Topic: Meni Rosenfeld's vanity thread (Read 32729 times)

Thank you, and you're welcome.

If you have some spare time, you don't have to speculate about the contents of my thesis - it's available at https://bitcoil.co.il/files/Thesis-Meni-f2.pdf.

I, for one, am glad you made this point and found it quite interesting. As it turns out, my Masters thesis in Computer Science was also somewhat related to machine learning (summary, I used a naive Bayes classifier and some other tools to increase the click-through rate of ads on a web site). I suspect yours was far heavier on the math, though. (My Bachelors's was also in C.S. with a minor in mathematics, but that feels so long ago.) I left the computer industry in 2001-2002 after the dot com implosion, but my hobbyist interest remains, likely for life.

I'm thankful for your contributions to the community and to mining pool compensation analysis.

There is one rule - never talk about politics and religion  - it will never turn into something positive

If I'm already here, and actually managed to skim through the philosophical debate (how did that happen?) I might as well add my 2 satoshis.

Meni may not know me personally, but I bought a significant amount of bitcoins through his site on two occasions and I am a happy customer. Markup is significant, but all in all excellent service. Thank you! Will buy again.


As for anyone interested in anyone else's personal opinion about the Israeli geopolitical position today in regards to other nation's geopolitical position, I would recommend considering that geopolitical positions may, just may, be a result of psychopaths in very influential positions and less of individuals of the public. I am in no way vouching for role of the Israeli public in whatever you may see as right or more probably wrong with the current situation, but I wouldn't consider the many Americans who vote for the federal government really at fault for anything that happened or currently happening in dozens of American-war-ridden countries around the world over the last several decades. Seriously, these things are larger than individuals.

I may have a personal vendetta against any individual Nazi in WWII-era Germany, but I wouldn't take it as seriously as some seem to take it here. If he weren't in Nazi Germany he would probably be torturing small animals and be just as much of an asshole, and I would have just as much of a vendetta. Even if anyone were to believe that Meni is a full-on Israeli oppressor, why isn't anyone asking Meni if he tortures small animals? Is his opinion in the geopolitical game any more relevant?

So, today there was a major Israel article (thread). This prompted a major news channel, channel 10, to do a story about Bitcoin, and I was interviewed for it. As were Josh Harvey and others.

It should be broadcast tonight, 23:35 Israel time, on channel 10.

Thought I would mention it.

Another satisfied customer chiming in.

Remarkably enough, this is the story of every caught thief, who's not one bit sorry he stole but terribly terribly sorry he got caught: "ah, there's so many others why pick on meee!"

Satoshi's dubious coding practices are not a standard for anything. More importantly, the ways, means, ideas, opinions, criteria and so forth of computer programmers aren't either interesting or important in any discussion outside of their practice.

So true, I just had to quote it. If only more people would acknowledge what they're not qualified for.

the discussion on religion looks way too familiar. I personally say "fine, just treat me as an atheist" at some point. But actually, deep within, I just can't deny the possibility that Haruhi made this world for her amusement.



I see the Bitdaytrade accusations are still lingering about. As I said before, I believe Meni is honest, had no intention of things turning out this way, and it was a bad deal for him too. To anyone who still wants to nag about this: there are so many liars, fraudsters and other truth-benders around, just pick a different target! Everyone can make a mistake. The original Bitcoin client once had a freaking integer overflow, did we all run screaming "ZOMG Satoshi must be so stupid to overlook it, I'll never trust his stuff again"? Also, it's not a secret who ran Bitdaytrade and how he did it.

I agree, the elements which forms the belief and the disbelief are unequal.

Anyway, thank you by the answer. I will meditate on your logical argument to provide an consistent response.

Oh, I get it now (if the leetspeak was to reduce Googleability, I think it's working). I was never approached by them. I doubt a position will be found there that suits my personality, but I wouldn't rule out anything a priori - all depends on what the position would require from me and how interesting and lucrative it is.


@augustocroppo - You still seem to assume that for every person X and statement Y exactly one of "X believes that Y" and "X believes that not Y" is true, and that "X believes that Y" is the same as "X believes that it is possible that Y". This is simply incorrect and no kind of logic argument can change that.

