3pm

I guess annual income also hints at annual expenses which should be important for the study. There are people who constantly spend all they make, and probably score low on self assessed happiness. Also income != wage, can be passive.

I think for a study like this, a money-happiness correlation would need a more sophisticated definition of money, to account for peer pressure and spending.

For a given zip code - take p75 of pre-tax income, multiply by 50% - this would be a proxy of how much someone needs to spend per year to be comfortable with local cost of living and their peers. 50% takes taxes and savings out, call it spend/burn. Then someone's wealth could be a ratio of net-worth/burn. The higher the wealthier - people 25 and over essentially not needing to work, and people with < 3 are essentially in indentured servitude, even with high income. Control for age.

What is the shape of the relationship between money and happiness, and what are its implications?

1. money != income.

2. Zip codes.

3. Age.

4. Social class.

a) 65 year old professor living in Woodside, CA, with a net worth of $250,000K

b) 35 year old HVAC business owner living in Fresno, CA, with a net worth of $2,000,000

First is poor, second is rich, but the study conflates both into the same bucket if they both make, say, $400K/yr

I think that Model M (Unicomp/Lexmark) was a cost cut for Model F. Just recently, a company resurrected true Model F: https://www.modelfkeyboards.com/

I’m hearing that Lexmark/Unicomp keyboards were/are a cost cutting project compared to original Model F. Interestingly there is a company that resurrected true, pre cost cutting, model F: https://www.modelfkeyboards.com

Using Windows Server as a personal OS can be an option: https://www.windowsworkstation.com/win2016-2019/

Vanguard just tracks indexes. Indexes that include all publicly traded auto manufacturers in the world. E.g. Toyota: https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/vtiax/portfolio

Most of Vanguard is a large bureaucracy with two goals: accurately track an underlying index and keep the cost low. They do have some actively managed funds but those are insignificant compared to their passive funds.

Interestingly enough, Vanguard voted against the package originally in 2018, and Black Rock voted for it (according to nytimes https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/12/business/tesla-elon-musk-...)

    Tesla’s second-largest shareholder, Vanguard, voted against the pay deal in 2018. BlackRock, the third largest, voted for it. Both declined to say how they were voting this time.

I actually think that for VTSAX manages, the fact that they have to vote is sort of a liability for them. My guess is that they would rather not vote at all. They own the whole market anyway, and should only care about tracking the underlying index as accurate as possible with as low fees as possible, its bureaucratic. Now they have to publicly vote in a dubious popularity contest and take sides in a battle they don't care about.

For the record, Vanguard also has significant interest in the success of all Tesla competitors that are part of the index.

Did Vanguard officially stated that they have "significant amount of trust in Musk"? They are not Cathy Woods.

I guess the point here is that a huge percentage (7% just for Vanguard) of votes was not decided by the actual share holders. These shares are passively invested because Tesla is included in indexes like S&P 500. So the decision on the 7% of the votes was made by a few Vanguard execs. I'm not arguing for or against the decision, just stating the fact that it is much easier to convince a few Vanguard managers instead of 7% of the actual share holders.

Does anyone know about BlackRock and State Street votes?

    But Vanguard, which has total assets of about $9 trillion, and other big index fund managers were always likely to be key to the vote. Representatives of Vanguard rivals BlackRock (BLK.N), and State Street (STT.N), declined to comment about their votes on Thursday.

   "Half of it is regurgitating"
   "how you behave as a human being, what happens when I throw in a curve ball."

Answering "Design Uber" questions is like playing a weird charade game in a LARP camp. It is very convenient for the interviewer because they set the rules and can change them anytime. They only prepare their question once and apply it it all candidates. What type of signal these are supposed to generate? Are these some sort of behavioral/hazing rituals? Why all the smoke and mirrors? If these are testing System Design skills, why not ask a specific System Design question? Why not ask about tradeoffs between single vs multi leader vs leaderless? Why not ask specifically about document vs relational.

Better yet, why not look at the person experience and ask them how would they scale a system they actually worked on before? And what were the tradeoffs.

