This is exactly what I thought. In fact, when I got to the section that listed the right-truncatable primes, I immediately searched Euler because I knew there was a problem about them -- turns out I had already solved it though lol.
>According to the New York Times, the total cost of running a marathon—arguably the least gear-intensive and costly of all endurance sports—can easily be north of $1,600.
The big races are a few hundred dollars to enter. Figure about that again in qualifiers or other races during training. If you're traveling, you'll need gas money and possibly a hotel. Say $400-500 in entry fees.
You'll probably also go through 3-4(?) pairs of running shoes, which are probably around $75-100 each, for a total of $300.
You might want some extra work-out clothes. Most of these could be cheap, but you'll probably want something fairly fancy for the race day itself--running 26 miles in a heavy cotton shirt sounds miserable. A few hundred dollars doesn't seem crazy, depending on what you already own. You could economize here--or you could go crazy.
You might want some kind of coaching, or possibly a gym membership to mix up your training (e.g., swim when hurt). This seems to depend on a lot on where you live, but $50/month doesn't seem nuts for NYC. Over a year, that's $600.
A good pair of shoes will only last a year or two if you hardly run at all or don't care about the risk of even more expensive injury. For example, I run about 900 miles per year. A pair of shoes typically lasts 300-400 miles before the sole is worn enough to affect my gait or the uppers are worn enough to be providing inadequate support/cushioning. That means two or three pairs a year for me. Every marathoner or ultra-marathoner I know runs even more than me, so three to four pairs a year sounds perfectly reasonable. We're not all young and invulnerable running occasionally on the most forgiving surfaces in the mildest climate.
You're over-generalizing from a small non-representative sample, or maybe you're just oblivious how much your friends are spending. You must be very proud of how little you spend, but it's really not that helpful to pretend that your experience negates others'.
> You're over-generalizing from a small non-representative sample
Sure, of course, everyone is posting anecdata. But I've also run with a lot of people averaging 50+ marathons a year and they're dismissive of the 300-400 miles claim for shoe life. I know one of them did well over 50 marathons in the same shoes, for example. I managed a 4:50 with year old shoes that had about 750 miles on (through running and walking) and no injuries.
I can imagine that if you're going hard, fresh shoes with cushioning and support are important, definitely. But most people won't be going hard, they'll be bumbling along for a 5-6h pace in their every day trainers.
> We're not all young and invulnerable running occasionally on the most forgiving surfaces in the mildest climate.
Kind of you to suggest that I might be young but I'm approaching my half century. Most of the people I've run with are the same or older. I will concede that South East England does have a relatively mild climate for most of the year.
> I've also run with a lot of people averaging 50+ marathons a year and they're dismissive of the 300-400 miles claim for shoe life
They might say that, but it hasn't been my experience. I can tell blindfolded which of my shoes are older, either by the texture of the outer sole or the springiness of the inner. I know from experience that if I run on shoes with over 500 miles or so on them I'm risking plantar fasciitis, and that's with what most people would consider a gentle fore/outer foot landing. Heel strikers and overpronators wear out their shoes (and knees) even faster, needing more expensive shoes more often to stay on the road.
Believe me, I wouldn't buy shoes as often as I do if I couldn't feel the difference with every step and know what it portends. But I do, and AFAICT millions of other runners do too. Whatever your friends or mine might say, most of the advice out there from runners more experienced than any of us seems to center around 300-400 miles for a pair. I hope you never find out that saving a few bucks/pounds on shoes ended up costing much more.
> They might say that, but it hasn't been my experience.
Sure but it has been mine and theirs. Like I said, we're all posting anecdata, there's no real science going on here.
> I hope you never find out that saving a few bucks/pounds on shoes ended up costing much more.
Well, I ran/walked just over 2000 miles in 2014 with another 1400 in 2015 on largely three pairs of shoes[1] with no new issues (I have a long standing bust knee from 2003.)
[1] I did a couple of hundred miles in Vibrams and Fila Skeletoes. But it was almost all my Altras and Hokas (one pair got replaced because the achilles support wore through and the stiff plastic cut me up on a long walk.)
I suspect that the useful lifetime of running shoes depends upon the runner's weight. As a heavier runner/walker trying to control my weight, I found the 500 mi/pair to be reasonable when running.
I could walk longer in them w/o problems. I'm currently rehabbing a strained hip and walking 35-40 mi/week and need to replace shoes about every 750 mi. I suspect a lightweight runner could get a longer useful life from the same shoe. Like many others, I have found the uneven wear patterns on my shoes reflect issues with my foot strike that I have improved but not eliminated.
Lighter is probably better, to be sure. Less mechanical stress per step. Faster generally means less steps per mile, and being lighter often means being faster too so it's a double bonus. Maybe I could wear shoes twice as long if I lost twenty pounds. But I think we all know by now that weight is more affected by diet than exercise, so there are a lot of us "Clydesdales" out there.
P.S. For any who don't know, "Clydesdale" is a real running term at least in the US. Many races let men over a certain weight (e.g. 185 pounds) register in that division instead of their normal age group, with its own leaderboard etc. "Athena" or "filly" are slightly less common equivalents for women.
