halpmeh

Technically, updating priors wouldn't necessarily be warranted. Consider a statement X implies Y, e.g. The government is corrupt, which implies SBF won't go to jail. Just because X implies Y does not mean ~Y implies ~X. E.g. SBF going to jail does not imply the government is not corrupt.

This is a straw-man argument. Emerging economies get money and jobs out of the globalization arrangement. That's more than enough to sell emerging economies on the idea. Globalization needed to be sold to western economies. Why, after all, should the western economies sacrifice money and jobs? Western economies, they were told, would benefit due to more efficient economic operations, or so the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy went.

Now globalization is unpopular in the west because the west realized neo-liberalism is bullshit, for lack of a better term.

You've conveniently omitted the independent third-parties that had seen the data. It's a messy world. Unexpected things happen. How do these third-parties factor in to Occam's razor? You need to add more parameters to your explanation as to why the third-parties would verify the existence of non-existent data.

Here's another possibility: During goes to DePalma to collaborate and asks if DePalma still has the data. DePalma says he doesn't. During sees this an an opportunity to claim credit for the work.

It's impossible to tell which scenario is more likely. Are you really willing to ruin someone's career over purely circumstantial evidence provided by a biased witness?

Apparently he doesn't have the data anymore. According to the article, independent third parties did see the data and didn't think it was suspicious. The implication of what you are saying is that if you lose data for any reason then you're automatically guilty of data forgery. Obviously that's not a great precedent to set.

No he’s not: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04446-1

According to During, DePalma was supposed to be an author on the paper. According DePalma, they had brief discussions to collaborate, but ultimately decided not to.

During, the other author, also has an incentive to discredit DePalma so she can claim to be the sole discoverer of the asteroid timing.

Without conclusive evidence, it’s irresponsible to get out the pitchforks.

Don’t forget to include mice studies.

I'm still not understanding the correlation between a centralized exchange and perpetuating a scam. Tether doesn't rely on a centralized exchange. If an entity, centralized exchange or otherwise, is willing to pay off the entire market to perpetuate a scam, then yes, DEXs will be impacted. That doesn't seem related to whether or not an exchange is centralized.

Well for one, I don’t want to add another language to my tool chain. Many languages can compile C directly. For instance in Swift or Go you can add C source files directly to your project and have them compile as part of your Swift or Go build. You can’t do that with Rust or C++.

C is the lingua franca of the software development world.

The issue with this type of promotion is that you usually want to preserve the type. Like if I add two int32s, I probably want an int32 as a result.

A cooler feature would be requiring the compiler to prove the addition wouldn’t overflow.

C is an amazing language. If you want to integrate into another language via FFI you basically have 0 other options.

That being said, it’s too easy to do something wrong in C. The desire to use Rust isn’t because C is stale, rather it’s too hard to write C correctly.

From the industrial revolution to some time in the early-to-mid 20th century, materials were more expensive than labor. It made total sense to ornately decorate things as the cost was not much more than the material itself.

Now labor is vastly more expensive than materials. Making this easy to build makes them way cheaper.

That's quite interesting. Who enforces the parking limits? Surely the city has a very advantageous negotiating position if the city is responsible for enforcement.

How do you animate on the HWUI thread?

What excites me about about ChatGPT is the fact that you can take a lot of data and a huge model and make it do something cool. Right now, "making it do something cool" costs tens of millions of dollars. If that cost can be brought down to the 10s of thousands of dollars, I think we'd start to see really mind blowing applications.

I think you're "begging the question." You believe that Tether is a fraud. You're using the fact that the price on a CEX and DEX are the same to justify that belief. "See, the price on a DEX matches that on a CEX, therefore Tether is a fraud."

Whether or not Tether is a fraud has nothing to do with the price match on a CEX and DEX. The price on CEXs and DEXs will always match due to arbitrage.

(This isn't a statement on whether or not Tether is a fraud. I'm just pointing out that the price on a CEX and DEX will always match with sufficient liquidity in the market).