This can be helpful for LARPing though: https://systemdesignfightclub.com/

Obligatory MySQL Big Deletes: https://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/deletebig

Good paper on UTF-8 validation performance: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.03090

    The relatively simple algorithm (lookup) can be several times faster than conventional algorithms at a common task using nothing more than the instructions available on commodity processors. It requires fewer than an instruction per input byte in the worst case.

Not specifically about ML, but a good paper about unnecessary complexity introduced by a premature 'scalabilitization':

  The COST of a given platform for a given problem is the hardware configuration required before the platform outperforms a competent single-threaded implementation.

  “You can have a second computer once you’ve shown you know how to use the first one.” –Paul Barham

Related concept is Datensparsamkeit: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/Datensparsamkeit.html

And there is a way to pay no taxes on the growth. You need to have

1) a tax advantaged account and 2) a regular brokerage with 2x your savings

Technically tax is deferred or literally not paid if tax advantaged account is a Roth.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Placing_cash_needs_in_a_tax-...

I agree. From the Systems Thinking, the best case scenario is that a new leader will start changing the rules of the game (internal incentives, punishments and constraints). Only then, and slowly, over decades things may start improving. It is just hard to imagine this outside of couple urban centers.

Right now majority of Russians still think they are a temporarily embarrassed great empire. And the goal is to return to the past glory. And the way to do it is by force, because only might is right.

There is no single 'Russia' and certainly not one entity _got_ the whole 1.9 billion. It looks like a fairly loosely coupled ecosystem of shady actors. They are privateers in a war. Not unlike Francis Drake. The war that everyone in Russia knows they're in.

Yes, I think the chance to soft-land USSR into a democracy was missed by the West in the 90s. I don't see how the brainwashed population and their globe trotting elite will change their views now. It did not have to be this way.

How much does he matter you think? After reading the article, did you get the impression that all the colorful characters will suddenly change their ways after Putin dies? It seems the whole thing is very very loosely organized. More Camorra than Cosa Nostra. They kinda off like reverse James Bonds, but not exactly.

Is there a word that describes a very loosely organized but extremely powerful entity, that is kind of a nation state but also kind of a mafia and also kind of a business? Can it just be summarized as Putin's regime? But then it will function without him, maybe even more effectively. And its only ideology is the hate toward Western values (and love of the Western toys). What you call it?

AKA 'Value Object' from DDD or a similar 'Quantity' accounting pattern. Another angle is that this fixes 'Primitive Obsession' code smell.

http://archive.today/TcyqX

A highly recommended podcast on a 100 year history of Novo Nordisk (along with diabetes and insulin): https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/novo-nordisk-ozempic

I think Monopoly is mostly a game of luck. It is also pretty simplistic and unbalanced - just buy up everything you land on. Then, if not landed on complete sets, sit for an hour waiting to be drained slowly. Making feeble attempts to buy missing properties.

One rule modification can fix some of these issues: everyone is allowed to bid on a property that you landed on. It will go the highest bidder, so everyone gets an equal chance.

But anyway, there are much better board games these days.

An effort by Dr Robert Lustig and Kuwaiti Danish Dairy Company may be an example. Not targeted at obesity specifically but more general metabolic health: https://agfundernews.com/dr-robert-lustig-unveils-strategy-t...

Edit: Kuwait because it is small enough and has higher obesity rate than US (8th and 9th place as of 2016) https://web.archive.org/web/20071016062334/http://www.forbes...

Have to comment since I've been listening to Dr. Lustig lately (https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=6mS-3SKI7R4zOdYT).

The site shows that 1 can of Coca-Cola has fewer calories and less carbs than a medium apple: 90 vs 122 calories, 25 vs 30 gram of carbs. There is no other information, e.g no fiber content or added sugars section. Would this lead someone to believe, against common sense, that Coke is equivalent or even a healthier choice?

Edit: For those interested, here is a link to a similar system that contains more information (albeit not as polished): https://perfact.co:8443/Nova/

This is a really good fundamentals resource: https://teachyourselfcs.com/ They list books and videos.