underwoodley

The furniture you make yourself is a) unique and b) not artificially scarce.

Isn't it more likely that you don't know your employer as well as market analysts, but that you do have much more severe cognitive biases?

It's possible that a) diet isn't that hard to figure out and b) gamifying, quantifying, testing, and over-extrapolation from isolated scientific results make people confused and much less effective at making the right decisions consistently, which is the part they really need help with.

The welfare state (in the UK) has existed since people who are now 87 were entering the workforce. It used to be a lot more generous.

There is no test for having worked your whole life needed to get an old age pension. Unemployment benefit claimants get a National Insurance stamp.

The Quora discussion doesn't seem to add much. Just a guy saying 'FreeBSD is rock-solid' and '[for] raw performance, .. nothing beats FreeBSD', without giving any technical details.

Based on Neil Gorsuch having worked for him, the secretive billionaire seems to be Philip Anschutz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz

New Yorker article about 'a secretive mogul's entertainment kingdom': https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/16/the-man-who-ow...

This guy worked for the California office of Homeland Security, now works for Anschutz's company: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewbettenhausen

(I don't know anything, and I'm not claiming anything about the GP's allegation or their truthfulness. Just wanted to save others the time of making the same Google searches.)

You should be aware that this is a very questionable documentary and the makers of the documentary who are now the presenters of the TV show have been credibly accused of faking footage and exploiting the subject.

Some journalists and film critics have cast doubt on the filmmakers motivations. Kyle Buchanan of MovieLine questions why the filmmakers would begin obsessively documenting Nev's online relationship so early on, and argues that it is highly improbable that media-savvy professionals like the Schulmans and Joost would not use the Internet to research Megan and her family before meeting them. Buchanan and others have suggested that the filmmakers likely discovered the fabrications in Wesselman-Pierce's story earlier than is presented in the film and pretended to be fooled only so that they could exploit her story for the documentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish_(film)#Authenticity

Is it possible that Boulder and San Francisco are actually quite different places?

Funny, I've often heard X programming described as 'not trivially easy'.

I don't see these programs as fundamentally different. The only material different is that one uses a GOTO and the other uses a while loop.

But I don't think either of these is more intuitive. When you learnt how a GOTO works, you probably learnt immediately afterwards how to use it to loop. This loop is a 'pattern', one which you would have to grok as a single idea before you could write a program like the above. This is similar to learning about a while loop, and then knowing you would need one when you wrote the Python script.

I stand corrected. I wrongly believed that many of these including Fejer and von Neumann were not Jewish.

I think the comparison with other populations such as Poland still seems to point out that something about Hungary in the 20th century was special, other than the presence of many Jewish people.

You don't have to be curious for more than five minutes. Several of those mentioned are Jewish, but most of them are not. There are not disproportionately more Jewish Hungarian mathematicians, compared to the proportion of say, Jewish people in Budapest before WWII, or the proportion of Jewish people in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Looking only at the first half of the twentieth century, there at least as many world-ranking mathematicians from Hungary as from Poland, a country with a strong mathematical tradition, a much larger population, and a massively larger Jewish population (around a quarter of the Jewish people in the world in the 1930s).

It's worth adding that comparing the proportion of Jewish Nobel prize winners to Jewish people in the world might not be a fair comparison. Much of this can probably be explained by the strong correlation between being European (including Russian/Soviet) or American, and being a Nobel prize winner.

Also Fejér, Turán, Rényi, F. Riesz and M. Riesz, Bollobás

It's difficult to generalize, but by pretty much any metric you choose Hungary produced a massively disproportionate share of the outstanding mathematicians of the twentieth century.

I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make.

Yes, that's the word "should", which I used.

This entire article is an idea Joel Spolsky wrote about five years ago: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2012/07/09/software-inventory...

That sounds like in the world of stocks, a competitor could come along and decide to split the stocks of MY company from the outside

That's not really a good analogy. Suppose someone decided to offer one of their securities (or pay a dividend, or give some 'thing') to everyone who has one of your company's shares. All investors have to do is show a share certificate, and get a one-off gift proportional to how many they own.

If the new thing has value, your company's shares should all go up in value by roughly its value. Then shares which have already had the thing claimed, should go down by the same amount, leaving them roughly where they were before. If you decide not to claim the thing, you lose out by its value, but your original shares are still the same and you shouldn't have made a loss on them, just as a result of this split.

Of course, if the new thing is something which competes with your company, your company's shares might go down in response. But this isn't directly related to the value of a share in the new thing.

if 'cashless payment via touching a card' is what I think it is, it is completely widespread in London, in all shops/restaurants, and also on public transport.

It is more real because she believes that the father spends time with her each week because he loves her and wants to look after her.

In every social interaction we can never really be certain of the other person's motivations or feelings about us, or even if they really have feelings as opposed to being an automaton or a hallucination. In many cases it doesn't really matter that much. When a waiter smiles and laughs with us, they might just be thinking about their tip and how much their shoes hurt, but we can still enjoy their company.

Parenthood, romantic love, close friendship are not like this. They rely on a deep level of trust. If you pretended to be my lover, it wouldn't be enough to say "well you couldn't tell and you enjoyed it". There is an implicit shared emotional connection.

In particular, children need to be able to trust their parents.

This is a pretty standard way of doing mental multiplication. The interesting thing about the method in the article is that it involves binary not base 10.

That's not a selection bias. It's (if true) an actual part of the cause of Netflix engineers being happy with their job. If the headline 'People who have worked at Netflix at some time in the past are happier' then yes, only asking people who are still there would be selection bias.

From an economic point of view, wasting people's time in exchange for a free service is worse than either charging them what the market can bear, or providing a free service. If you charged them, you would benefit. If you didn't charge, the users would benefit. But if you make a demand on their time which doesn't have any benefit for you, both of you are worse off.

What is the strong evidence in support of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon?

The GP (in both senses) means this: they want it to be simple. So simple they are not aware of how it works. If they have to know about 'the cloud', 'sharing', 'syncing', where the photos are stored, etc., then it's not simple enough.

I take it your tax money has never been used to repair the widespread damage to society caused by a too lightly regulated industry. It blows.

The problems with this 'psychological explanation'

1. It is just as unscientific as saying that Facebook MUST be listening, without finding any evidence in the workings of phones, app source code, etc. Almost by definition, there is no experimental evidence for the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.

2. It posits that everyone who has experienced this is unsophisticated and ignorant about cognitive distortion. Clearly, some people who believe that Facebook is listening to them talk also believe that there were no planes on September 11th, etc. However, many many people today have a good understanding of psychology, are well aware of (basic) cognitive biases, have thought about these experiences. People also have experiences of unlikely events but which have well understood or easy-to-estimate probabilities, which didn't occur much historically. Lots of people can distinguish quite well between their own illusory biases and events which are coincidental, but not 'in the mind'. Some of these people seem to also believe their speech has found its way into advertisers' profiles.

Also, Googling something on your phone is so common and easy nowadays that people just forget that they did it. It's literally become an integral part of the thinking process.

I'm pretty sure you can clear your cookies on a normal browser and reset the number of remaining articles for the month.

You didn't challenge the statement to GP made, but one he didn't make. He didn't say that landlords are vastly richer than workers. He said that landlords make little or no contribution to the general welfare.

Your own comment points out that in SF, the median landlord makes roughly what the median software developer makes. But a software developer in the Bay Area is one of the most productive workers on the planet, with a literally unparalleled opportunity to generate value, both for the company he works for, and for global society/consumers in general. In contrast, the landlord does not produce anything.