Mark P Neyer's Blog - Latest Comments

Re: What Does This Mean?

Mark Neyer — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:40:30 -0000

actually i had no idea. i'm glad you commented, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Re: http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/?p=436

Akanksha Mittal — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 09:45:31 -0000

Hi Mark! It's the first time I chanced upon your blog and I must say I am glad I did! This post specifically is my favorite out of the so many that you've written. I have been thinking for a long time about a "mathematical model of happiness" and have come across many complicated ones! This one, I say was able to reach out in the best manner, owing to its sheer simplicity! Hoping to read about many more such Mathematical Models! :)

Re: on self acceptance, bipolar psychosis, and bisexuality

Gargoyle Gas — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:39:06 -0000

Aw, I knew you were too good-looking to be totally straight. ;) I'm glad you're able to discover more about and accept that part of yourself.

Re: on self acceptance, bipolar psychosis, and bisexuality

Kiki Prottsman — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:03:56 -0000

It's not easy for people to forgive themselves for being something that they don't want to be. It's even more difficult for people to openly allow themselves to be what they feel they shouldn't. That said, you seem to have found a way to authentically accept yourself for who you are and finally allow your friends & loved ones to do the same. That's my idea of being a good role model.

Re: on self acceptance, bipolar psychosis, and bisexuality

Kevin Mehlbrech — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:32:20 -0000

The only thing this made me feel is happy for you. I hope your introspection continues to bear fruit and improve your life.

Re: Mark P Neyer’s Guide To Tipping

Your landlord — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:04:30 -0000

I think you mean "If 6t < x, your tip is less than 16.6%."
(rather than 6t > x.)

Re: How to Fix the Financial System

Brian Mccall — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:42:52 -0000

I agree completely that capital gains taxes should be paid on short term, speculative investments, and that income from speculation should not be tax-exempt.

However, I wonder if you take too dim a view of speculation. Don't speculators provide relief to individuals who need to liquify assets quickly? Liquifying assets may sometimes be a sign of trouble, but is also a step taken in order to generate revenue for reinvestment and growth, and when there aren't speculators there to enable that, the economy suffers.

Re: On the supposed proof that P != NP

Tim K — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:17:55 -0000

I regret not spending more time with you when you were just 2 miles down the road.

Re: What Does This Mean?

Guest — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 02:48:19 -0000

Or they just, you know, wanted to write compliant and portable C code... you do know that long identifiers are a modern luxury, right?

Re: How Microsoft Can Beat Apple

Jeremy Swearingen — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:34:37 -0000

I agree, it certainly is, but not for any of the reasons you mentioned above. The momentum is in Apple's favor because of the appeal they have to people who have no idea what any of the stuff you mentioned above is. They like a cool-looking, well-built computer with a friendly operating system not (yet) prone to viruses, and they're willing to pay extra for it.

Re: How Microsoft Can Beat Apple

MarkPNeyer — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:09:43 -0000

The momentum is definitely in Apple's favor right now.

Re: How Microsoft Can Beat Apple

Jeremy Swearingen — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:07:23 -0000

I think with a PC market share percentage in the 90's, many would say that Microsoft is already beating Apple...in non-mobile computing anyway.

Re: How Microsoft Can Beat Apple

MarkPNeyer — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:05:03 -0000

If grandma can write her own scheduler, she can probably figure out how to use it, unless she is an idiot savant.

Re: How Microsoft Can Beat Apple

Aaron Sarazan — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:57:15 -0000

I approve. Unfortunately for point 4, Microsoft needs more unpredictability like it needs Windows ME. Drop-in components would destabilize things and make it easier to shoot yourself in the foot.

Bad for grandma.

Re: http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/?p=436

Jay — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:24:19 -0000

Very interesting to say the least, I think there is a lot of truth in this.

Re: web programming is not hard: it’s just a pain in the ass

Kevin — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:16:25 -0000

Is it a hard problem to design and build re-usable abstract solutions to pain in the ass problems?

