shhehebehdh

I am none of those things you mentioned (employee, shareholder, other vested interest), and I also find it annoying. It’s something Zuck said when he was much younger. If his views haven’t changed since that age then he is an unusual person indeed.

I’d love to see a category like “productively salty” which would do something like an h index ranking. Your score is the highest number n such that you have n salty comments with at least n net score.

Good advice. Within Google, they have backups that depend on no production infrastructure. Something as simple as an IRC server that is always running on prem can be invaluable.

I didn’t see anything about this in the article, so I ask here in the hopes that someone more knowledgeable can comment: how are they controlling for selection bias? Is there any way to select into or out of this school, or is it purely the standard districting system? Even if it’s the latter in many other places it’s still possible to move into the area. Do we know to what extent that has been happening?

Edit: Oops, I was tricked by an advert. The article continued to say that the students were admitted by lottery. The only question I’m immediately left with then is whether they had to enter the lottery, or whether it was automatic? And was their admission contingent on their parents’ willingness to participate in these extra classes?

https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias-is-t...

Most people don't have enough knowledge to make an ethical judgement about it.

I can’t say I agree. People are more than sufficiently knowledgeable to form broad strokes viewpoints about the morality of Facebook. Of course, the details would need to be fleshed out if it were determined that FB were operating outside the popular moral framework. That’s what regulatory bodies are for.

The formation of a regulatory body should be contingent on the presence of a widely held moral viewpoint. If such a viewpoint is not widely held, then the regulatory body does not reflect the will of the people, and its mandate is suspect.

If you work at Facebook these days, people don’t like you very much at the bar, the wedding or on the train. That you earn a lot doesn’t really help you when everyone dislikes you.

“You’re an asshole.”

“No, I’m right, I earn more than you.”

I’m not a Facebook employee, but: I doubt it? The vast majority of people have no problem with Facebook or what it does. People with a big focus on privacy don’t like it, but the existence of Facebook as a profitable enterprise is proof that there are plenty of people outside this set.

I think the big issue that is often swept under the rug here are that different people have different morals, especially at the margins. Sure, almost everyone agrees on murder. But there are legitimate disagreements in the privacy space, especially when no concrete harm has been demonstrated.

For example, my personal moral stance on privacy is that, if someone is voluntarily using a platform, and that platform had terms that include some items which would tend to reduce the person’s privacy, that’s fine. As long as there is responsible disclosure, adults should be free to use or not use services as they see fit.

Before I have seen the musings of a fund manager posted, predicting the next downturn. Apparently he’s been doing this since before the last downturn. His fund is barely above flat since inception in the early 2000s, even though the S&P has more than doubled. After pointing out all that, I still got some respondents who claimed that active funds are known to underperform during good times and outperform in bear markets. Perhaps it is true but I remember feeling skeptical.

I guess there is no evidence that will convince everyone that someone is a bad money manager or prognosticator. That’s why, despite my general discomfort with Nassim Taleb, some of what he said in Skin in the Game really seems true. People can believe what they want, but beliefs don’t matter much if they aren’t confirmed, and the only meaningful way to confirm or reject market beliefs is via investment results.

Heck, they probably saved more than that over the years just by failing to implement the compliance program. I can’t imagine such a program would cost less than 250k to implement over three years. So they broke even on this deal before you even factor in ill-gotten gains.

I think this problem is best solved by requiring that the state make amends for arrests which turn out to be incorrect. You lose your job? State funds two months of severance (more if there’s an economic downturn and it’s harder to find a job). Evicted? State provides relocation assistance. Etc. this would also probably be a great disincentive for false arrests. Of course there could be unintended consequences, including the state putting more effort to make square pegs fit in round holes.

Military drone operators will be found on military bases in military uniform. They will be easily identified as soldiers if captured.

I don’t really get what makes this an amazing IPO. Afaict they left 33% of the money on the table. How is that a good thing for the company or the shareholders?

