For most taxes you expect higher earners to pay more but this is not the case with student loans because high earners pay of their loans quickly whereas lower earners end up paying far more in interest.
An actual graduate tax would be far less regressive than the current system
Could also have a minimum duration (for example 3 years) where you pay even if you go over the original loan amount.
That would mean people that get great paying jobs right out of college would pay more than they even borrowed, but it would be justified because the degree would likely have had a big impact if it was so soon after finishing the degree.
That only works on the flat stages. A small difference in power to weight ratio makes a huge difference in finishing times on the mountain stages where drafting is less of a factor.
Riders who finish in the same group are awarded the same time, with possible subtractions due to time bonuses. Two riders are said to have finished in the same group if the gap between them is less than three seconds. A crash or mechanical incident in the final 3 kilometres of a stage that finishes without a categorised climb usually means that riders thus affected are considered to have finished as part of the group they were with at the 3 km mark, so long as they finish the stage.
For this year's 5th stage of the Tour de France, the first 155 riders were assigned the same time.
I'm not sure their reflexes are better. It's more like they're the master of the feel and minutia of the airplane. They're also masters of managing the energy of their airplane, constantly trading off between altitude and speed. John Boyd was a fantastic example of that. There's a fascinating biography of him, "Boyd".
Do you suppose there are stats on number and success of breakaways out there? Could be my imagination but this year seems less dramatic than the ten years or so around Armstrong’s rein.
Did anyone else feel like there was more drama around the end of the Indurain era?
I feel like doping could show up as more intense struggles for first without necessarily increasing the spread of placing. Also people who drop out don’t count right?
Thanks for the link! We looked into existing libraries for Excel formula execution - this library as an awesome example!
We considered using this, but to copy from our MVP spec:
The easiest thing to do is to replicate Excel’s execution engine — you can see someone who has done this [here](https://pypi.org/project/xlcalculator/). But this is just evaluating Excel formulas is not what users want when transitioning a process to Excel - they want to be able to ditch Excel (mostly).
The next easiest thing would be to transpile Excel formulas to the following format:
# This is not a useful or usable artifact; you're still trapped in Excel
# but things are just worse now, since it's not on a 2d grid
A1 = "Prices"
A2 = 1
A3 = 2
B1 = "With Tax"
B2 = SUM(A1, 10) * 1.3
B3 = SUM(A2, 10) * 1.3
But this is ultimately is an awful solution for the user:
1. It’s 100% impossible to read. A large Excel file often has 100k+ formulas (many of them with shared structures). This is 100k+ lines of code...
2. It’s impossible to maintain. Yeah, since it lacks all semantic structure, there’s no f** way you’re going to test it or modify it.
In general: *we're trying to generate a Python script that appears to be written by an expert developer. To do this, you have to be willing to ditch the Excel formulas / execution engine.
> It seems like ClosedAI wants their system to follow the desires of some people and not others, but without describing which ones or why
If the problem is "unaligned AI will destroy humanity" then I'd take a system aligned with the desires of some people but not others over the unaligned alternative
While I agree with your point, I think it ultimately depends on the timescale we're looking at. In other words, if we're looking at a timescale of several years, it's conceivable that we've been experiencing such leaps several times over the previous rate (or more?) for about the past decade. However, if we're looking at a matter of a few weeks, it may seem like we're stagnating.
The point is that we cannot predict if these leaps will continue to occur, and when they will happen.
One construction of the natural numbers that I've seen is
1. There exists an element 0 that is a natural number
2. For every natural number there is a "sucessor" that is also a natural number. (i.e. if n is a natural number then n+1 is a natural number)
This construction means there can't be an upper bound N because then step 2 couldn't be applied to N.
Maybe there are other constructions that could workaround this? I'm guessing not because you'd still struggle to define the usual rules of addition for all numbers in a bounded set
> This construction means there can't be an upper bound N because then step 2 couldn't be applied to N.
Bendegem discusses this problem at length in his paper [1]. As programming-heavy site, I assume we're all aware that computers have finite resources. The universe too has finite resources so no matter how big a computer you build, it too will be finite. Therefore the infinity that is so pervasive in math is unphysical in a very real sense. So what would math look like and how would theorems change if this finiteness were formalized? That's what various flavours of finitism aim to achieve.