The point is that iOS has always used a separate process for computing the GPU state. Android does this on the main thread, which is why Android feels like garbage. And I say this as a former Android developer. Animations on Android feel like peanut butter. They always will until they are moved off the main thread.

For starters, I believe the number is 75 billion in USDT, not 65 trillion.

And Tether doesn't have an unlimited supply of money. Tether allows USDT to be redeemed for USD. If Tether was minting unbacked USDT, then Tether would eventually be shown to be insolvent.

Second, if you're manipulating the price upward, it becomes more and more expensive to maintain the price. Like let's say Tether issued USDT to pump the price of BTC. If they wanted to maintain that long-term, they'd need to print more and more USDT to maintain the price, which gets us back to insolvency.

Third, the CEX would need a reason to pump the price. Usually, people pump prices to execute a "pump and dump" where low-value assets are dumped on unsuspecting consumers at a high price. It's possible, of course, but executing a pump and dump scheme is a lot of work and very risky for very little reward with such expensive, highly traded asset like BTC.

I'm not saying no one has ever tried to manipulate the price of a cryptocurrency before. But the scheme you describe is not sustainable for a long period of time.

That doesn't prove your point at all. The CEX isn't setting the price. The price is set by people trading. If the price on an exchange, centralized or otherwise, is too high, no one will buy. If the price is too low, no one will sell. That has nothing to do with whether or not the exchange is centralized or decentralized.

Even if your SSN is not an ID, there must be a use for the card/number is my point. If there is a use for the SSN, then you still need an ID to verify that you are the person to whom the SSN belongs to. So you still need the name on the SSN card to match the name on your ID. So you need to keep your SSN in sync with your other IDs.

My point was that your example shouldn't have provable negative expected value. Feel free to use the S&P 499 example in the future.

And look, I agree that indexed investing is likely the best strategy for most people. However, some people do beat the market consistently over the long term. TFA states that plainly, although it tries to downplay it. Additionally, this specific "research" is released by S&P Dow Jones Indices. What is the S&P 500 and Dow Jones if not a hand-picked selection of stocks? So this article isn't really saying it's impossible to beat the market. The article is saying that it's impossible to beat S&P Dow Jones Indices at picking stocks, which means the article is just a marketing piece. I'll also add that the S&P 500 plays with a stacked deck. By the nature of its size, companies included in the index trade at a substantial premium to similar companies outside of the index.

Why would you expect the price on a DEX to differ from the price on a CEX? Any substantial price difference would immediately be closed by arbitrage.

> The agency can require remedies, such as posting of notices and reversals of policies or punishments, but it has no authority to impose punitive damages on companies.

So, in essence, there is zero incentive for Apple to change its behavior.

That’s not a good example because the expected value of your returns is less than the market returns. Only rubes would invest in such a scheme.

A better example would be to create the S&P 499. Take the S&P 500 and remove one company you think most likely to underperform. Theoretically you’d outperform the S&P 500.

In the short term, I think you’re right. However, 20 years is a really long time. You’re not going to make a bet at year 18 and somehow magically make back 15 years of gains.

Why do social security cards exist? I have no idea, but presumably they are required for something. They don’t contain your photo, so asking for photo identification seems like a totally valid follow up.

They say later on that some firms do beat their benchmark over a 20 year period, so I don't think it's just noise.

If you change your name, you need to update your information with social security and with the state department. That's how the two IDs can get out of sync. E.g. if someone was like "please bring your social security card and passport for verification" you could potentially have a name mis-match if you only updated your passport but didn't update your social security.

Berkshire Hathaway has beaten the market over the last 5 year. They're basically a mutual fund combined with a private equity firm.

But it seems like the criteria used is a bit weird:

> The team selected the 25 percent of the funds with the best performance over the 12 months through June 2018. Then the analysts asked how many of those funds remained in the top quarter for the four succeeding 12-month periods through June 2022.

That's different than not beating the market.

> And over a full 20-year period ending last December, fewer than 10 percent of active U.S. stock funds managed to beat their benchmarks.

So some firms do beat the market.

If you change your name, which is somewhat common for women to do after marriage.