Re: web programming is not hard: it’s just a pain in the ass

Nospam — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:47:48 -0000

A task is hard if it pushes your mind to the limit, if it challenges you to learn new abstractions and relationships, and to think in ways you’ve never thought before.

Note that "hard" is a relative term where the definition depends on where you place the origin point. For the individual from the HN post to which you refer, by your own definition of hard, the task of web programming was most likely causing them to "push their mind to the limit", to "learn new abstractions and relationships", and to "think in ways [they've] never thought before".

So by your definition of "hard", relative to what they knew, web programming was likely "hard". To the rest of us who already do it on a regular basis, yes, it is often just a pain in the ass.

Re: On the supposed proof that P != NP

Aaron Sarazan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:58:02 -0000

Fight the good fight!

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

Chris Jones — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:24:03 -0000

This is a very interesting and well written post, but I do think it is a facet of a deeper truth:

Your focus determines your reality.

This can be true at the most trivial of levels (you buy a new green Audi and suddenly you're seeing green Audis everywhere), but I think it's also true at the deepest levels of personality and is essentially an observation bias:

Once you have decided that you can look at the universe as a musical duet with yourself, and that music is beautiful, every time you experience joy or perhaps even pain, you have an associative framework within which to place that experience.
Music is probably a good choice since it's a very emotive form in and of itself, so it would reciprocate well with your new mode of thinking. Every event re-enforces the viewpoint (thus the observational bias).

For what it's worth, for a long time I've found any religious views of giant creators to be unsatisfying and have decided to not bother with the question since I believe it to be unanswerable in any meaningful sense. However, rather than stare at the abyss and see it as a meaningless waste of time, I've always seen creation as immeasurably humbling and beautiful.
I am a complex biological machine that has built itself out of a single cell, some billion years after the entire universe built itself from a single something, and everywhere I look I see other things that have self-created, or things that we have chosen to create. Some of those things are unpleasant, but all of them are marvels to wonder at :)

My focus is on the mind-boggling improbability of everything, so my reality is that everything is awe inspiring :)

I hope neither I nor any other commenters are able to dissuade you from continuing to think in this new way, because your new reality is really beautiful and you should absolutely continue to enjoy it :)

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

MarkPNeyer — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:04:38 -0000

I disagree; I have been dating Megan for almost a year now, and until I developed this idea, I thought her positive view of the universe was contrary to rational thought. I realize now that she had a better way of looking at it than i did all along.

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

MarkPNeyer — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:58:23 -0000

Tony,

The particles that make up the universe are not eternal, and modern physics (specifically, quantum mechanics) suggest that they're more like waves than that particles. As for eastern philosophy, that's a subject I've had interest for quite a while now. I just bought several books which explore similarities between quantum physics and eastern philosophy, similar to the ideas i've described here.

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

MarkPNeyer — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:55:12 -0000

This is true; most combinations of waves are simply noise. Would you say that your life has been noise, though? Have you not experienced love and beauty and happiness at times? Is love better characterized as noise, or as music?

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

haig — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:15:01 -0000

The universe is pointless, but not necessarily meaningless. You've articulated how someone can find meaning in a pointless universe, though in my opinion its not because of some seemingly profound realization that the universe is a symphony. It's that you found a girlfriend to make you happy. Your happiness caused the change in perspective to find meaning, not the other way around.

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

Geoff — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 02:23:40 -0000

Intriguing world view. It still doesn't address your original problem (suffering), though. And there's the question, why is it music and not noise? Suppose God does exist, and intended for us to produce music with him. Instead, we choose to write our own cacophony (i.e. sin, which results in suffering). Then God redeems us by dying for us. Suffering exists because we chose it.

(See "The Silmarillion" as Stephen suggests for a working-out of this idea. See also "The Problem of Pain", CS Lewis)

Re: On the Fundamental Nature of the Universe

Kai — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:36:59 -0000

Great piece, thanks for sharing! :-)