Interesting and Humour - page 4109
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
http://zavtra.ru/word_of_day/rabstvo_2017-10-10
Strugatsky, who described a producer-driven, totally stomach-subdued universal consumer somewhere in the late 1970s, was not given a Nobel. That's a shame. But he looked even further than Thaler, for he foresaw how such a universal consumer would end - it would burst and form a shaft of shit that would swallow up all those who admired this very achievement of science - the universal consumer.
Quote from Thaler's book:
Пора перестать придумывать отговорки. Нам нужен обновленный подход к проведению экономических исследований, который признает существование и значимость Людей.
You see the difference between reality, and the way that reality is tried to be painted to us.
The main idea in Thaler's work is that the individual is unique, not average.
No, you're not Ostap -- you're a one-eyed chess player:
Demons have plenty of helpers. They're called Freuds, Nietzsche, Thalers, whatever.
That's a good one, but I think it's far from over. From the first word, many are missing: Copernicus, Einstein, I.P. Pavlov, Nikola Tesla, Tsiolkovsky, S.P. Korolev.
The great scientists, engineers, inventors are really demons, they've torn apart thousands of years of staples, shattered old ideas about the world
The earth turned out to be round, no one was found in the sky.
Yep, and our much respected Nobel laureate Automata-obsessed. It's the height of cynicism to engage in automation and call scientific development demonic. In the same way Copernicus used to be considered a demon. Just as scientific dogmatists now consider psychology. Physical effects used to be thought of as magic, but now the psychological aspects are described as fairy tale theories.
Yep, and our much respected Nobel laureate Automata-obsessed. It's the height of cynicism to engage in automation and call scientific development demonic. In the same way Copernicus used to be considered a demon. Just as scientific dogmatists now consider psychology. Previously physical effects were considered magic, but now the psychological aspects are described by fairy tale theories.
There is such a profession - to automate the motherland.
Programmers, they are devils.
As a rule, they do not believe in God, though they cannot tear them down ( they do not polish them to a shine, they cry and miss them, boiling pots are empty and idle).
As a rule, there are no believers among programmers. Usually, where education is good, there is less faith. (we should probablyfix somethingin the conservatory, introduce church lessons and corporal punishment).
Strugatsky, who described the producer-driven, utterly subservient to his stomach universal consumer somewhere in the late 1970s, was not given a Nobel. That's a shame. But he looked even further than Thaler, for he foresaw how such a universal consumer would end - he would burst and form a shaft of shit that would swallow up everyone who admired this very achievement of science, the universal consumer.
It is one thing to describe your idea of the future and the present, and it is quite another thing to conduct a research and find correlations and draw some conclusions at the same time.
It is clear that trends were originally constructed by people, now in many respects trends are constructed by people. It is an evolution. The logical state of capitalism, business tends to expand to monopolization (of course, mechanisms that restrain their expansion to monopoly evolve as well), and trends tend to a smoother form without sharp jumps, like in forex))) reducing risks and drawdowns. In the past, a product appeared for example when there was a demand for it in society (not clear and therefore the risk was more to produce something, which did not correspond to the demand and received a loss/deposit). Now, with the development, it is possible to investigate huge numbers of people. Extrapolate possible options for their requests in the near future (more clearly see the outline of the request, which reduces the drawdown in the creation of a more accurate product on a more accurate prediction of the request). Thereby BEGIN to create a product before the demand for it has fully formed. Completely no one manages the request is impossible and will inevitably lead to regression, but encouraging people to their own choice in the future, that is, running the process a little earlier than it would occur naturally. Naturally from the outside it looks like an insider and that it is not what people want to buy, but that people buy what the producer produces, inclining people to want to buy what he produces.
Thereby a great advance in sales and production is given to the one who in time has made the research and study not only through technical sciences (and what it is possible to study at all in such dimensions-Internet, which appeared clearly where), but also through the psychology of the people, which up to now is seen by some as a demonic activity. We have what we have.
From Pelevin. (That is because more than one writer has already written about such things. And in general, so much has been written that no matter what the future may be, it may or may not coincide with somebody's description, but that does not mean it will always coincide with the only writer, nor does it mean that a writer will always write about a time that he will be describing in the future. And it's not correct to compare scientific work with opinion.)
We do not falsify reality. But we can give her, so to speak, a caesarean section, exposing what she is pregnant with - in the right place and at the right time.
...and it is pointless to comprehend the meaning of a meaningless statement.