So to get back to your question as to the nature of the naturals, it seems evident that yes, at some point, you literally can fail construct the natural number N+1 if you are given N, because you will run out of particles in the universe. What implications this will have for various theorems will be interesting for sure, but it isn't clear yet because finitism isn't given much funding.
Edit: however, it's clear that some very unintuitive results follow from the infinities embedded in mathematics, and that a finitist approach resolves some of them. For instance, the argument that "0.9999... = 1" is true in classical mathematics while this equality is arguably not true under strict finitism because "0.999..." does not exist, because infinite objects do not exist, and so it will never equal 1.
Calling “0.999… = 1” very unintuitive is a very strange thing to say, because that makes perfect sense to most children. I’d like to see a result that truly is unintuitive, like what we get with the axiom of choice.
I remember being a kid and having this discussion in elementary school. Kids have enough intuition to know that operations with fractions should get the same result as with decimal numbers. Or that 1-0.999… = 0.000…. Or that different lengths have a length in between them. All are legitimate and compelling arguments.
I think lots of students get lost with different orders of infinity (countable, uncountable, etc.), so I think there is definitely a point beyond which you can't push the intuition behind infinite objects.
I think part of what keeps me locked on to the hedonistic treadmill is that a lot of other people (including my partner) don't like who I am when I'm trying to stay off it. I tend to get more intense about a lot of things most folks don't care about.
It's funny, out of my whole family & friend circle I'm probably doing the most damage to myself via self medication, but when I try to get serious about things that matter and take a break from intoxicants, I end up doing just as much damage or more by putting my relationships through pointless trials of fire.
But I know what you mean about meaning. When it's good, it's really good and worth every bit of seeking.
It's unfortunate there are so many pitfalls to dodge for so many of us.
Others in your life may say they support your emphasis on spiritual growth, but what if that entails being passed up for a promotion, and, ergo, a raise? Most families would appreciate an extra $1k a month. Not every situation is either-or, but you quickly get a sense for what pragmatism means to people.
Often, it means comfort.
I hope you find the courage to continue to pursue meaning. It is good, as you say. Me, I made a bit of a deal with myself to make it a very high priority in my life when it is lacking. When necessary, meaning goes into the non-negotiable bucket.
You're kidding right? For one thing, these statistical odds do nothing to change the tragedy of death or disappearance for the families of any of those people. Secondly, the numbers don't include unreported murders and disappearances.
Even if you still try to minimize these factors with dry presentation of statistical odds with these additional causes of death/disappearance included, remember that certain activities dramatically increase the odds of being a victim. These activities are far from strange things. They include things like frequent travel, driving or travelling alone, especially at night, walking certain areas at certain times and so forth. The dangers are very real and affect people's behavior in many unfortunate ways that don't easily show up in a trite statistical summary.
I'm not trying to be dramatic. over 120 million people in the country live their lives every day and millions of them still do lots of interesting recreational things, but there is a shadow across much of what in other places would be much safer.
Just saying "36000 die" by itself doesn't tell me very much about how dangerous it is - expressing that as a percentage gives much more information I think.
As another person points out 0.03% is 3 times the risk of dying in traffic which, before looking at the numbers, I would have guessed to be the most dangerous aspect of a trip like this.
You seem to think I am being trite and using a "dry presentation" of statistics to minimise the risks of being murdered by a cartel but I actually find this presentation brings the (large) risk of it home to me much more clearly than with a contextless number like 36,000.
E.g. for the UK the numbers are 0.001% murders and 0.003% for traffic
As of 2018 (and it's gotten a notable bit worse since then if we look at absolute numbers per year), it stood at 29 per 100,000. This is four times higher than the U.S homicide rate by the way, and the U.S homicide rate is itself considered high by the standards of other developed nations.
In the other hand to be fair, Mexico isn't in the top ten of most violent countries by murder rate. Most of those top ten aren't war zones either, while Mexico technically is.
An actual graduate tax would be far less regressive than the current system