Same, though. Although I was reasonably light (~85-90kg) when I spent a year running on the same shoes. Currently on 1250km (mix of run/walk) for my Hoka Bondi and I've been considerably about 85kg for all of that.
Lol. Non-existent as in they don't produce any important studies, hardly get cited, and don't influence mainstream economics. Apart from academia, they're non existent in industry or in government. The fact a few exist in universities doesn't make them relevant.
>Apart from academia, they're non existent in industry or in government.
As a point of order. They're non-existent in the parts of government that actually do economist work, but the political appointee positions are lousy with them.
And boy do they punch above their weight in the financial press, chambers of commerce, think-tank circuit, etc.
In other words, Austrians do very well in any place that's sustained through the largesse of plutocrats and political donors. I wonder why. . .
I also wish their school of thought had an adjectival form that didn't make it sound like I'm slandering an entire nationality. Some of my best friends are Austrians! But they're mostly leftists. . .
As the other commenter noted, I think there are several folks at Mason who are Austrian leaning. Don Boudreaux was someone whose writing I followed back in the late 20-aughts, I'm sure he's still doing work.
George Mason very much the case of the exception underlining the rule though: it's the go to place for Austrian economics, has massive Koch Foundation endowments to encourage it to emphasis Austrian economics in its teaching, and yet it's still populated by people who are somewhat sympathetic to Austrian ideas that write "why I am not an Austrian Economist" essays and has a pretty non-Austrian sounding syllabus.
I think the status of Austrian economics in academia is best represented by the Mises Foundation's short list of best places to study Austrian economics, which concedes "some only have a sympathetic faculty member" and warns that some places have a lot of mathematics...
Their list is extremely outdated, and represents a fairly narrow view of Austrians (most modern Austrians not affiliated with LvMI, which is the majority of them, do quite a bit of quantitative work where it's warranted).
GMU is still the center (it's an Austrian fusion, but there's still a LOT of Austrian stuff -- Bryan Caplan is the exception rather than the rule), but Texas Tech, Troy, SJSU, FSU, and a number of others have heavy representation. I can think of at least 25 universities off the top of my head with at least one open Austrian on faculty. And yes, syllabi aren't just Austrian stuff -- even Austrians want you to learn Economics, not just what Mises said about Economics.
Free market != Austrian economics. Also, the means by which virtual currencies are produced is controlled. And currencies/monetary policy is well within the realm of mainstream economics.
Austrians eschew almost all quantitative methods, all study of alt-coins is done within the framework of mainstream economics.
check out this paper by hayek arguing for denationalization of currency. free market doesn’t mean no control over creation of currency, just that they are created and traded by private enterprise instead of gov/central banks
Most cryptocurrency proponents studiously avoid Hayek and other Austrians' conclusions that private currency would need backing with commodities to be credible, and that loans were the most appropriate model for private currency providers to make a profit though.
yea because Hayek wanted to create an actual viable market of competitive currencies while the vast majority of cryptocurrencies today are pump n dump schemes with little to no economic thought put into them and no long term business model. why would u want to peg and limit the value of your currency when there’s a chance you can get T-Pain to blow it up sky high on hype, you sell off and make your profit that way instead of the long term profitable way of loaning money and arbitraging interest rates the way banks do now. Hayek’s thesis is still very relevant and becoming moreso in my opinion as central banks further distort the markets through unprecedented (pre 2008) actions such as direct liquidity injections through trillions in bond purchases
I don't know where you went, but where I took my degree, the only mention of Austrian economics was a brief mention of Hayek and Mises in a history of economics thought course.
Add Time Walk to the list of cards that are wildly overrated on the P9. A considerable portion of the time it is just a zero mana cycler. Sol Ring is infinitely more powerful.
Not to mention absolute destruction of capital. Not just casualties of war, but capital investments that are either lost or used up in the process of war (airplanes, boats, fuel, etc)
Property, like matter, has an attractive quality similar to gravity: large clumps of property attract other property more than small clumps of property do. Given enough time and stability, the end state is usually one entity having (nearly) all the property (a star), or a few entities existing in (long-term) balance (like binary, trinary, quaternary, ... star systems).
But stability doesn't really exist in the Universe - there's always a low degree of redistribution going on between the clumps (trade). And clumps can explode into smaller clumps (people die, and the property is inherited/distributed -- Immortal entities like corporations sort of escape this thing).
Wars (and revolutions) are indeed the major disruptor, as it evens out the playing field (mostly by removing a lot of the property so everybody's equally poor). It's in the interest of the big clumps to keep the little clumps from getting too desperate, or from getting any funny ideas about redistribution of property, or from possessing the ability/organization to act on those ideas.
In the absence of sudden and violent (thus unpredictable) disruptions, the big clumps can accumulate and plan sufficiently to slowly work their way into an optimum state: balancing their continuous growth (faster than the smaller clumps) with the suppression of those to stop them, without tipping the balance into revolution.
The longer a system of clumps stays stable, the less likely it's going to become unstable. Until you get an outside disruption (invasion, natural disaster, plague, etc.) which is usually how long-lived and stable societies ultimately perish.
Every time I do a fresh install of Debian on my laptop, I whip out the Ethernet cable and do the strange, hour-long dance of installing and uninstalling broadcom-sta-common while modprobing various kernel modules until my wifi works.
