"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated"

Covfefe doesn't have the leadership skills necessary to push through a complex deal. His non-stop BS may sound good to an average MAGAlyte but to get things done in politics you need broad support at least within your own party. Obviously, Covfefe doesn't know how to get there. What a waste.

upd. The level of incompetence is stunning! At 7:17pm on July 17 he tweets:

Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

Next morning, at around 6am he finds out that Senate rules don't allow for that.

The Senate must go to a 51 vote majority instead of current 60 votes. Even parts of full Repeal need 60. 8 Dems control Senate. Crazy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

Watch on YouTube

QoD: condemned to be free

this duality is cast as “facticity” and “transcendence.” The “givens” of our situation such as our language, our environment, our previous choices and our very selves in their function as in-itself constitute our facticity. As conscious individuals, we transcend (surpass) this facticity in what constitutes our “situation.” In other words, we are always beings “in situation,” but the precise mixture of transcendence and facticity that forms any situation remains indeterminable, at least while we are engaged in it. Hence Sartre concludes that we are always “more” than our situation and that this is the ontological foundation of our freedom. We are “condemned” to be free, in his hyperbolic phrase.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/

WTF?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/trump-had-second-conversation-with-putin-while-at-g-20-summit

Quote of the Day: Successful People

Most people who succeed are not very objective or realistic about why. They think it's all their personal brilliance. And in significant part it is, but they forget the luck factor and the contribution of other people and timing and the economy and all the rest of it. People who fail often times are desperately in need of a success. They're smarter, they're more clever about how they do things, their sometimes tremendous egos are suspended in check.

...

So we rarely will finance somebody at Sequoia who's had an outrageous success. My - my best example is my friend Steve Jobs. We financed Steve in 1977 at Apple. Steve was twenty, un-degreed, some people said unwashed, and he looked like Ho Chi Min. But he was a bright person then, and is a brighter man now. And here was a man that created Apple, and in the creation of Apple helped create the personal computer business. Phenomenal achievement done by somebody in his very early twenties. Outrageously success - successful, and after he - his stay at Apple he then evolved to an individual who was having lunch with the governor of California, then Jerry Brown, who had an apartment in New York City. When I met him he didn't know where New York City was.

https://silicongenesis.stanford.edu/transcripts/valentine.htm

How East Coast mentality killed Fairchild Semi because of stock options

AR: Well, Fairchild Camera and Instrument was a company that was located in Syosset, New York. It's in Long Island. And it had, other than, when Sherman died the attitude changed a bit. They had a very, what I call an Eastern mentality in that they didn't want anybody to have any options in stock and the eight entrepreneurs who started Fairchild Semiconductor decided individually and together that they would gradually peel off and, and form their own enterprises because they couldn't get any more equity in, and a lot of the people there felt that they should be giving equity to some of the people who had, hadn't helped start the company but were instrumental in its, in its success. And Fairchild Camera and Instrument were, was unwilling to do that. So gradually they peeled off and finally by 1968 there were only Noyce and Moore left.

https://silicongenesis.stanford.edu/transcripts/rock.htm

(no subject)

It seems like Paul Romer makes a certain mistake in his approach to the theory of innovation. He assumes that characteristic function ("the recipe") is given, while it has to be discovered. In short, the set of elements is the initial object, not the terminal one.
Maybe we can think of the set of elements as the initial object, while the free group generated by it represents the terminal object.

E.g. printed book vs handwritten book (different terminal objects built using different initial objects.)