I have had to rewrite this post because my original post was disapproved for "containing links to illegal or pirated software". I did not include any links whatsoever. Whoever removed my post needs to explain to me the meaning behind this. And
@teo123, I don't mean to be accusatory, but if it was you who removed my post, I'd like you to come clean so that we can talk about this like rational adults.
teo123 wrote:What do you mean he is one of the greatest economists of all time? The greatest economist of all time was probably Hayek, who correctly predicted that the policies of the Central Bank would lead to The Great Depression and who correctly guessed that the stories of Holodomor, dismissed by the mainstream media, were not only true but that Holodomor was predictable.
Hayek was wrong on both counts. He was the worst economic ever. Even if he was the greatest economist of all time (which he isn't), that still wouldn't debunk the fact that Posadas is one of the greatest economists of all time. This point is not only wrong but irrelevant.
Somebody who embraces socialism (defined as the economic system in which the means of production are owned by the state) is not a great economist.
Yes they are.
Keynesianism, in my opinioholds somewhat more merit, but not what people today usually mean when they say Keynesianism.
Posadas was actually a huge influence on Keynes. They collaborated very closely together.
Well, MrRepzion once expressed similar views. And I used to believe things like that once. We can't assume most people believe that, but we can assume many people believe that.
Why? So far you've only given me three people. One of whom I can't be sure is a real person. The other one (you) doesn't believe it any more. And the third guy I haven't even heard of.
I meant whichever distantly related fields of mathematics. I assumed algebra and statistics were very distantly related, though I haven't studied it that much to be sure.
Then how can you be sure that what you're saying is correct?
Which ones? There are many starving people around the world, and that has little or nothing to do with our ability to produce food.
Yes it does. If you watch Star Trek, you will see that they have abolished hunger by using food replicators. This demonstrated how if more emphasis was put on hard sciences than soft sciences, there wouldn't be any starving people.
It has to do with soft sciences: what is the best way to distribute that food to the poor and enable them to get richer.
I disagree. However, it is my understanding that you are not allowed to discuss hard sciences and soft sciences, so you will just have to accept that I am right and you are wrong.
A single line of code in that compiler is not quite comparable to a single line of code in the 700-lines-of-code
PacMan game I've made within a day after 3 weeks of learning JavaScript, or even the 2'000-lines-of-code flashcard
game about linguistics I've made in about a month.
To call Pac-Man a mere game would be an injustice. It’s a cultural icon, a symbol of an entire decade, as well as an entity that redefined gaming itself. Evidence of this can be found not only in its initial success, but also by the fact that it continues to be loved and valued by every new generation of gamers.
So, I don't know what's your definition of "incredibly easy".
Computer science is incredibly easy.