T_S_

And try mixtral on chat.groq.com

Amazing Fact (TM): I've been throwing right-handed for my whole life. Make me throw lefty and I throw like a girl. Something to do with an urgent need to get base runners out.

Another Amazing Fact (TM): If you play catch with an Aussie, notice their motion will be more overhanded than yours, if you are a Yank.

It's nurture not nature here. Go get a softball and try to fast pitch. I bet there's a girl nearby that could beat you.

Let's take some highly desirable attributes in an employee and give them a label "Rockstar". Er, no. "Founder".

When words are the currency of persuasion, expect inflation.

Here's what happens in the middle of a big Haskell project.

1) Take some existing code.

2) Refactor (Add a feature, change a record element, etc.)

3) Run ghc, then fix all the errors it reports. Repeat this step as needed.

4) Done.

What would be different in python? For one, no compile errors means very little. How many test cases would you need? How would you find all the places the code must change?

Lesson: A tough, smart compiler can be the programmer's best friend.

Meta-lesson: There is little need to discuss laziness, purity or static typing to "sell" Haskell. They are enablers of ghc. What you need is a big, complicated code base and an urgent need to make changes to it. You won't have that until you get your feet wet.

Is Haskell perfect? No, but I'll save that for an OP that is overhyping the language.

What technology does is send some the prices of some actions from infinity to nearly zero. Meanwhile humans remain pretty much unchanged.

Ever notice how little policy is actually discussed even when a supposed policy wonk (e.g. Clinton, Ryan) are giving the speech?

You are not exactly going to negotiate at moments like these.

Instead of "Capitalism is...beautiful" ideology it would be worth focussing on when it works and when it doesn't. Seems that there is strong evidence that capitalism harness human nature, property rights, and incentives to enable production. That's great. There is a lot less discussion about what it takes for markets to allocate resources efficiently. Two of the bigger prerequisites are "no externalities" and "symmetric information". Capitalism has no built-in mechanism to establish these conditions. A lot of our problems today go right to those factors. We could do something about it if our politicians would stop playing to the cheap seats. Sorry capitalism, you're ok but not that beautiful.

A year later, the judge retired and published his memoir. A big surprise awaited. He had begun his career as an ACLU lawyer in the 60s but wound up with a tough reputation among the defense bar.

An even bigger surprise awaited me. He devoted a chapter to explaining how hopeless the jury system is. To illustrate, he told the story of a murder case. My murder case. I read, "Never was a defendant more plainly guilty". I agreed, with some relief, but was confused. Why this case?

Turns out my trial was the second trial. At the first, some of the female jurors refused to convict. The defendant was "too good looking to have committed the crime", in their opinion. Mistrial. Then I recalled how, in our later trial, two female jurors wanted to find a way to justify a manslaughter conviction for what was clearly deliberate murder. They felt sorry for the handsome young defendant.

You be the judge (or jury), but if I had not lived it, I would not have believed this could happen.

Me: Hi Steve, remember how I asked all the managers to me with their direct reports 1-on-1 at least once every six months.

Steve: No, when was that?

Me: Never mind. I heard that Tim didn't do that.

Steve: Do what?

Me: Meet with his direct reports. 1-on-1.

Steve: Oh yeah. Reminds me, great Celtics game last night, huh?

Me: I tivo'd it and caught the last 5 minutes live. Saves a shitload of time wasted on commercials. Cable is gonna die a painful death. What were we talking about? Oh yeah. Please tell Tim to follow up or I will be pissed.

Steve: Sure you don't want to tell him yourself? He never listens to me.

Me: OK, maybe tomorrow. Remind me in 24 hours.

These days that would correspond to forking the spec. So unlike an open source programming, it is not nice to fork the spec.

Or is it?

Whenever I walk through airport security, I have Osama to thank for the millimeter wave inspection. And for the pain of raising money from non-accredited investors I have hundreds of historical and would-be scammers to thank. Bad guys make us limit our freedom.

Although we ask the government to protect us, they usually mess it up by ham-handed regulation. At the airport, the big show makes us feel safer, even though some experts say we aren't. The same thing has been going on in finance for years with Congress and regulators asleep at the switch with no idea how to control the bankers. They lack imagination and incentives.

We need to completely rethink regulation for investment vehicles. The goal should be to improve post-issuance transparency. Real transparency.

First thing we need is a live feed of transactions logs. All of them. Dirt cheap these days. No fancy accounting, I'll model the company myself thanks. I can share models with fellow investors. I/you/we can sell modeling capability to investors. More sunlight--less corruption, less risk.

The lack of transparency and disclosure that may about to be enshrined in Regulation A is like handing out the box cutters on the airplane to al Qaeda. The threat is not you or me. It's scammers. Right now about all the protection Mom will have is the SEC banning "bad actors" years later--if they get caught. Just like they caught Madoff. Professional financial accounting? Enron's books were audited by a top firm.

Instead regulation should require you to show me the money, continuously, with timestamps, please. Oh, and send me my government mandated Salesforce.com login too please. Let's do for banks too. Make it fair for everyone.

OK, now you can sell my Mom your stock.