nuclearnice1

polyptoton?

Thanks for the great video on international diversification.

I noticed he has another on the related topic of bias toward investing in one’s home country.

https://youtu.be/qYedjI03Q0g?si=-wOqSA96cmScFInq

A slight over simplification, for example s&p was negative 1% per year from Jan 2000 to Dec 2009. Plus the cost of your leverage.

But the general point that US equity returns have been good and leverage would have increased them stands.

For some reason, Americans are “told” to get 4x leveraged to the real estate market but to pay for their equities with 100% cash.

Interesting. I did not know about this case.

We had a similar thing in Pakistan. In fact, same font.

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/how-calibri-font-br...

Be sure to read that link with showdead.

thedrake’s victorious final comment “ SOLVED!!!!!! I spent several hours looking for an axe or a hatchet or an Ubåt…” is dead.

Possibly because of a heuristic aimed at killing spam posts with too many links.

Great points. It depends on how confident you are in the claim that the primary purpose was “artificially boost quarterly profits.” No particular evidence presented in the excerpt.

For example, Gryta and Mann report that GE would sometimes artificially boost quarterly profits by selling an asset (e.g., a diesel train) to a friendly bank, knowing that it could then buy back the asset at a time of GE’s choosing.

So fraud?

You did a beautiful job and you should be proud of it. Both the information and the aesthetics are a treat.

Can I ask what technology stack you used? For the images, the animations, and the voice over?

I’d like to be able to do something like this.

Exactly. Almost as much fun as when Garry wanted to take our money to keep him rich: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35118988

Interesting point. There are obvious connections from the Yamas to the eight-fold path of Buddhism: Right View, Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

I’m not aware of an explicit ordering. But the other seven steps complement and deepen the meditation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

You may be interested in Terry Tao’s polymath collaborations.

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/polymath-proposal-...

As for upper bounds, de Bruijn showed back in 1950 that {\Lambda \leq 1/2}. The only progress since then has been the work of Ki, Kim and Lee in 2009, who improved this slightly to {\Lambda < 1/2}. The primary proposed aim of this Polymath project is to obtain further explicit improvements to the upper bound of {\Lambda}. Of course, if we could lower the upper bound all the way to zero, this would solve the Riemann hypothesis, but I do not view this as a realistic outcome of this project

To your point, there was some excitement and progress in the beginning, but it remains an unusual approach to mathematics.

Ha. Right. I guess it’s just one more way in which the interview is an anti pattern for the behavior we want in a coworker.

Can I Google this? Sorry no.

ChapGPT? Pretend it’s not available.

Use a library? No no no.

Ask for help? Thanks for coming in.

Generally, if you find a simplification that makes the problem trivial you’re interpreting it wrong and should reconsider.

You may enjoy this old book.

http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html

Great point.

Code review gives some commentary on result, but process wise it’s a solitary activity.

Perhaps this was some of the benefit of the mostly abandoned practice of pair programming?

I agree coding is a great discipline for both deep work and deliberate practice.

I would draw a distinction between the two. Deep work is about achieving the focus and attention to do serious work. Deliberate practice is about the motivation and effort to focus on improving your skill set.

You probably know this from Cal Newport’s excellent book, but for others. Two great but distinct mental tools to add to your kit.

I think your point about law breaking is good. Facebook, Uber, AirBnB. Too much law breaking in the name of innovation.

I intended to make a narrower more trivial observation that innovation produces winners and losers. Innovation is just competition.

I like your optimism.

The article points out they were previously hit a few privacy issues. There was an FTC order in 2012 which the FTC claimed Facebook violated with in months. So they got a 2019 order encouraging them to follow the 2012 order. Now this order encourages them to follow the 2019 and 2012 orders.

My personal view is these enforcements would be more effective if they hit the management of the corporations rather than the shareholders.

Probably too simplistic.

Innovation serves some and “disrupts” others.

Uber might be a handy ride for you. A NYC cabbie who is in debt for his medallion might see it the opposite.

The article disagrees. But my sense is you are right in relative terms. Much more failing than acquiring.

Article:

Startup M&A bounced back: The number of venture-backed companies that were acquired or merged with another company increased by 20% in Q1 compared to Q4 2022, with 57% of those M&A deals valued at $10 million or less.

Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks for sharing your story. It is in some ways inspiring.

Can you elaborate on step 6?

Useful list. Dash & bokeh as two more in the space

https://github.com/plotly/dash https://docs.bokeh.org/en/latest/

Can you tell us a little about the models and software packages of credit risk?

Is it trying to take a huge dataset of consumer features and join it to a dataset of loan outcomes and then predict loan outcomes?

Was it $5? I had the impression the OP paid more.

I spent like a year or so to save up for it, which cost roughly 6 months of average net salaries in my country about 7 years ago.

Self measurement studies were excluded.

The initial search yielded 12,531 articles (PubMed: 1,975; Cochrane: 3,435; and Embase: 7,121). Duplicate articles appearing in multiple databases were excluded (n=8,022). After abstract screening, 7,850 papers were excluded. Of the remaining 172 papers, 97 were further excluded as they either did not report penis measurements (n=63), reported measurements after major pelvic surgeries (n=12), or *reported self-measurements (n=22).*

I don’t think that’s correct

CME worlds largest futures exchange symmetrical fees

https://www.cmegroup.com/company/files/cme-fee-schedule-2023...

Most futures markets you pay both sides.

Some equity venues are pay both sides. Others are “reverse” provider pays.

I said nothing about whether the game was or was not truly "electro-mechanical".

Indeed you did not.

Likewise no one “accused” you of that grievous transgression.

As a this is not a courtroom, perhaps it was more an observation than a charge to be defended.

Chips you say? Reminds me, chips aren’t technically electromechanical are they? No no friend, they are not! In fact, it contains 17 computers . 17 computers, but only 12k lines of source? Yes feels low,…

And so on, like a conversation? Where the contradictions are not accusation but invitation.

I encounter that mode of conversation often.

I would say it is the overwhelming majority of people’s approach. They have a point of view and are emotionally committed to it. They have this commitment almost equally across opinions even if they only arrived at it by first gut reaction moments ago.

They also project this mode onto their conversation partners. For example, if you offer a counter point or drawback to a proposal, they assume you are strongly opposed to the proposal. Rather than discuss the drawback, they will launch into a stream of defenses of the proposal.

I haven’t found any reliable ways to steer people out of this. The most useful adjustment is to expect it and know that most people are just giving you depth on one intuitively appealing solution.

Simply put most people can’t think straight and therefore can’t converse logically either.