HN user
Hmm, which of these is simple pattern matching?
1) refuting the Jacobian conjecture
2) keep repeating the same disproven statement, because your priors can’t be affected by new evidence
It depends on how long it takes to make the video. Most employed college kids are paid minimum wage or thereabouts. $100 is a day’s work.
Have you driven a Land Cruiser? They’re substantial better than the average pickup truck on most of the issues you listed. For example, the current F-150 crew cab which is the most popular vehicle in the US is 3 ft longer and has a taller hood. So it’s a little weird to single out a niche SUV as the worst thing on the road. Modern Land Cruisers handle pretty well, while the old ones with live front axle are harder to drive but also smaller. Everyone I know with that type of car uses it to go see cool stuff in the mountains, although I’m sure cosplayers exist.
Think of the planes as plates of spaghetti.
Same issue happens in models trained by organizations who aren’t selling tokens. I believe it’s because being parsimonious is simply harder. Achieving the task at hand independently and declaring the job done is easier than building an abstraction and reconciling between every use case.
Churning is not about taking out debt and not paying it off. It’s about signing up for credit cards and spending money to earn rewards points, and paying off the balance soon to avoid owing interest.
There are two fairly different stories here:
1) Someone in the administration is leaking news soon before it’s announced, enabling insider trading. This is obviously supported by the evidence from markets.
2) The administrating is scheduling world events as part of a larger conspiracy to do enabling insider trading on specific predefined dates. Markets moving a few minutes early doesn’t provide evidence that this is happening.
Statements like: “There is a reason why these ‘peace’ deals are always announced on Fridays” imply the second (and aren’t even objectively true).
I’m specifically referring to the claim that news being released when markets are closed is evidence of insider trading (replying to the comment “There is a reason why these "peace" deals are always announced on Fridays”). The link doesn’t mention that, but I’m still interested if anyone has an explanation!
I never got the logic of this conspiracy theory. If you’re trying to make money insider trading off some events, wouldn’t you want markets to be open when the events occur? You’d like to be able to enter and exit your position immediately before and after any news breaks. Markets being closed when a deal is announced makes it less efficient to trade on that news.
It assumes that what is best for the individual is worse for the group. Life is not a zero sum game. That's the Conservative's delusion. Economic and political transactions do not always have a "loser" and a "winner". In fact, it's relatively rare that they do if you think more than zero steps into the future.
If there’s no difference between self-interest and what’s best for everyone then the whole discussion is meaningless - why even bring up self-interest in that case.
In fact there are many cases where the interest of some individuals conflict with the greater good - eg. Jones Act, sugar quotas, upzoning popular urban neighborhoods, military base closures, coal plant closing, countless others. And anyway framing this as an issue that only affects liberals or conservatives is incorrect, all of those examples cut across partisan lines.
argue that voting is irrational because its unlikely to have any impact
The post (I’m not the author) actually argues that voting can be rational if you care about the impact on others. The low probability of being the deciding vote is multiplied by the huge impact on the nation as a whole by the better candidate winning. If you only care about yourself, the low probability of vote matters multiplied by the impact on yourself yields an effect that’s too small to care about in expectation.
If what you're voting for seems bad for some members of the group, but good for you, it just means you have imperfect knowledge of what's actually good for you in the long term.
An 58 year old worker at a military base may be genuinely correct that closing the base is bad for him personally in the short and long term, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad for the public overall.
That’s a lot of unsafe. I worked in a project with 50k lines of rust. 9 lines were unsafe. Turned out one of those was a hairy bug. Now it’s 8 lines.
People have different beliefs about whether they will personally benefit from supporting some political cause. Therefore telling people that they shouldn’t support causes that are against their interests is a waste of time. It’s like telling someone “listen to good music”, or “do whatever you think best.”
I think many people targeted by the statement “stop supporting politics against your self interest” either sanctimonious or a meaningless platitude, depending on how they interpret it.
Also, arguably[1] voting based on your self interest is immoral and irrational. So it’s perhaps neither an effective argument, nor a sound one.
1. https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/voting-self-interes...
This is a negotiated settlement. The FTC agreed to settle without Deere admitting wrongdoing. Deere did give up something far more valuable than the $1M by agreeing to the right to repair. You can argue that instead of accepting the settlement, FTC should have taken the risk of going to trial. But Deere agreed to change their practices without that risk.
I asked about logging in national forest land and it triggered the safety classifier. Logging is a cybersecurity risk, I suppose.
They’d roll in their graves if they knew the party eventually turned into monarchists.
Communism with American Characteristics
It seems like the guy believed he was just doing his job for Google, not moonlighting? He released the project on Google’s own GitHub. It seems more like he misunderstood the necessary steps before making that release.
The rent in Austin is 22% lower than it was 3 years ago.
Public housing isn’t actually free in the countries you listed. It’s subsidized, but the people who live there still have to pay. The affordable housing units in New York are also subsidized. The question is what do we do if people stop paying even the subsidized rent?
You’ve convinced me. I hope on the next iPhone, they make it so you have to put the MagSafe puck on the front where the screen is instead of that back where it is now.
I feel like I have to read this backwards to perhaps understand it. Is 2.9x the multiplier of Swiss GDP/capita vs the Western Europe average in 1940?
Of the 369,000 jobs the Labor Department says were created since the start of Trump's second term, nearly all — 348,000 of them — went to women, with only 21,000 going to men. That's nearly 17 times as many jobs filled by women as by men.
This presentation of the stats sounds really misleading to me.
Let’s say there were 10 million quits and 10.369 million hires in that period.
5 million quits and 5.021 million hires among men.
5 million quits and 5.348 million hires among women.
In that case, yes it’s true that employment among women improved more than employment among men. No, it’s not true that an unemployed woman was 17x more likely than a man to find a job.
Forget white collar. Figure out a career that makes use of your hands.
Or make enough money to retire in the next couple years.
If you use fat pipes that go a decent distance from shore, diluting your brine with ocean water, you’ll have a negligible impact on the ocean. The problem is if you dump lots of brine in shallow waters. Old designs did have that flaw, but it’s not that difficult to design around this constraint now that we know about it.
IMO this is an issue where NIMBYs are using environmental concerns as a smokescreen to block new desal plants from ruining the vibe at their beachfront property. Rhymes with the opposition against offshore wind farms.
My previous comment came off as disagreement that I didn’t intend. Most countries in the world are both socialist and capitalist.
I don’t intend to defend the “socialism bad” argument. There are several countries (many in Europe) that have great outcomes while being about as socialist as left-wing Latin American governments. I think a fairer criticism is some of the Latin American parties have a track record of flawed implementation that caused distrust among a lot of the population.
US military spending is 3% of GDP.
This has me wondering, do people think the military is 1/3 of the US economy? That would explain a lot of discourse.
US has a higher government spending as a % of GDP than China.
Pretty much every remotely developed country is capitalist. The wealthiest country with a non-capitalist economy is Cuba or Turkmenistan, depending on where you draw the line.
This generalizes to “good news is bad news because things must be bad by default for good things to be news”
Why is this sad? I’m having a hard time understanding the thought you are communicating. It seems cool that a CTO had fun and that motivated him to enable ADB for everyone?