VodkaHaze

I don't think it's a male fantasy. I also don't think it's biological. Just look at how women and men are socialized from a young age.

Example: up until recently, many young girls in the west grew up on Disney princesses. Rewatch the movies, and pay attention to the female protagonists in those movies being active vs passive agents. Most are passive -- they're simply dealt a series of events (which generally happen only because they are beautiful or otherwise intrinsically valuable, not because of how they act).

Being exposed to those narratives from a very young age surely has an effect on identity, personality formation, etc.

Now, now, I doubt FF has 700! ~= 10^174 CVEs

The next step up from those CPUs really is going to be dual xeon boxes, which is a huge jump.

Intel tried to do enough market segmentation that the curve from a Pentium all the way up to dual CPU workstations was fairly continuous in price, with zen it's not the case anymore.

I wonder when the fixed costs of upgrading will be less than the operating costs of inefficient 15 year old hardware

Importantly, a very strong communicator of scientific work.

His passion shined through in the videos he made, which any non-expert could understand.

> The only question that remains is: Stupidity or malevolence?

Stupidity. On your end. Let me address your claims one by one.

> the end of Bretton Woods

Ending Bretton Woods was voluntary. The gold standard leads to volatile inflation; look at the graph in [1]. Volatile inflation is bad because it makes transactions that take time to repay uncertain, see this video [2] for a layman explanation

> the early 80s recession, the 2000 and 2008 economic crisis

If economists at a central bank can foresee a crisis, the crisis doesn't happen. Full stop. What you are left, is, by definition, the ones people who work in regulation didn't see coming. Also note that those crises weren't foreseen by almost anyone, because of the nature of markets.

If you want to prevent crises, you need to put regulation up front that discourages the kind of short-sighted and reckless managerial and shareholder behavior that leads to those.

Hinging the stability of the economic system on the ability to catch an upcoming crisis in the making is doomed to fail, because you need a 100% accuracy (like making a system unhackable -- negative goals are much harder than positive goals).

> the currency race to the bottom

Do you mean low positive inflation, or are you buying into Donal Trump's talking points? Because if it's the former, it's intended, if it's the latter, I'm sorry to say you'll need sources to convince anyone that that's indeed something that exists.

All in all, what your post translates to is "I don't understand any of these things but I'm angry", which is not the right way to advise policy.

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/US_Infla...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfM1utsEEZA

I mean, even the Google style guide says to avoid complicated template metaprogramming, unless necessary

The best I found are CppCon youtube videos, really

Just so you know, there are really powerful "classical statistics" classifier models! Like ordered or multinomial logit/probit which you can incorporate latent classes into, etc. Reference book for those is here[1]

[1] http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wgreene/DiscreteChoice/Readings/...

Thanks!

In multiplayer zero sum game, it still works to Nash.

Intuitively, in a zero sum game, running CFR on one player will find him best responses for the strategies he's playing against. Doing this for multiple players finds corresponding best responses, which is the definition of a Nash Equilibrium.

In non-zero sum game CFR only converges to correlated equilibrium, which is a much weaker equilibrium than a Nash equilibrium.

CFR is based on the method of "regret matching", which is a policy update method. Roughly, it says every iteration, the probability you take an action is equal to the fraction of its cumulative counterfactual regret over total cumulative counterfactual regret for all actions.

The cool thing about it is that it provably converges to nash equilibrium in zero sum game, and to correlated equilibria in non-zero sum games.

Not really, because CFR is not only taking regret as the loss function, but also the method of "regret matching". That is making the mixed strategy probabilities in the next iteration equal the cumulative counterfactual regret (which you keep track of while iterating).

I agree. If you are going to bash C#, call it by its proper name, Java++

That said its still a fine language. Not a fan of the dogmatic OO design concept in Java and C#, but it's perfectly good at what it does.

So you cherish the memories, not the thing

> fling raw pointers around with abandon.

Jitters in seat

Do you still need the costly intel compiler suite to run some C++ code on it?

Honestly they make it pretty hard to hack with as a device. It could succeed as a device if they let devs easily create cool applications with it.

Moreover, most hard problems are simply proven hard because they incorporate a hard problem.

Eg. Many proofs that say "this problem is NP-Hard" just prove that "you would have to solve xyz NP-Hard problem to solve this"

Can't PM you, but willing to get one going.

Julia is another option. You can even call R and python code from a Julia REPL.

You generally want an interactive language, though, because there is an iterative cycle in prototyping models.

