88 karma · joined January 27, 2021
Must a website direct the user to log into their MS account before it is able to get a hold of the user's global ID information?
I thought I had it lucky with my measly 25GB of lifetime storage. Have been using Dropbox for free for well over a decade – I would pay but their entry level plan far exceeds what I need.
At the moment I'm using Espanso, an open source software that lets users map typed character sequences to unicode. So it's possible to set things up in such a way that typing the character sequence ";" "a" ";" makes Espanso replace the entire ;a; string with the greek symbol alpha α.
Symbols like ⇒ that can kind of be "drawn" with common keyboard characters "=" ">" is possibly nice to be mapped to the character sequence ;=>; This is a personal preference inspired by Typst's math notation design choice.
1. With some brokerages, retail orders are prioritized for dark venues over lit ones (i.e., first routed to see if they can be fulfilled on dark venues, otherwise, then route to lit ones) where they are essentially trading against more knowledgeable participants. A common argument in favor of this, oft cited by dark pool operators and affliated brokerages is that on average, historically, better prices for all participants have been attained with the assistance of dark pools.
Relatedly, on many trading venues, even lit ones, trade orders are demarcated to distinguish between retail and non-retail – a feature visible to larger participants like MMs and one would imagine high volume participants – which is essentially extra information to a subset of participants that indicate that an order is safer to trade against.
2. Dark venues operate outside the standard public exchange framework. Trade orders are not _as_ visible to the broader market. This lack of transparency can disadvantage retail, who don’t have equal insight into the supply or demand of shares. This opacity possibly hinders price discovery of the "real" price.
Also, for a large number of roles, people are judged by the net value that they've contributed (net of mistakes). In a pretty large subset of such roles, it's usually the case that small-ish mistakes result in small-ish penalties, or sizeable penalties that aren't apparent immediately – so in the short-term, the here and now, folks in these roles are incentivized to focus on the big picture, and to ignore what they might feel could cause small-ish mistakes.
Consider a person involved with the modification of city street infrastructure to better cater for bikes. It's pretty good by most people's standards to have made progress by building reasonably use-able bike pathways, stands, etc. in say, a 4 km radius in a year. If it just so happens that like three out of, say, sixty of such constructs are problematic (mistakes) but they aren't big-ish problems, then on the whole, this person would be, quite justly, credited for having contributed to at least fifty seven functioning constructs; all in all, pretty good work despite three problematic constructs.
Of course, not all types of work is like that. That is, not all work are that forgiving in the sense that most earnest mistakes turn out to be small ones relative to the overall value produced. E.g., trading: algorithmic or otherwise.
Now, just a note in closing, the distribution of the price of mistakes in a given role is a different matter, can be an art in that it involves qualitative judgement, may be largely sensitive to context, and may be quite opinionated depending on who is reached for comment.
Overall, I think it's a project worth playing around with, and who knows, traction could start building up.
1. jobs that are monetarily incentivized in this way are quite common though.
2. for certain kinds of jobs, if an employer desires employees to go the "long, hard, stupid way" while short-cuts lie in plain sight, the employer might wish to incorporate forms of incentives and disincentives into their payout system rather than rely on their employee to "just do it".
In Princeton, he [John Von Neumann] received complaints for regularly playing extremely loud German march music on his phonograph, which distracted those in neighboring offices, including Albert Einstein, from their work. Von Neumann did some of his best work in noisy, chaotic environments, and once admonished his wife for preparing a quiet study for him to work in. He never used it, preferring the couple's living room with its television playing loudly.
References
> I started to only want to publish the best things, so I didn't publish at all. ...
> When I try to make the best thing, I become less happy, actually I become paralyzed. ...
> When I try to make the best thing, it feels different. It feels like I'm trying to prove something to someone instead of trying to discover something for myself. ... I'm just me, so I should make me things.
Pleasantly surprised to have chanced upon this piece of writing which has, in a few short paragraphs, captured a series of complex emotions I'd think are common among creators.
Practically I think it helps to be in touch with a community of creators who can offer support, guidance and empathy.
Personally I am far from mastering my emotions to the point where I'm comfortable putting my not-best creations up for public criticism/discussion while simultaneously recognizing the need to build up courage and wisdom to do so. I think for some this aversion partly stems from their upbringing's (family, education system, peer expectations) lack of openness/encouragement to exploration and failure to tolerate failure (failure comes hand in hand with exploration).
While eschewing failure appears to be of little detriment to the "cog in the machine", cultures that have yet figured out how to discuss, accept, and tolerate failures are destined to avoid innovation. People who are serious about creating/innovating should find means of coping with people who are overly critical/ dismissive of "not-best" iterative attempts.
Footnotes:
[1] Took the liberty of generalizing the author's post by replacing the act of publishing which was the author's original focus to "X" with the intention of having "X" being any activity.
>I don’t think people should go back to a prior employer.
Personally, I don't think that going back to a prior employer is a bad look. I've seen colleagues who left and came back in a more senior role.
> Research should never be driven by success, because the pursuit of it either disheartens, or beguiles, even the greatest of men. An ideal Research should truly ever be ignited by curiosity. It should be fueled by the desire to know. And it should be done for the pursuit of truth and truth alone, no matter what it is. Feynman investigated the curious wobbles only for the pure joy of satiation. And the rest, as they say, is history:
> "I went on to work out equations of wobbles. Then I thought about how electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there’s the Dirac Equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it (it was a very short time) I was “playing”–working, really –with the same old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problems; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things. It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was. The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate."
- Sir, you have to install this application, it's available on both iOS and the Google Play Store.
- Do you have a Debian package?
- Give me a moment to check our database of alternative OSes.. Why yes, yes, we do have this as a Debian package.
- ... Well... is the app truly compulsory?
- Yes Sir, indeed it is I'm afraid. Security, safety and all that.
- ...
That's my understanding as well.
> it's a convenient talking point in the west
When online comments get worked up about The Social Credit System, a key thing I believe they're trying to do is spread awareness of how disturbing it is that a government is even considering such a thing that, as we understand it, is closely related to being a core technology in an authoritarian dystopia.
While it's not implemented at scale, the unnerving fact is that govt policy makers did a careful enough take on a social credit system to decide that it was worthwhile investing (probably non-trivial amounts of ) money and resources into exploring it and did eventually reach a point where they were a handful of steps short of wide-scale implementation.