micwawa

$1 is 1981 was four popsicles from the icecream truck. Well worth it to be the king.

$1 in 1996 was a bottomless plastic cup of PBR. Also well worth it.

$1 is 2011 is the cost of an overnight diaper that my three year old son throws away in the middle of night because he says he doesn't like it.

Agreed - It doesn't seem that these are anything near legal contracts. I would like to see a less misleading word than 'contract.' A contract is a 'meeting of minds' and requires considerations from both parties. What we have are distributed programs that require signatures that run on a blockchain. Pretty sweet, but someone trying to sell it as more than that may be guilty of unauthorized practice of law.

By the way, if you have some presale ether and you think the price might be a little frothy, Kraken makes it super easy to sweep your presale wallet. I recently did this and had bitcoin on its way to my Circle account within an hour.

Tell Mrs. Patmore that.

Are people still developing Counterparty? Is this what you're referring to?

I got my previous phone three years ago - the battery has gone to pot and Verizon has been telling me I'm reading for an upgrade - but I kept putting off going to the Verizon store to get a new one. I thought, sure, I'll go for the secure phone which is the product itself, and not the one that is created by companies that wish to make me the product.

I gotta say, for someone who is very much pro-TPP, Ron Wyden seems suddenly concerned about entities overseas using legal power to push around US businesses.

Yup. I just bought a new iphone.

This says so much about the dangers of winner-take-all economics.

It's more than getting in, it's networking and having the recruiters from all of the bulge-bracket and consulting firms groom you. Why recruit someone online when you have a rich, educated, smart pool of candidates who have the elitist mindset necessary to do the job? They haven't found a way to replace eating clubs.

Thanks. I had quite a few apps in there.

Last night I applied for a job, and there was a link that you can click to allow the website to access your LinkedIn information. I clicked on this. I usually breeze through this because all these applications just want to access your basic information. I entered my password and hit enter when I looked at the screen and realized that I agreed to the following:

iCIMS would like to access some of your LinkedIn info:

YOUR PROFILE OVERVIEW

YOUR FULL PROFILE

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS

YOUR CONNECTIONS

YOUR CONTACT INFO

NETWORK UPDATES

GROUP DISCUSSIONS

INVITATIONS AND MESSAGES

So I looked up what this meant :

Network Updates - Retrieves and posts updates as you.

Group Discussions - Retrieves and posts group discussions as you.

Invitations and Messages - Sends messages and invitations to connect as you.

So it seems I gave them access to pretty much every feature except the ability to close my account and/or change the password (which I promptly did.) Woops.

This is a category of dark patterns: have the user click on something that has been benign the last 20 times they've seen something similar, but this time isn't.

The internet is full of misinformation about dentists. Some corporate sponsored dentists will mill up thousands of fake reviews. These used to be five-star, but now they're smart enough to use a more nuanced strategy and throw in some four star, because at some point people caught on that no dentist has 45 consecutive five-star reviews. Also, the negative reviews will often disappear if the dentist has a lawyer handy.

Funny bone indeed. It also seems that, as a consumer, these same professions are the hardest to get good information about. If someone serves a burger with a bland sauce they'll get 20 Yelp reviews over the weekend. On the other hand, there's no way for you to tell if your lawyer is going to charge $500/hr to to google stuff that you googled a long time ago.

Location : USA West coast, near an airport, but not near a major tech hub.

Remote: Yes

Willing to Relocate: No.

Technologies: Matlab, Python, and lots of geometry. Looking to do some machine learning.

CV: 20+ refereed papers. 2 NSF grants. Ph.D in math, postdoc at an Ivy. Currently Assistant Professor.

Email : mwfd541 @gmail

Sorry to be cagey, but I'm keeping secret my fantasy of becoming a data scientist, lest I be labeled an apostasy by my colleagues.

Optimization of tax code via machine learning. It should be possible to build an intelligent tax machine that uses enough features in order properly classify and tax corporations like GE or high frequency trading funds in the most obviously and proper way. Simple tax codes are vulnerable to lawyers who complicate them.

Is the tax something that a hedge fund with offshore shell companies and other active investments could work around?

This has a chance of working, provided I give hope of having a curated notes list.

Tangential exactly (which is why something like a spreadsheet would never work.) I've tried using notes but then I often forget exactly which note I used or how I had planned to access it later. But I imagine myself being able to quickly tell the app "I'm a stashing X at Y" without a lot of cost.

It's amusing how many CEOs get to CEO with this attitude. I once put a nasty Yelp review up about a local place and got a call from the CEO of the larger franchise who demanded to know exactly who had put my up to this.

obligations? If/when you have kids....

I'm on the west coast and I'm an expert (Ph.D + Ivy postdoc) in mathematics. I've played a little bit recently and my feeling is that the low hanging fruit has been largely harvested - Large variations and playing against mostly experts means it's very hard to beat the 10% rake, without doing a lot of time-consuming tweaking. I'm more interested in doing this for the challenge and to test some data science tools in a tangible way (Kaggle gives a different kind of feedback)

mwfd541 at gmail

mwfd541 at gmail

Injury reports are serious wrinkles. Often time players will be scratched within a few hours before the game. If you are optimizing, you need to account for this because it sends the backups value much higher than his salary. For example, last night Rajon Rondo was scratched. His backup Darren Collison, was in over 80% of the lineups in a FanDuel 50/50 tournament. I didn't have him, and I lost $2.

I got into this for the very same reason. If you are in it for these academic aspect, would you be interested in teaming up?

Someone should pen an essay explaining why Resource Inequality is actually a good thing in Academia.

>but I've never met an astrophysicist that was religious

You should visit the IAS in Princeton sometime.

Ok, but this is just playing with the word "before".

"First, when the universe began there was no God"

I don't see how this follows or doesn't follow from physics. Certainly, according to physics, God is not necessary. But to most believers God is not something that cares about physics, because God exists outside physics. Physics can only comment on what is governed by physics. Telling people they are ignorant does not refute this basic objection.

I'll put in another way. Perhaps we can say everything we want about the closed (let's just say 10-dimensional) manifold on which we live. We can pinpoint exactly where the negative signature of the metric degenerates, we can solve Cauchy problem for all time, or whatever. How does that tell us any information about a larger ambient manifold, or any disconnected components of the manifold? After all, Nash's Embedding Theorem holds for all signatures.

Yes, there's a handful of arguments, but at some point in the introduction he says (I don't have the book in front of me, so this is my best memory) that the main argument in the book will be the Boeing 747 Gambit, presented in Chapter 4. This is why I read the book. Then, he goes on to describe how unlikely it would be for God to form completely by chance. In order for this argument to make any sense, he has to assume that God happening by chance is something happens inside of the universe (or some universe).

There's a few too many straw-men running around here. I'm attempting to summarize my view of an argument, and asking if that's correct.