echion

All generalizations are over-generalizations?

GP is a fair comment, actually: nobody that knows anything about how risk works wants to see a returns number. If a fund doesn't backtest against IR, or penalize for volatility, it's not going to be getting significant investments.

Ditto - plus gets you around to interact with co-workers, which is also a benefit.

> I can remember the pain and hand fatigue that cursive writing gave me

I remember the pain too, having written a lot, and in cursive, in school; I'm not saying it's easier to write a lot, just that I've heard and anecdotally observed that very young kids have motor skills that seem better suited to the continuous movement of joined-up letters.

Which studies? "Fine motor" appears exactly once in the article:

> And every time I hear of a young child turned off writing because he lacks the fine motor skills needed to master cursive [...] I see [confirmation bias].

Seems to ignore the fact that picking up and putting down the writing point is actually harder for small children than just sliding the writing implement along the paper. Also consider the popularity of "Swype"-style keyboards, since continuous sliding a finger across a surface is, for many, easier than discrete screen presses.

Sources: personal experience and anecdotes from teachers of 4-6 yr olds (an age range not given the most, if any, time in the article).

> There's a well documented reason why there are a lot of single men in Japan.

What is that reason? (Serious question)

What's the name of the laser procedure you had?

In the US and UK one can get ~80mg (75, 81) OTC, at any drug store / chemist.

tl;dr: data processing is getting automated. This is just a dramatisation (and a bit of a summary) of normal process automation. Nothing to see here.

They're unnecessary, but mainly because tractors have equipment that do this anyway. So unless it's needed more frequently than when the tractor's driving around, it's probably not worth the extra cost.

I think you're agreeing with the post to which you're replying.

What's on your shortlist of "more mature [with same or more functionality]" ones?

> I’m kinda bummed out that Python devs decided not to backport Python type hints in Python2.7.

Can't comment on the site itself, so: PEP 484 - Type hints ( https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#suggested-syntax-f... ) does suggest Python 2.7-compatible type hints, and PyCharm, and probably other IDEs, do support them (e.g., https://www.jetbrains.com/help/pycharm/type-hinting-in-pycha... ).

> personal connection there - a meetup or hackerspace

HKGers should check out DimSumLabs ( https://www.meetup.com/dimsumlabs/ ) as a really nice bunch (at least when I was there).

Looks great -- excited to try it out.

And the joke is buried at the end!

> if you can generate alpha on the strange "homomorphically encrypted" data they've got, you can do it in the actual market with transparent data and more control far more profitably.

Sure. Now go get "transparent data"...oh wait, that's also time-consuming (and much less interesting). That's why, if one doesn't have to search for tradable data, it might be interesting to validate a signal/strategy on data that someone with stake says is tradable.

Agreed that if one starts making numerai money with numerai data, one should definitely go get some transparent data and start trading it. Trouble is, now one doesn't know what transparent data one has actually learned, so it's hard to know what to go and spend time on trading.

At that point, though, (I guess this is the theory, at least), numerai presumably know that one has a good signal, and one also knows one has a good signal for something, so both parties know that one's signals are valuable. That should be enough to get one a job at a place that does have good, transparent data.

> I'm already doing bank screen scraping for myself

Any tools you recommend, or is it all hand-rolled?

This sounds really interesting -- can you share anything else, or pieces of the pipeline...especially topic modeling?

This (nbviewer.js)[1] is really amazingly quick and useful as a notebook viewer.

1. https://github.com/kokes/nbviewer.js

For example: "Trading on Private Information: Evidence from Members of Congress" (2016) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2712297

EDIT: Also "Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives" (2011) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politic...

The car isn't being opened by B; it's being opened by A, and B is jammed and stored for later use. See other comment about the attacker always being "one [code] ahead" of the legitimate key fob user.

It's regular expression syntax for, roughly, "substitute 'mary' for ' total'", which transforms "sum total" - " total" + "mary" --> "summary.

Paragraph 14[0] clearly states violations as a consequence of ORS 672.007(1)(c)[1] using the definition in ORS 672.005(1)(b)[2]:

"by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".

I agree his affirmative defenses are inadequate, but I'm not taking issue with the analysis of his defense. I simply am pointing out the justification used in Paragraph 14 is concerning. ORS672.005(1)(b) is way too broad.

[0] - https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed [1] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 [2] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005

Understood - I read those exceptions and his attempt to use them. Obviously neither exception applies; but it's the fact that the definition of engineering in ORS 672.005(b)[0] is so broad is worrying. Saying that I can do some math and create a nice graph for my neighbor, but not post it on imgur without a fine, is a step too far for my taste.

[0] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005

Thanks -- I did use '>' but didn't wrap the lines myself, assuming the single '> lots of text here' was enough.

The Board's Final Report said, in a separate paragraph (14), that because "thinking and speech" (speech about his thinking, not "I'm an engineer")[1] were a violation of the law.

If you're arguing the board doesn't actually think that's a violation unless one also said one is an engineer, great, I've never disagreed with that; but they explicitly said "because [action definition X] you are in violation" and [definition X] pointedly does not include saying anything but "here's a creative application of math and stuff".

1. not the part where he said "I'm an engineer" -- the other paragraphs deal with that

I'm saying the Board's justification clearly says, irrespective of whether he said he was an engineer, just engaging in the practice of [creative work using mathematics and engineering knowledge] is subject to registration.

I mean, if he hadn't said he was an engineer to Licensed Engineers many times, I agree nobody would have bothered. But now that they've bothered, their justifications matter.

> You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public

If the argument is "he said he was an 'engineer' and he isn't licensed", that's fine. And the Board's Final Report contains a lot of language establishing that, and for that he can be fined.

But the Board's Report goes out of its way to say that ORS 672.005(c) and ORS 672.002 define "practicing engineering" as quite close to just "calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public", and that just practicing engineering in this manner without registration is not allowed. Check Section 14 of the Final Report. It makes no reference to "purporting to be an engineer": it's "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".

> The issue that the Board has is that he claimed to be an engineer in a public forum.

That's not the only issue the Board said it had, and not the most important one at that:

> [...] you continued to use the title "engineer" in your communication with Board staff and, of more concern, are the documents you provided that indicate you may have engaged in unlicensed engineering work in Oregon.

(emphasis mine). It's the emphasized clause, and the Board's Final Report, page 6, Section 14[1], that is concerning: he's being punished mainly ("of more concern"!) for doing thinking and speech that, IMO, should not be prohibited.

1. https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed