NoLasagna

  The topic of ‘decolonizing’ math and science has been on the rise. The problem is that this movement isn’t about math or science, they’re just the talking points for the real target: objective truth . While spending time writing an article on this attack on objective truth, I’ve been forced to cut out my discussions on math – which I do find interesting. I’m sharing these topics here because math needs its own positive defense. The people actively fighting to ‘decolonize’ math have certain vectors of attack to disintegrate math. The goal is the attack on objective truth, but it’s important to understand the vectors of attack. Precision is of measurement and the degree of units of magnitude. Simply put, something measured to the nearest nanometer has more precision than that measured to the nearest millimeter. I want to start by pointing out that Timothy Gowers is not some internet SJW loon. He’s a mathematician, professor, and Fields Medal winner. Even though nothing is expressed her

 When it comes to investing in the market, there is a lot of contentious debate about what is best. I have found that people get so wrapped up in defending their strategy that they either overplay the ideas behind the strategy or just outright misrepresent them. I understand wanting one's investment strategy to work best but let us not delude ourselves. "Best" is not something that is easy qualitatively to measure when various investors have different risk tolerances, timelines and goals. The above is no less true when it comes to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (from now on as EMH); both from those for and against the idea of it. I think both (for and against) conceptualize EMH improperly and it takes away from the value it has as an investing strategy. I will add that I have 90% of my investment portfolio invested in passive index funds, which are the products utilized by those that follow EMH and the studies following from it. That's not to say I'm biased towar