riskneural

When did all algorithms become AI?

What do you mean by latency in this context?

I feel like you build a model which you implement in software. (which runs on hardware)

Really interesting. In the end, how did the results compare with the locations of established client firms, e.g. kpmg, accenture, pwc, e and y, deloitte, bcg, mckinsey, bain?

Or how positively we view life.

Leaving at 5pm is the norm in Germany only in very particular circumstances. Most people I know are stuck until 18:30 or so.

This is where the EU view of a company having its customers, its shareholders, and its employees as stakeholders all having rights makes a difference. If your view is shareholder primacy, that only the shareholder matters, then you end up with a very different system.

Do we really all need to live as if we were in the military? Don't people go to war so others can live in peace?

So, horribly unreadable xml config files?

The term brain teaser was used explicitly. It would have been something data science/statistics related.

It's in the original paper in which he derives the normal distribution. Well worth a read. I last had a copy of it in the fourth basement down in the university library about fifteen years ago - it might be still there.

Try the insurance industry in Germany. I did nine interviews for a gig, got it, and then the budget for the position was cancelled. :)

Well, I politely declined the next stage when I heard it was a brain teaser round. I don't really seem to do well in brain teasers. I don't at all get a kick out of puzzles that aren't a means to an end. Does anybody else have that feeling?

I find it very hard to make sales calls when somebody non-sales is in the room. The rejection is enough for me without adding judgment :)

But Google Maps vans cover land comprehensively, whereas Tesla's "convenience sample" is not comprehensive. However, Tesla's data then covers the relevant data more often.

Definitely two data sets that should be put together.

Expected shortfall, the average of the worst five percent of events, I like more. Easy in Monte Carlo, not analytically.

If you have no confidentiality concerns at all in any way in your work, sure... My clients would not be happy with me blasting there stuff over the interwebs.

Adam Smith's five reasons to get paid more:

1. Skill. Over the long run, jobs that require higher skill will attract higher wages, or else people won't bother to spend the costs acquire the skills for the job.

2. Accountability. All equal, you'll take the job without personal consequences when things go bad.

3. Wholesomeness. Undertakers get paid more. Butchers get paid more than bakers. If it sounds cool at a party, expect to get paid less. Supply and demand.

4. Job security. Essentially, you need a higher wage for an unstable job than a stable job. Risk premium.

5. Physical danger. Yes, a lumberjack will get more danger money than a programmer. However, you'll demand a higher wage for a programming job with crazy hours and the only food in the building is a snack machine with cinnamon buns which have no expiry dates.

I have heard it referred to as being in a band.

Things that people in start ups don't know: getting technical things done in complex environments. I would focus my CV on showing interaction with corporates outside the firm - show you have some game.

I still remember too. 28 days? I was easily off-grid for 28 days.

At the moment, we are heavily focusing on "exit strategies" for outsourcing agreements in regulated industries. Banking is leading the way, followed by insurance, but it's hard not to recommend to any CRO in a company with business to lose.

Adam Smith makes the argument well in A Wealth of Nations. Essentially, the only reason to invest is that you expect to earn something above on top of the risk. Then add that up over everybody in the system. They cannot all get something extra, unless there is growth. That growth is spread over everybody as return on investment. So, if there is no growth, then investment stops earning that extra, so there no point in investment, so nobody hires anybody or builds new machines.

Importantly, it's growth in total value, not growth in number of things. Hence, it's okay that growth is infinite without gobbling up the universe - we can always be better. Stuff can always be sexier.

The standup in a scrum lets people speak for equal amounts every morning.

I'd do three years as an astronaut on cost of living.

"Disable this feature to stop your Samsung Smart TV from listening to you"

http://www.cnet.com/how-to/samsung-smart-tv-spying/

Makes Google's UK tax bill of 130 mill seem small.

I live in Germany. My facebook is most certainly not a free speech zone. Forums aren't even free speech zones.

I also grew up using pansy as in weakling, as in like the flower. Gay men can be pansies or not. Straight men can be pansies or not. Sometimes I am a pansy. Sometimes I am not.

No need to read up on von Mises to read speculation on what happens to an economy without a fiat currency. Greece has no control over its currency, thus essentially may as well be on a gold standard. It's a hard road.

I should have specified I meant negative risk free rates, not negative market yields.

They are effectively paying banks to lend. The aim is to stimulate investment, and also to drive inflation by making money less valuable.

Negative risk free rates were theoretically possible, but thought at the time to be stupid. See for example the development of the Cox Ingersoll Ross model, "The standard deviation factor, \sigma \sqrt{r_t}, avoids the possibility of negative interest rates for all positive values of a and b."

Many interest rate models had been in the past either criticised for theoeretically allowing negative rates, or specially developed to avoid them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%E2%80%93Ingersoll%E2%80%93...