No one is disallowing the parent, you, or anyone else from discussing or thinking about complex phenomena. If someone is not putting in the work to engage with the material, others are free to point it out, and they do so at their leisure.

I hold others to a higher standard when the stakes are higher. Specifically, the post I commented on was (likely unintentionally) not only factually wrong, but stigmatizing people with sleep disturbances. This is why my tone was dismissive and condescending. This was intentional.

I don't care to give examples because they are easy to find if you are asking in good faith. I even posted one in direct reply to TFA.

In any event, I agree with something implicit in the article, namely that most people have a degree of this, but the severity is variable. Mine has been fairly extreme, and while diagnosis enables disability accommodations, it is very fraught navigating most workplaces with this particular disability and you are essentially forced to choose between having any kind of upward mobility and getting enough sleep at night.

Thankfully the past two years or so I've been getting much more sleep since optimizing more for that. But anyway, if you are navigating sleep challenges you should get a sleep study, sure, but also be aware that your local sleep clinic is in all likelihood only nominally a sleep clinic. That is, it does not know how to diagnose and treat more complex sleep issues and probably doesn't want to.

> I have observed this in myself so I wonder whether it is universally true

Growing up is realizing how infinitesimally narrow your particular slice of reality is.

I apologize for getting stuck on your parenthetical but while pithiness is a fine aspiration in a North American business setting, pithy reads generally can't exist without more detailed and nuanced long-form analyses, and the latter face a more dire existential threat. You are right that pithy [writing] is an important skill, as are slow and deliberative reading and writing of longer form work

I'm not claiming the original post is detailed or nuanced, to be clear

> Do not send me anything longer than you would send to a crush. Some people email me six-paragraph essays about the time they saved a cat from a tree

...in a rambling piece that is not written with much consideration for the reader. I know this is just a blog post, ostensibly written for the author's younger sister, but if the author really wishes to position himself as someone to take advice from, he should make some effort to make his ideas digestible. I would suggest he include some transitions between ideas, bother to do some research to back up his claims instead of e.g. referring vaguely to an experiment he heard of supposedly involving "lucky" and "unlucky" people (truly sounds like science).

And for the love of God don't tell me right off the bat that you assume I'm going to keep reading, let alone read closely enough to "notice" anything about your writing. Yuck

Finally, while I know it's popular in Silicon Valley/coastal tech types to use the language of agency to justify being an uncharitable dick to people around you, the spirit of this particular stanza is helpful to deploy only in a small number of settings, generally low complexity environments where the stakes are low and there's a lack of psychological safety, and you desperately need the paycheck.

In any event the good ideas here are largely betrayed by the author's bad writing and overgeneralizing his experience working in coastal tech. Do yourself a favor and find other role models

But Oracle owns Cerner Health (now Oracle Health, but to most users it is still Cerner), i.e. 25% market share of the EHR space, and PeopleSoft, which you are painfully familiar with if you work for a bigcorp or anywhere in the public sector in North America. Their database product is very far from their only LOB.

Also, there are many people out there who lead fulfilling lives without families and partners. Either way, I don't think you should pity people so readily. At best it's somewhat condescending and missing much of the complexity and nuance of what it is to be a human person

IMV it's a clever trick, and like you my instinct is that if I attempted to integrate this into my own workflows, I would endure some sort of hardship down the line but it's not immediately obvious when or how. Or maybe for certain things it would be fine and less painful than other options, like other similarly clever tricks I felt uneasy about at first

My beef with this approach is that it is a little unsatisfying in the sense that it sort of feels like we "got lucky". That is, it highlights this special feature (alternation) while burying the interesting structure that leads to such polynomials being extremal in these problems, as can be seen if you attempt certain seemingly trivial extensions of classical inequalities -- but nevertheless it's an important trick in extremal polynomial theory and approximation more broadly

I agree re the pretext scenarios disappearing and re neurodivergence adding extra challenges.

RE the former: there are lots more of these pretext scenarios than you might realize

RE the latter, I realize it's not your point but for what it's worth, you won't really be able to tell in most cases that someone on the street or wherever is or isn't nd. Meaning: there's a good chance that the person you are talking to is nd themselves. Lots of us are pros at masking

In general though i would say to be careful when generalizing about human behavior in a way that causes you to implement and enforce rules / limitations on your own behavior in response. This is unavoidable, right? And yes, there's often an nd component to this. But especially as you get older, these can start to calcify and limit you in increasingly destructive ways

One antipattern I've encountered with this approach tho is that sometimes anxious people will exhaust their conversation partners with a battery of questions. Even if thoughtful, this can sometimes have the effect of exhausting your partner, and tends to keep the conversation steered away from actual connection. YMMV, but either way be mindful and make it a point to share yourself

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46428154

Points: 118

# Comments: 67

Presumably a large math textbook publisher that has been publishing math books for literally one hundred years is very tapped into what books likely will and won't sell. I find it unlikely that a layperson where it concerns math book publishing would have some unique insight that MAA does not have. Even if there is a substantial enough market, there are likely unique considerations that MAA is beholden to which we aren't privy to

I don't know what the calculus is like to get an extended version of an existing book published by another publisher, but Dover's Aurora series consists of modern original texts as opposed to their usual republications of classic out of print texts -- this is how Emily Riehl had her "Category Theory in Context" published

There are a number of extremely difficult problems that are definitionally insurmountable on the timescales that VC operates -- paramount among them being the establishment of trust and mutualistic relationships with your vendors/stores, customers, and employees.

You are right that there is such a space, it just won't happen in the context of a startup taking VC cash.

First: my sense is that for most use cases, this will begin to feel gimmicky rather quickly and that you will do better by specializing rather than positioning yourself next to ChatGPT, which answers my questions without too much additional ceremony.

If you have any diehard users, I suspect they will cluster around very particular use cases, say business users trying to create quick internal tools, users who want to generate a quick app on mobile, scientists that want quick apps to validate data. Focusing on those clusters (your actual ones, not these specific examples) and building something optimized for their use cases seems likelier to be a stronger long term play for you

Secondly, I asked it to prove a theorem, and it gave me a link to a proof. This is fine, since LLM generated math proofs are a bit of a mess, but I was surprised that it didn't offer any visualizations or anything further. I then asked it for numerical experiments that support the conjecture, and it just showed me some very generic code and print statements for a completely different problem, unrelated to what I asked about. Not very compelling

Finally, and least important really: please stop submitting my messages when I hit return/enter! Many of us like to send more complex multi-line queries to LLMs

Good luck