opportunity to pick at your argument, it's a huge red flag that you have a fundamental error in your reasoning.

>I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that competition is impossible go through.

Fine - but this argument doesn't model reality, and this is where the relevance of evidence comes in: many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture.

So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore, then competition is still possible, but without regulation it won't occur.

Re: Hello, World

#115

Post by meowface »

furyofantares wrote: post #43
meowface wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, I immediately guessed the strategy on my first guess (one same, one opposite) and somehow automagically intuited it was correct, but did not really understand why. Then I understood once I looked at the thread.

That was exactly my experience and the reason I asked the question :) The answer just appeared with zero awareness of any effort or reasoning that may have lead to it -- the only reasoning I perceived was in verifying the solution. So I got curious as to how intuition could solve this problem roughly on its own, or with so little help from conscious reasoning that I didn't notice it. From the replies it seems there a…

We had very similar thought processes.

Re: Hello, World

#116

Post by marvy »

javert wrote: post #103
blumkvist wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So according to you, it's alright for a company to hold a monopoly position and erase their competitors, as long as they provide the bare minimum its customers need?

No. I said that there is no such thing as a monopoly except legally-created monopolies. Those are, in effect, government created. I am totally against that. I am totally against government passing laws to favor certain people over others, treating people unequally.

In the sense of 100% monopoly, you're probably not far wrong. But it's pretty amazing what you can do with 99% market share.

Re: Hello, World

#117

Post by javert »

pliny wrote: post #114
javert wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that…

>No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true. this isn't a cheap opportunity to pick at your argument, it's a huge red flag that you have a fundamental error in your reasoning. >I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Ca…

> You can't dismiss evidence ahead of time because you're convinced your theory is true.

There is no possible counter-evidence. You'd say the same thing about lots of things---for example, that the Earth is spherical.

So you are mistaken here about how epistemology works.

> many times competition is theoretically possible but won't occur since no one wants to risk a lot of capital and time and effort on what will likely be an unsuccessful venture.

That isn't borne out in reality. It's very easy to compete against a shitty product with a superior product, and there is plenty of capital to compete with any product that exists today.

> So if an unregulated Microsoft manages to lean on their competitors enough that people don't want to try competing anymore

What does it mean to "lean on competitors"? Nothing. It's meaningless. There is literally nothing a company can do to "lean on" competitors unless they use the law to do it. They can lean on other market participants---e.g., OEMs, But you can always get around that because you can start a competing OEM or get an OEM to capitulate. That's why I say I can always take the argument out one level.

I'm most likely not going to continue responding. I will if you ask a question out of curiosity, but I'm not interested in "aruging" with you further.

Re: Hello, World

#118

Post by javert »

marvy wrote: post #113
javert wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that…

You said not to take the cheap shots, so I replied two minutes ago with a real comment. This one is a cheap shot: starting your own OEM will not help: MS won't give you a windows license. But you will say that just means you must try something else.

You don't need a license from Windows to start an OEM and sell computers that come with a competing OS installed.

That is what Apple does, for instance.

Re: Hello, World

#119

Post by javert »

marvy wrote: post #112
javert wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying that there is no example possible that will negate the point. Because the point is true. I mean, you can keep taking it out one level, and competition can happen there. For instance: Can't compete due to OEM agreements with MS? Have to get an OEM to capitulate, or start your own OEM, or find another way to get your competing OS on machines. There is no specific example that will make the argument that…

You're right, it's possible to compete. But the playing field is tilted.

No, the playing field is completely fair. If you can offer people a greater value proposition, you will win in the market.

Re: Hello, World

#120

Post by matheweis »

drostie wrote: post #96
furyofantares wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience arriving at this solution made me a bit curious as to how others solved it. Was there reasoning involved before you arrived at a strategy and verified it, or did the strategy just come to you? Did you try multiple strategies, and if so, was there a method to generating/iterating on them, or were they just coming to you and you tried them?

Honestly the situation was a little confusing because I like to think about a thought experiment which is similar (a coordinated three-person game called "Betrayal" which exemplifies the weirdness of quantum mechanics) and due to this I imagined that the "win criterion" was "Alice and Bob both have to get each other's answer right." When I re-read the description and said "oh, they only have to have one correct answe…

Yea, I made the exact same mistake at first. (Thinking that Alice AND Bob must always know the answer)
Post reply on HN