@ByrneHobart Beliefs that are shared by >> 90% of people are generally not "important" to people. They're just an unquestioned and unconsidered part of the background environment.

@ByrneHobart 共享的信念

@NateSilver538 True though remember that the question asks you to think of a specific person, not use some axiom-of-choice-like "no idea who this person is but I can prove they exist" argument.
How many specific people are we reasonably familiar with the values of? I'd say under 100.

@NateSilver538 没错，但请记住，这个问题要求您考虑一个特定的人，而不是使用一些选择公理，例如“不知道这个人是谁，但我可以证明他们存在”的论点。
我们合理地熟悉了多少特定的人的价值观？我说100以内。

Think of the one person in the world who is the most ideologically aligned with you.
On what percentage of issues that are important to you do they share your view?

想想世界上与你意识形态最一致的人。
在对您很重要的问题中，他们与您的观点有多少相同？

@glenweyl That sounds like "it's okay for the process of creating individual works to be centralized, because the process of choosing which works to elevate, recommend, turn into cultural memes, etc is a highly distributed and social one"
Which is... basically my take on the question!

@glenweyl 这听起来像是“集中创作个人作品的过程是可以的，因为选择提升、推荐、转化为文化模因等作品的过程是一个高度分散和社会化的过程”
这是...基本上我对这个问题的看法！

@glenweyl I think what I'm ultimately asking is (i) do you agree that there's some difference between novel-writing and running a country that makes greater degrees of centralization more appropriate to the former, and (ii) how you would articulate what the difference is

@glenweyl 我想我最终要问的是（i）你是否同意小说写作和管理一个国家之间存在一些差异，这使得更大程度的集权更适合前者，以及（ii）你将如何表达不同的是

@glenweyl Fair! Maybe "having ongoing authority over a country's legal code" would be a better way to phrase it.

@glenweyl 公平！也许“对一个国家的法律法规拥有持续的权威”是一种更好的表述方式。

@glenweyl That exact same approach that works for novels would fail if you task it with, say, crafting a legal code.

@glenweyl 如果您将其用于编写法律代码的任务，那么适用于小说的完全相同的方法将失败。

@glenweyl I think to me the important idea is that it's the mind of a single person (as opposed to a vote or whatever) as the algorithm that performs the final step of bringing together all those inputs into a coherent work.

@glenweyl 我认为对我来说重要的想法是，它是一个人的思想（而不是投票或其他），作为执行将所有这些输入整合到一个连贯工作中的最后一步的算法。

@glenweyl I am curious, would you disagree with the idea that monarchy is the best way to write creative works of fiction (eg. novels)?

@glenweyl 我很好奇，您是否不同意君主制是写小说（例如小说）创意作品的最佳方式的想法？

@glenweyl @rushkoff I've never understood the "build a bunker to escape the apocalypse" mentality. I'm not afraid of nuclear war killing *me*, I'm afraid of nuclear war killing the guy who's going to invent the life extension breakthroughs that will save my life a century from now.

@glenweyl @rushkoff 我从来没有理解过“建造一个掩体以逃避世界末日”的心态。我不怕核战争杀死*我*，我害怕核战争杀死那个将发明延长寿命突破的人，这将在一个世纪后挽救我的生命。

@sasuke___420 @bengrossbg But limits don't determine the actual value of the function at that point. That would be pre-assuming that all functions are everywhere continuous.

@sasuke___420 @bengrossbg 但是限制并不能确定函数在该点的实际值。那将是预先假设所有函数在任何地方都是连续的。

@vgr Ironically enough when I watched Star Trek as a kid, every time the Prime Directive came up I was strongly anti it.

@vgr 具有讽刺意味的是，当我小时候看《星际迷航》时，每次最高指令出现时，我都强烈反对。

@vgr What if I have examined speed > survival values?

@vgr 如果我检查了速度怎么办

@vgr Isn't the whole point of the prequel series that the Jedi kinda had it coming because they were an overly moralistic entitled and sclerotic dead player?
If you want defenses of bureaucracy, Star Trek seems like better territory.

@vgr 绝地武士的前传系列的重点不是因为他们是一个过于道德化的标题和僵化的死者吗？
如果你想防御官僚主义，星际迷航似乎是更好的领域。

@TrustlessState guy

@TrustlessState 家伙

@bengrossbg Some people have this weird opinion that because "anything to the power of zero is one, but zero to the power of anything is zero", 0^0 must be ambiguous, but the latter is clearly not even true: take 0^-3 for example

@bengrossbg 有些人有这种奇怪的观点，因为“任何零次方都是一，但零次方是零”，0^0 肯定是模棱两可的，但后者显然不是真的：取 0^ -3 例如

@bengrossbg @upzone_CA So if `p = 0` you just always get 1.

@bengrossbg @upzone_CA 所以如果`p = 0`你总是得到1。

@bengrossbg @upzone_CA The most natural way to define exponentiation `x^p` for non-negative integer `p` is to start with 1, and then repeat `p` times the procedure of replacing the output with `x` times the output.

@bengrossbg @upzone_CA 为非负整数`p`定义幂`x^p`最自然的方法是从1开始，然后重复`p`次用`x`替换输出的过程乘以输出.

@bengrossbg X^0 equals 1 for 0 too.

@bengrossbg X^0 也等于 0 的 1。

@matthew_d_green Oh no it's not, I don't think you've ever offended me

@matthew_d_green 哦不，不是，我不认为你曾经冒犯过我