I think "discretize" is the opposite of using continuous functions, if I understand correctly.
They probably meant to play golf in some kind of grid system and using only a few different strengths and angles.
But interestingly, most complex games have some kind of mixture of both: basket ball having discrete points, but fouls are remedied with a free shot on a continuous plane.
Ice hockey, on the other hand, has only a discrete set of places where the game can continue after a foul.
This is also what keeps me coming back: the frequent appearances of an insider to the events that are mentioned in an article or post.
I wouldn't be too surprised if in a comment thread about an article about the first moon landings Werner Braun would chime in with a few anecdotes and correct some errors in the article.
I think the thrust of sayings like "the learning curve is a wall" is to indicate that there is little to no slope, which is to say you don't get the benefit of time spent learning easier parts step by step until you know a lot of the system and can handle the more difficult aspects of it. Instead it feels like you either know how it all works or nothing about how it works, and it's hard to figure out how to start and get a foothold, so to speak.
I think Graeber makes the assumption that the statement "my job makes no (net) contribution to society" is as closest to reality as we can possibly get.
The interviewed person is probably the best to know if the job is valuable. Even if they falsely assume that their job makes no difference, the sentiment is a problem in itself.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just giving my interpretation of the intent.
Can you pleas explain where you got that question and phrasing from please, because I don't recognise it from the research under discussion and I don't believe it is supported by any of the evidence.
While I agree on your basic premise, this might be one of those times where a horrible article makes valid points and is correct in its assessment of the situation.
I think this is one of the greatest flaws of current journalism: By increasing the "feel good value" for its intended audience and confirming their respective biases, an author can completely disenfranchise readers coming from a different point of view.
You and me were both repulsed by the sweeping statements and lack of nuance and, since time is precious and the article looked like yet another propaganda tool, you rejected its value. Rightly so.
Yet in it where description that were correct and pointed to a deeper issue of whom we believe and why.
So by writing for just a section of a possible audience any discussion is impossible.
I won't read the National Review (just this article) and thus their content will be irrelevant to any good discussion I'll have in the future.
They probably meant to play golf in some kind of grid system and using only a few different strengths and angles.
But interestingly, most complex games have some kind of mixture of both: basket ball having discrete points, but fouls are remedied with a free shot on a continuous plane.
Ice hockey, on the other hand, has only a discrete set of places where the game can continue after a foul.