Eh...Facebook's use the word "friend" as a verb has not eroded my deep and meaningful sense of the word as a noun. It's just another use which has been added to our cultural context. It's up to you to let it change your perspective on friendship.
2,196 karma · joined June 28, 2020
With the very important proviso that the events you're uncertain about are at least probabilistically quantifiable and the "priors" are credible. It's very easy to write a long winded essay arriving at any conclusion you want if it's a subject with significant uncertainty and you can make a halfway decent appeal to whatever priors you want.
Nevermind that the first principles lose all context of the original issue - we're in a world of pure logic, where we can use theorems! To the rationalist community, everything looks like a good opportunity to write a lengthy essay reinventing the wheel with Bayes theorem. It's a cargo cult of basic statistics dressing up otherwise uninteresting arguments.
It's very tedious for people like myself who actually studied statistics and apply it professionally. Bayes theorem is barely even a theorem - it's literally a basic rearrangement of the axioms of probability. It's not some supreme revelation that imbues arguments with more credibility. Most of the time I see it invoked in discussion, it's not even rigorously quantified. You can choose arbitrary priors, so at the end of the day you never arrive at an objective truth. It's profundity for its own sake, and nothing is really achieved.
> It does not take a deliberate will behind something for it to be pulled toward this sort of inequality, and presenting it as if that's what's happened suggests that if we could only defeat the Evil People who "engineered" it this way, we could make it better.
...but then also this:
> ...to inhibit the flow of money upward from the 99% to the 1%. It's hard, it will take a long time, the people with the most wealth and power will fight us every step of the way...
So maybe there are "evil" people and deliberation at work, and it's not just emergent complexity?
Do you have a source for this? I don't believe it. I tried searching for a few mins and couldn't find anything to confirm it either.
I wouldn't be surprised if cyclists die in their sleep often due to drug use. But I would be very surprised if you can literally overtrain your heart to the point of dying in your sleep due to low resting heart rate.
Sure - to which my next question becomes, are you actually good at it? If you're not, I don't professionally care if you personally enjoy it.
I think if you put a hobby on a resume for the purpose of signaling some kind of orthogonal skillset ostensibly related to the job (like in this example, "strategy"), it stops being just about your personality and becomes explicitly performance-oriented. And I would even argue your resume is not the play to round out your personality, because it's such an overly subjective and bias-inducing thing.
So no it's not high. But I'm impressed if they were able to accurately quantify that less than 600 users were impacted by this race condition.
In particular:
> But if the market crashes, and very badly, how might that affect my life? To make a good decision I would need to think of all the things that come with a market crash (job loss, savings loss). This is not statistics.
This is all statistics, not just the part where you're forecasting likelihood of the market crashing. The reason is because making decisions about the future under the constraints of uncertainty implicitly involves a forecast. When you decide how to diversify your personal investment portfolio, how much to allocate to your Roth versus traditional IRA or 401k, etc, you are making forecasts about which allocation will provide you with a more favorable outcome.
Stated more concisely: there is no rational reason to use statistics for forecasting market events but not for deciding what to do in the event specific market events occur.
Based on another commenter's suggestion that you basically want "sex in movies that aren't about sex", it only took me a few minutes of googling to find sites which seem relevant to your interests:
- r/watchitfortheplot
- mrskin.com
It seems like you want porn which feels more organic and authentic than stereotypical porn. Sure the material in these sites wasn't expressly made to be porn, but it is porn in the way its packaged by these sites and subsequently used. And it's probably better that way, because it gets you what you're looking for in this case.
Porn isn't gourmet or not gourmet, it can be whatever you want it to be. And if there's enough demand (and it's legal), people will make specialized porn to serve it.
Does it? You asked this on an online forum, not a national survey. I don't think our culture has a majority view on the nuance of prostitution. The most engagement I'd expect on this topic is from people who feel strongly that it shouldn't exist at all.
- For context and background: yes, there are well-established links between factoring problems and lattice problems. These links have been known from at least the early 90s. There are many complexity theoretic reductions between specific factoring problems and specific lattice problems, and the approximate variants of the latter. There hasn't been an arbitrary reduction yet, it's mostly on a problem by problem basis.
- That first bullet point means that this research is at least structurally built on, and engages with, prior work in the academic community. Schnorr in particular has been pursuing this since the 90s. Schnorr is an accomplished and established cryptographer.
- I consider the context of that second bullet point unfortunate, because it means the research gets outsized attention even though it is otherwise, as of now, unsubstantiated. It gives the paper a lot more charity than it would ordinarily receive.
- Critically: Schnorr has not empirically demonstrated a break in RSA. He has demonstrated - in theory - faster factoring methods using SVP and CVP solving techniques which rely on a reduction of the factoring problem.
- The paper may not be worthless even if it doesn't break RSA. If he has indeed found a polynomial time way to solve a subset of lattice (and factoring) problems, that will be impressive. I'll have to read the paper a few more times to come to a belief on this point though.
Many comparisons are being drawn online between Schnorr and Atiyah, because the latter kept insisting he found a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis towards the end of his life. It would be sad if this is the case for Schnorr, but it's personally what I believe at this time pending an empirical demonstration of his work and/or critical substantiation from the rest of the academic community. I'm skeptical of this result the same way I'm skeptical when highly established mathematicians publish purported proofs of long standing open problems.
Likewise: if you're debating a claim with someone who is being intellectually honest, they'll receive your evidence and consider it critically on the merits. If you debate a claim with a conspiracy theorist, they will use any evidence you provide them to support the idea that the conspiracy theory is even bigger than they could have imagined - more parties are corrupt, more people are in on it, etc.
It's exhausting.
There isn't actually any evidence the named hedge funds were engaged in naked short selling. For the most part, people seem to misinterpret short interest and failure to deliver data as an indication naked short selling occurred.
No they didn't. Naked short selling is different from short selling while the short interest is high.
Buffett outperformed SPY for most of his 60 year career. Do you think he doesn't know what he's doing, and it was all luck, just because Berkshire Hathaway isn't doing as well as it used to?