The word "believe" is pretty fuzzy and the accurate concept we need to consider is subjective probability. For every person X and statement Y, X has a given probability p assigned for Y, even if he does not explicitly quantify it. We generally understand "X believes that Y" to mean "X assigns a high probability to Y", let's say >0.9. So if 0.1
Let's simplify the Santa Claus example by agreeing that "a Santa Claus" means "a person wearing red clothes living in the north pole". Consider the following discussion:

Q: Do you believe that a Santa Claus exists?
A: No, in fact I believe that a Santa Claus does not exist.
Q: Is it possible that a Santa Claus exists?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: It is not that cold in the north pole, someone could live there if he wanted, and red clothes are easy to come by.
Q: If so, why do you believe no Santa Claus exists?
A: Because I don't see any reason why someone would want to go live in the north pole. Hence, it is unlikely anyone actually did that.

The answerer very consistently holds both the belief that a Santa Claus could exist (in the modal sense) and that no Santa Claus exists (as a contingent fact).

The same thing can happen with any other statement - I could believe it will rain tomorrow (since the forecaster said so) and that it is possible it will not rain tomorrow (since there certainly are sunny days, and the forecaster doesn't always get it right), etc. There is nothing special about statements asserting the existence of something; those have a subjective probability like any other statement, and one could give any kind of evidence or argument to establish his subjective probability.

Your set notation is still messed up. B ≠ D means that B and D are unequal (there is an element in one which is not in the other; there could still be an element common to both), not that they are disjoint (have no common element).

I am sorry about my mistakes. I completely forgot that sets must be represented by upper case letters and not numbers. My argument is based on the exactly meaning of the two words. I agree that there are connotations, but this do not change the meaning of the words.

The acceptance of a possible existence imply a belief in the subject existence. Of course you could argue that the existence could be true or is true. Whatever argument you choose, you have to accept the subject existence to determine if is true or could be true.

Let's imagine three hypothetical dialogues:

- Do you believe in the existence of Santa Claus?
- Yes.
- Why?
- Because is possible that a old man dressed in red clothes are living somewhere in the north pole.

- Do you believe in the existence of Santa Claus?
- No.
- Why?
- Because is impossible that a old man dressed in red clothes are surviving in the north pole under extreme low temperatures.

- Do you believe in the existence of Santa Claus?
- No...
- Why?
- I do not believe Santa Claus, but is possible that a old man dressed in red clothes are living somewhere in the north pole.

Notice the contradiction in last dialogue. The hypothetical character answering the questions first refuse the existence of the subject, then when required to justify his/her answer, he/she assumes the existence of the subject. This contradiction is not present in the first two dialogues because once the hypothetical character express his/her belief or disbelief, he/she straightly assumes the possible or the impossible existence of the subject.

My argument using mathematical notation is:

p ∈ B

The possible existence of the subject is element of the belief.

i ∈ D

The impossible existence of the subject is element of the disbelief.

B ≠ D

Belief and disbelief do not share any common element, therefore there is not any intersection between theism or atheism.

Amazing to see such level headed replies from Meni Rosenfeld to these questions.

I know the dictionary definitions and explicitly addressed the case that you are sticking to them. But the words have connotations beyond the dictionary definitions.

I don't understand your argument or its notation. "Believing that X could be true" is not the same as "Believing that X is true and not knowing how to prove it".

Which goes back to Graham's point - you seem to be wanting me to "pick a side" instead of treating it like any other statement that one can be uncertain about.

I beg your pardon, but your argument does not dismiss the fact that every person able to rationally expose his/her thoughts is entitled to offer a political view independent of his/her qualifications:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/


Then you are expressing your political view. Lack of interest in politics does not make you unqualified to express your political views. Your willingness to shift the conversation to another subject indicates that you are trying to expose your political thoughts, but in a manner which you judge more consistent to contribute.

I did not disregard your answer. The poor response you provided did not demonstrated your political view. I only noted that you were not expressing what are your thoughts in regard with the question I made.


I am sorry for the lack of precision. I was indeed harsh with the questions and I offer my apologies.