See I'm fine with all of what you just said. The problem comes at the next step, "Testable claims are dubious so XYZ."

Being skeptical is healthy. Inferring from your skepticism is not. Inferring leads to refusing vaccines, embracing homeopathic medicine, or asserting that a $15 federal minimum wage will have no disemployment effects in rural US counties.

You can say that objective reality is dubious. But if you use that to subvert claims that survive testing, you're making a positive statement and you need a testable alternative. In any other case, what you're doing is using philosophy to push ideology by discrediting established facts.

I think we should separate "empiricism here is currently difficult" to "absolutely impossible"

Some fields of social science are undergoing internal turmoil (eg. Macroeconomics and some subfields of psychology). This is a good sign; old models are being discarded as new evidence and better methods pop up. In fact, I'm more concerned about sociology, where there wasn't a replication crisis.

Facts are being improved upon when you see crisis in replication. That's a sign of a healthy field of study.

As an econometrics/labor econ grad student, I can tell you I (and most of macro) could answer many questions definitively if we could do things we absolutely should not (eg. Run RCTs on real cities on things like the minimum wage). In microeconomics, we've resorted mainly to look for the effect of exogenous shocks on systems we care about (eg. The Muriel boatlift made a few studies on local unemployment/immigration due to the exogenous shocks nature of the event)

There's a difference between the positive (this thing is like that) and the normative (this should be like that).

Positive questions are subject to empiricism, period. There is no cop out saying a positive statement is not testable. Even prohibitively difficult empirical questions (like in macroeconomics, psychology, biology, etc.) Are subject to testing.

Normative questions can be discussed without empiricism, correct, but you can't use this to infer on how things are. So if you want to say there should be no objective reality,fine. If you say that factual statements are a tool of oppression because there is no objective reality, you stepped into the testable.

Cultural criticism threads this line back and forth in a much too cavalier fashion. If you make a statement about how culture is, you've made a testable statement. There are plenty of ways to test cultural expectations, ask empirical psychologists and sociologists

The problem is that postmodernism tends to make positive claims, but there's no empiricism to back it up.

If you're going to say everything is up to interpretation, you're making a positive claim. That requires empirical proof, at least in the rigorous social sciences.

Otherwise, your entire literature and peer review process is subject to the prior beliefs of the reviewers. That can, and has, led to an equilibrium state of ideological homogeneity in some subfields of sociology and philosophy (also some edge cases of cavalier empiricism passing review when it confirms priors in, say, social psychology). Once enough of a group thinks the same things, and ideas are not held up to some positive external standard, outside ideas don't get in anymore.

The hate for postmodernism expresses the disdain for an ideological group trying to give credence to its ides without being subject to the same standard as other ideas in science, social or not.

Get a team of high level economists in your central bank and economic advisory board.

Start with curbing hyperinflation. That's been done before several times. Do what is known to work. There are some macroeconomic PhDs whose wet dream is to have a case so clear cut like this where they can make a difference. Put them in your central bank and have them get to work.

Remove price controls right away on just about everything that is price controlled. Same for supply control/management.

Get the minimum wage back down. Hell put it too low until you have a partial equilibrium to intuit a "correct" MW level to base it on.

That sounds like a lovely workstation. I had a dream machine of overclocking a dual x5670 xeon machine, but motherboards that let you do that now are too rare and expensive.

I mean for the average use case, a 5 year old pc generally has the compute capability.

Gaming requires updating (though 32nm cpus are still perfectly fine).

Scientific computing will move to the cloud soon enough, as you either need absurd capabilities, or a recent laptop is generally powerful enough for data science (depending on the usecase).

Hell, I dusted off a 10 year old core2duo HP laptop and it does most of what I need it to (browsing, jupyter notebooks, etc.) fine. The one common app that's painful to use it with is Facebook and other sites that became a sort of monstrosity (the ones with 40 NoScript dependencies you need to whitelist to see content)

The chip auto-overclocks, too, which seems really cool

Disagree. Gate's main point is that the book is not rigorous, but it's based on a peer review literature (just making it accessible to laymen). So while some more technical people might get annoyed at the lack of rigor, it doesn't mean that it's not there, they just don't harass you with p values and endogeneity tests in the book.

Holy crap this is depressing. I'm happy that the state of the art in economics, currently, is to post working papers and preprints online.

This has the side effects of papers being cited before being published, and turning out to be bad, but is certainly a huge net positive overall.

It's rare to not be able to find a free pdf preprint of an economics paper written in the last 6-7 years, which is great.