Doesn’t this depend on the person’s combatant status? I do suspect that enemy combatants in uniform are afforded the protections you mention, but I don’t think Assange can reasonably be assigned to that class.

Tl;dr: definitely yes, although two philosophers disagree in their prognostications about whether anyone will actually build it. One thinks it’s too dangerous and expensive. The other thinks the incentives to try are too powerful to avoid it.

I hesitate to predict the future, but so far everyone who has said, “this is the biggest and baddest X anyone will ever build,” has been wrong. Unless that trend reversed, sooner or later we will build a strong artificial intelligence.

And if you (actually) believe in equality, those affordances should apply to all.

Assuming one actually believes it’s an affordance, as opposed to a pointless inconvenience and cash grab. I suspect those whose views you’re attempting to impugn generally have the latter viewpoint.

If Google were that smart, it would be pretty impressive. But I doubt we are.

I wonder if people making this comparison will appreciate the irony if someday it proves that the same situation applies here (I.e. user error).

Even if they hadn’t, the PS2 is one of the greatest consoles of all time. It would have been a difficult competitor to go against.

If the retail investors don’t like the price, they are not obligated to buy. Caveat emptor. They wanted to make a quick buck, and I guess that’s fine. It’s nice to want things. I feel precisely zero pity for them.

It serves as an important reminder that amid all the hoopla around trading debuts, small investors wind up taking a lot of the risk.

Speculators take on a lot of the risk, whether they be small or large.

Well, maybe. Or it shows that they hired people who were relatively comp insensitive, possibly due to being unable to command higher wages elsewhere. Hard to know.

I suspect this is just stale data. I can’t think why the most recent version of a browser would put me at one in a thousand.

Does it really provide that much entropy? Maybe back in the days when browsers didn’t auto-update, but intuitively it should only provide about four bits at most (os: Android iOS macOS windows, browser: chrome safari edge ie ff) except for a few rare users who don’t stay up to date or choose a weird browser (and those folks probably are a little confused about how privacy works).

I like the original more without your embellishment. The addition sounds like every attempt at follow up humor on reddit.

You say “however”, but doesn’t this just reflect the same problem? There are a lot of people with phds who want these jobs, so they are willing to accept these adjunct positions. In the past, when there were fewer excess phds, nobody would have accepted a position under these terms.

Personally, I have no problem with professors getting paid less. My only objection is that these savings don’t appear to be passed on to students. When we get much more efficient at manufacturing computer hardware, one of the benefits is that anyone can buy a capable device for $300 or less. But when we get more efficient at generating phds, and therefore have a much greater supply of teachers, the savings are not apparent in tuition prices.

What I'm asking is if we as a public really want our payment processors to be making these moral judgements?

Apparently we do, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.

Sadly, those kinds of misreportings are common in other countries and places too. My own home of New York City has been hit by a number of underreporting scandals. I have no reason to believe they are less common elsewhere than Japan. So I still think national crime statistics provide the best basis for comparison.

We don’t have to assume that Japan is safe. We have statistics for that.

I wonder what including and using this does to compile times. Nothing good, I suspect.

Building permanent fixtures is right out if you don’t have a yard, this is true. However the urban environment offers a lot of other beneficial things that kids in the suburbs rarely experience (as one who grew up there): regular interaction with people from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, lots of walking and use of shared transportation resources, and a shot at earlier independence, since you don’t have to drive to get where you’re going. Also, we do have parks, they just aren’t as big as the ones in the burbs. On the other hand, I take my kids to the park far more often than I was taken as a child, since it’s less than a five minute walk away.

Anyway, it’s fine to worry but personally I’d try to hold off until there’s some empirical evidence that there is a problem. If there is (“study shows kids raised in city are maladjusted” — after controlling for all other variables), I’m not aware of it.

On one’s own property, it should be the default that one may draw the line where one pleases. Or delegate one’s authority to agents — employees — who will handle the question.

As far as your personal interests go, again the presumption should be that if it isn’t your property, and you have no contracts stating otherwise, it isn’t yours to decide whether a decision is made in your own personal best interest.