I agree. I indeed said what you think and I am correct. You have an opinion and you expressed very well in the above quotes.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theism?q=theism


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism?q=atheism


If you do not rule out the possibility (p), then you believe (b) that a divine entity exist (1), even if you do not know how to prove the existence of what you perceive:

1 ∈ p ∉ 0

Therefore you are a theist:

p ∈ b ∴ 1 ∃ b

No, not everyone are qualified to express opinions on everything. Politics is one area where this observation is often forgotten. See http://paulgraham.com/identity.html and the somewhat related http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/.

On the contrary, if you didn't choose to disregard my response you'd see it reveals quite a bit about my character. I am not interested in politics. I don't read/watch the news. When people start a heated argument about the latest politics thingy I don't have my own piece of mind I make sure everyone knows, I sit it out hoping the conversation will shift to something I can contribute to. As far as your specific question "regarding the diplomatic relations of Israel with Iran and Palestine", I have very little factual knowledge, not enough to verbally express an opinion, let alone one that is robust to new knowledge. I can't recall much of what I knew or thought because this is not meaningful enough for me to be encoded in memory. Contrary to what you seem to think, the response in my mind to your question wasn't "I believe that X Y Z! But I'm not telling." It's more like reaching into my mind to find something relevant to say and getting only a blank.

Sure, if I wanted I guess I could read up on some history and recent developments, analyze the facts and figure out what I think of them. But I have no interest in doing that.

Maybe if you asked some leading questions this would become an aided recall task which is easier.

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability, you are the one who chose to assume I am hiding something. If you want a more detailed response ask a more focused question.

Read again. You are not dictating how I should think, you are saying what I think, e.g. "You have an opinion as everyone else", "You are or you not are."

Religion is about more than a given set of beliefs, there is a strong cultural component. One may respect and be attracted to the culture and tradition regardless of the truth value of the associated beliefs.

If beliefs are all that you are interested in, it is rarely a good idea to be absolutely certain in something of any complexity. A Bayesian assigns a subjective probability p to the truth of any statement. If the statement is "the beliefs associated with religion X are generally true", then theism would be p~1, atheism would be p~0, and any 0
As for me, I don't find the beliefs underlying Judaism to be likely true, but I don't rule out the possibility.

Quote from: Herodes on November 09, 2012, 11:12:05 AM

Quote

I unfortunately agreed to help one Alberto Armandi to raise funds for Bitdaytrade, a margin trading platform he was working on, through the BDT bonds on GLBSE. It didn't work out so well. The story is not over yet, but due to either malice or incompetence of Alberto, he now has a debt of about 10K BTC which he seems unable or unwilling to repay.

I wonder why anyone would need 10K BTC to make a website ? That's more money than most visitors with full time jobs on this forum make in one year. Any site that requires some amount of work could take considerable time to make, but I think this was a little bit too much..

It was not supposed to be "a site". It was supposed to be a trading platform which needs reserves to be able to hedge its position. The BDT bonds thread detailed some other planned expenses. I actually think $70K (what it was worth at the time) is too little to do such a service properly. It was still much more than should have been trusted with someone without more solid credentials, though.

I wonder why anyone would need 10K BTC to make a website ? That's more money than most visitors with full time jobs on this forum make in one year. Any site that requires some amount of work could take considerable time to make, but I think this was a little bit too much..

I asked for your opinion regarding your political views. Everyone able to express it thoughts are qualified to form and to present an opinion. Your refusal to present yours only shows that you are not willing to reveal certain aspects of your character in this forum.


It was your decision to step up in the stage of the public scrutiny when you started this thread. You assumed the position of being questioned and now you are afraid to answer the questions. I am not trying to dictate how you should think.

Anyway, I am satisfied with the answers and I will respect your right to remain in silence.

I don't see the connection.

For some things I have sufficient qualification and interest to form an opinion. For others, not. What you asked about is of some importance but also sufficiently complex that any attempt to opinionate for the sake of opinionating will be almost pure noise.

This is not how it works.


I see no point continuing this line of inquiry as it has devolved into trying to tell me what I think.

Yes there is, agnosticism is very popular and definitely sits between the two.

You are part of military Israel forces but you do not have an opinion regarding Israel's enemy states? That does not sound reasonable. You have an opinion as everyone else, but I guess you do not want to disclose it.


You are or you not are. There is no middle point between theism and atheism.