Maybe. On the other hand it's common for genuine medical problems to 'make no sense' to a layperson. That tradition goes back thousands of years.

Force the clankers to support rss!

They tend not to overfit ... when there are way more data points than parameters.

Or when there are way more parameters than data points

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_descent

This approach is really worth pointing out and recommending. Not everyone is allowed / encouraged to realize how powerful it is.

MIT gonna MIT. That's a known issue. But HN users are still upvoting articles that are literally MIT press releases.

So you get a lot more than one point for your money, you get a semi-infinite line. EDIT: Is really cone, see below.

It's actually more like a really, really tall pyramid.

If you get a black pixel you get a 46 billion light-year line-cone

by the same logic, you get a lot more than your home lot, but also 6400km of rock below it

just as useless in practical terms

Are you saying this may be a bad investment?

>Snow's view appears to lean toward the scientistic, and scientism is [...] incoherent

Snow seems like a deep thinker to me. I think it's a mistake to attribute scientism to him. (Fair disclosure, I'm a bit of a CP Snow fan boy. But at least I've read a lot of his stuff.)

> I think it's a mistake to attribute scientism to him.

That would be good news, but this does make the article more - not less - confusing. If he doesn't lean toward scientism or adopt a view that, when worked out fully, results in scientism, then it is difficult to grasp what the exact nature of the conflict is.

I think Snow himself was reasonable. I can't promise that the article makes sense.

The article relates that this isn't about the state of the art. It's about insight gained while taking a calculus class.

"The following presents a fast algorithm for volume computation of a simple, closed, triangulated 3D mesh."

- we are presented something

"I would be (pleasantly) surprised if the algorithm is novel. Further research after posting reveals the paper Efficient Feature Extraction for 2D/3D Objects in Mesh Representation by Cha Zheng and Tsuhan Chen, which appears to describe the same algorithm, although the derivation is different. It was fun while it lasted!"

- there was an initial expectation, though slim, that it may be novel. then on the discovery that it wasn't, related fun time was insinuated to be over.

are we reading the same text?

Yeah, agreed. But words are cheap. It's one thing to say we don't need vector calculus, and another to develop that claim through the actual vector calculus, step by step.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Warren Buffett