Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Antonio Carvajal-Rodríguez
Lost somewhere between the computation of evolution & the evolution of computation
Lost somewhere between the computation of evolution & the evolution of computation

Antonio's interests
View all
Antonio's posts

Post has shared content
Engineer: Remember to tip 18% everybody.

Mathematician: Is that 18% of the pre-tax total, or of the total with tax?

Physicist: You know, it’s simpler if we assume the system doesn’t have tax.

Computer Scientist: But it does have tax.

Physicist: Sure, but the numbers work out more cleanly if we don’t pay tax and tip. It’s a pretty small error term. Let’s not complicate things unnecessarily.

Engineer: What you call a “small error,” I call a “collapsed bridge.”

Economist: Forget it. Taxes are inefficient, anyway. They create deadweight loss.

Mathematician: There you go again…

Economist: I mean it! If there were no taxes, I would have ordered a second soda. But instead, the government intervened, and by increasing transaction costs, prevented an exchange that would have benefited both me and the restaurant.

Engineer: You did order a second soda.

Economist: In practice, yes. But my argument still holds in theory.

The computer scientist lays a smart phone on the table.

Computer Scientist: Okay, I’ve coded a program to help us compute the check.

Mathematician: Hmmph. Any idiot could do that. It’s a trivial problem.

Computer Scientist: Do you even know how to code?

Mathematician: Why bother? Learning to code is also a trivial problem.

Engineer: Uh… your program says we each owe $8400.

Computer Scientist: Well, I haven’t de-bugged it yet, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Physicist: This is a waste of time. Let’s just split it evenly.

Economist: No! That’s so inefficient. Let’s each write down the amount we’re willing to put in, then auction off the remainder at some point on the contract curve.

Physicist: Huh?

Mathematician: Like most economics, that’s just gibberish with the word “auction” in it.

Engineer: Look, it’s simple. Total your items, add 8% tax, and 18% tip.

Mathematician: Sure. Does anybody know 12 plus 7?

Computer Scientist: You don’t?

Mathematician: What do I look like, a human calculator? Numbers are for children, half-wits, and bored cats.

The engineer looks at the cash they’ve gathered.

Engineer: Is everyone’s money in? It seems we’re a little short…

Physicist: How short?

Engineer: Well, the total was $104, not including tip… and so far we’ve got $31.07 and an old lottery ticket.

Physicist: Close enough, right? It’s a small error term.

Mathematician: Which of you idiots wasted your money on a lottery ticket?

Economist: I should mention that I’m not planning to eat here again. Are any of you?

Computer Scientist: What does that matter?

Economist: Well, in a non-iterated prisoner’s dilemma, the dominant strategy is to defect.

Engineer: Meaning?

Economist: We should be tipping 0%, since we’ll never see that waiter again.

Computer Scientist: That’s awful.

Physicist: Will the waiter really care – 0%, 20%? Let’s not split hairs. It’s a small error term.

The engineer looks up from a graphing calculator.

Engineer: All right. I’ve computed the precise amount each of us should pay, using double integrals and partial derivatives. I triple-checked my work.

Mathematician: Didn’t we all order the same thing? You could have just divided the total by five.

Engineer: I could? I mean… of course I could! Shut up! You think you’re so clever!

Economist: So, we’re all agreed on a 0% tip?

Computer Scientist: Well… the waiter did only bring two orders of fries for the table.

Physicist: We only ordered two.

Computer Scientist: Exactly. We got the 1st order, and the 2nd, but never the 0th.

Economist: I’ll be frank. At this point, my self-interest lies in not paying. And the economy prospers when we each pursue our individual self-interest. See you later!

The economist dashes off. The engineer and computer scientist glance at one another, then follow.

Mathematician: Looks like it’s just me and you, now.

Physicist: Good. The two-body problem will be easier to solve.

Mathematician: How?

Physicist: By reducing it to a one-body problem.

The physicist scampers away.

Mathematician: Wait! Come back here!

Waiter: I notice your friends have gone. Are you done with paying the check?

Mathematician: Well, I’ve got a proof that we can pay. But I warn you: it’s not constructive.

Post has shared content

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
por si alguien quiere compartirlo ahora ya debería poderse sin restricción.

Post has shared content
qué vergüenza de políticos tenemos...
Resumen muy resumido: La Xunta, despues de 5 años, por fin saca una convocatoria posdoctoral de segunda etapa, pero sólo para los que han pasado por la de primera etapa del gobierno actual, excluyendo a los que cumplimos los mismos requisitos.

Vídeo de V Televisión:

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
Palabras de Federico García Lorca para hacernos reflexionar en esta época tan sobrada de cultura.

Post has attachment
well, may life exists and is just a genetic algorithm, nothing more, nothing less...  that's my guess!

Post has attachment
Europe, europe, beloved by Zeus...

Post has shared content
¿Cansado de cultivar sus propios tomates y hacer cerveza y pan caseros? ¿Desea hacer algo realmente distinto de lo habitual y en su propia cocina? Unos emprendedores canadienses le ofrecen la posibilidad de convertirse en un "biohacker", más en concreto, en todo un ingeniero genético, sin salir de casa.  
Wait while more posts are being loaded