roganp

I hope everyone will remember how eagerly AMZN's subsidiary was willing to sell it's cameras to whomever was willing to pay.

Packet collision detection vs. collision avoidance

It will be less than %100, because of the unrealized losses on SVB's bond portfolio. Regardless of the amount, there will be delays in returning those funds as FDIC liquidates.

Wow! 80M a year in ad spend for a midsized b2b company...

And also: at the time of Binance's offer to buy FTX, it makes sense only if Binance saw significant contagion risks to FTX's failure. But then they got a little closer and saw the huge hole in FTX's balance sheet and decided that they couldn't do that either. So it's really the worst outcome - they signal that FTX is important to their own business, but then can't do anything to save it. Does not seem to be good news for Binance.

They are offering you a previously generated image. Need to click the button at bottom of page to get an original rendering "from beyond"

Oh yes. Some are very creepy / hilarious. Awesome just the same.

Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/d...

Entertaining and informative. Highly recommended.

Exactly. It's always inner joins unless there is a reason not, and then there should be logic to deal with the null results from the outer table. It's not strange to always do left outer either, it just makes reasoning about the query easier (start with the driving set, the inner/outer join the others as left joins). Mixing right and left outer always confuses me, and full outer joins are difficult to optimize, so I usually do left outer joins with unions in the rare case that I need a full outer join.

1% of the population dying a preventable death is alot of bodies.

If nearly %100 of the nba is vaccinated, then it's more likely that the break thru cases will outnumber the cases on the un-vaccinated, even if the vaccine is very effective at preventing infection. The vaccine does not need to be %100 effective for it to make sense from a public policy perspective.

Inpatient: services provided by a hospital, after patient is admitted. Outpatient: services provided in other settings

Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.

So as soon as they make any kind of restriction on the use of their platform they become publishers? That's quite a stretch. That would have the same effect: it would require them to provide unfettered access for anyone, for any purpose.

The owners of printing presses have even more power, but the government does not mandate open access to those machines for dispensing speech. Unfettered access to twitter is not akin to free speech.

More importantly, Mike Nesmith is the producer of one of the great all time punk movies Repo Man. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/

I think per capita emissions are not the right measure to describe the worst polluters. You are right, prices paid for "cheap products" we consume don't include the costs associated with CO2 emissions, but if they did they wouldn't have much to do with a producer's population. A better measure is emissions per dollar GDP, where emissions (a cost) is relative to what gets produced (the benefit).

This. Google (and Facebook) can generate more revenue by leveraging the accumulated users personal information in more invasive ways, irritating their end users. They can sacrifice long term growth for short term gain (or not). I think some of this short term growth slowing is due to that - pulling back from the most egregious practices because of scrutiny.

And in finance, they've developed entire management wings called "compliance" to watch over things and make sure that laws are not broken/the firm is not put at risk. I wonder if that will happen here (there is a distinctly smaller set of laws that can be broken, but Zuck apparently is asking for that now...)

I think the primary problem is glossed over a bit in the article. Even though most people are unaware of the kinds of information gathered about them, 36% are "Somewhat comfortable" or "Very comfortable" with the kinds of profiles being built. This seems (to me) a depressingly high number, one that indicates that there will be no grassroots rebellion against the surveillance economy.

The Armchair Economist by Steven Landsburg. Explains some pretty deep ideas in economics in an engaging and entertaining way, and has invaded my thinking since. https://www.amazon.com/Armchair-Economist-Economics-Everyday...

But no linux client for workspaces? Anyone know if one is in the works? I see MacOsx is supported, as well as chromebooks, so it would seem to be a short hop...

Here is the problem: If there is an actual large effect size, then you can detect this in small samples. However, the opposite is not true. In a small sample, spurious large effects are MORE likely, not less likely (outliers have a greater impact in a small sample). See: http://andrewgelman.com/2017/08/16/also-holding-back-progres...

This. This is a relevant podcast featuring John Ioannidis (author of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.") http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/01/john_ioannidis.html

But these are adjustments that are larger than the entire (associated) budget. How is even possible? How do poor controls lead to these astronomical errors?

It seems to me that that someone can prove that the configuration mattered by pitting a correctly configured Stockfish against the configuration used by AlphaZero, and see what the outcome is for 100 games. I haven't read the paper, but some of the constraint choices seem odd to me (1 minute max per move?).

This. I get a bunch of robo calls that appear to be for no purpose - there is no way to get a human on the other end of the phone (they just disconnect when you express interest in what they are selling). It's almost like the call itself is a scam, but not on me - like the call centers that offer this service are getting paid to make the call and not the conversion, so they dial my number and play a recording but have no facility to do more than that. Super frustrating.

They are trying to say "Please don't fire us - even God would have down years!". Although this depends quite a bit on when you start. They start in 1927, if they started in 1932, God might never be fired.

Maybe, you should read it again. Look: the author has written the essay, when she did not have to. Does that not tell? She has picked details to report that are unflattering to her (and not because she is unaware). Does that not tell?

Or, maybe: the extra information gleaned from reading your emails is just not that valuable. Not because they have this via other means, but its just not that valuable, period - whether it comes from reading emails or scrutinizing your browser history. We like to imagine that if advertisers knew enough about us, they'd be able to direct our spending, but I think that is far from true.