You don't believe demand isn't being constrained in the way I described? So you believe that people are looking at cats on facebook, and stop because they're worried about the environmental impact of facebook's datacenters? You're joking...
1,162 karma · joined June 17, 2017
You're not putting all of the planet's datacenters within 5km^3 either. The calculation is fine.
That argument doensn't apply here: demand isn't currently being constrained by us being affraid of the environmental impact of datacenters.
Makes as much sense as the people who think that windfarms will eventually stop the wind, or people who worry that smoking is contributing to global warming.
As a software engineer you CAN'T fail fizzbuzz. Whereas in statistics I can come up with problems that rely only on basics but are still counter-intuitive enough that some practitioners will make mistakes.
Although I didn't downvote, I often downvote comments that are negative on knowledge. You know the type. If we're talking about CS they will argue that you don't have to know algorithms and data structures to be a good developer, because you can just go on stackexchange. If we're talking about data, they will argue that knowing what a p-value is useless because the methodology is flawed anyway. If we're talking about knowledge itself they will argue that going to university is a waste of time. And of course, no matter the subject matter, you never need "all that maths".
I suspect you might misunderstand what "controling for" means.
Suppose you want to predict A (here "increase household income in adult life") using variable X (here "will power"). You do this by regressing A against X. Saying that you "control for Y" (here "income of a child's household") just means that you regress A against both X and Y simultaneously.
What sense does that make? Suppose that you regress A against X and conclude that "X explains some of A" (these are vague terms which I can make more precise if you want) and you hope that your correlation is capturing some narrative of causality. Well, someone could come along and say "yes, A and X are correlated, but actually the causality is Y causes A, and X just happens to be correlated with Y. So you're focusing your study on X when the interesting dynamics is on Y". This is valid criticism.
One way to mitigate that criticism is that you study how A depends on X while controling for Y (i.e. you include both in the regression). The rationale here is that if the result is that "both X and Y explain some of A" and someone makes that previous criticism you can respond "Yes, you're right that Y has some effect on A, but in addition X also has some effect on A, independently of Y. Therefore, X has signal regardless of whatever is going on in the dynamics between A and Y."
So, to answer your question: Yes, it's perfectly valid if you mean "controlling" in the sense that it is used in statistics.
Firefox extension to read FT and WSJ.
Tor has hundreds of millions of daily users?
> When you're finally wealthy, you'll realize that it wasn't what you were seeking in the first place. But that's for another day.
Some people claim that there is a barrier to entry which is that "Uber has all the drivers". However every big city I go you see local players. Not only Lyft and Yandex, but regular cabs, or regular cabs dispatched by an app (as opposed to telephone) etc.
No barrier to entry.
The folksy pure value investor that we know today didn't appear until much later, in the mid 1970s. To be fair though, this is what made him the most money.
Don't forget almost no barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to go from nothing to be a local player dispatching cars in a small neighborhood which your friends drive.
> Can you be more precise? What are the laws about that and should'nt it be Paypal job to support that? Never wanted to compete with Paypal either..
So what you're saying is you couldn't care less unless it affects you. Got it.
This is part of my point though. You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Who the hell doesn't know about KYC? You just woke up to the world and realized "oh shit, regulations exist! Unacceptable!". Yes, regulations exist, and this is just another one.
> Data is literally everywhere... that means GDPR apply to almost everything.
This isn't about data, it's about PII. And PII isn't everywhere, unless you're collecting it.
> Which is why you may see some people complains about being able to sell guns online but you will see much more people complains about GDPR.
No, that's not why. The reason why is that one has been around for a long time and people got used to it.
I seems reasonable, but I would argue it's due to the law being new, not to some intrinsic property of it, no?
It's a bit sad that you require a whole new client. I think that will add enormous friciton to adoption, no?
Does the "deliverying JS to browser" thing that I described make sense at all?
You can't sell guns and drugs online.
If you're taking money, you have to make sure you know your customer (KYC).
I would also like to hear other examples.
I know that IPFS is some sort of distributed content-addressable thingy. So I expected that ipfs.io would deliver some JS to my browser, which would get it to look-up some distributed hash table in order to find peers with the content (a la torrents).
However I'm not running JS and that page loads just fine. So how does it work?
I didn't mean we don't learn that much from parents versus who the hell takes care of the kids (that would be semantics). I meant that we don't learn that much from parents versus all the other people that you interact with throughout your life.
> And technically elephants do communicate, both vocally and through body language. As do most mammals. Just no where near the sophistication we can.
Right, that's why I said that the crucial point was not communication with parents (or who ever the hell takes care of the kid), but communication. If you happen to belong to a species that has difficulty communicating you will never learn much from anyone, regardless of which age your parents die.
I was making the distinction between learning from parents and learning from "others". The argument around the mistmatch between the life time of parents compared to the time of the offspring to maturity only makes sense with parents.
> The octopus' parents die before they can transfer that skill. Hence, they can (barely) communicate with others of the same species and elevate their collective knowledge.
Yeah, but that can't be an important factor. Elephant parents hang around for long and you still don't see talking elephants.