62 karma · joined November 27, 2018
* Select candidates randomly from a pool of perfect candidates.
* Select candidates based on additional, subjective criteria.
The first approach seems inherently fairer, but schools went with the second approach. It's hardly surprising that all sorts of biases creep in.
I once read that a candidate was rejected because, having an enormous amount of extracurricular activities in his CV, was deemed "too intense".
https://theodoregreenbaum.medium.com/the-crypto-time-bomb-is...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-26/tether-ex...
If news suddenly come out about Tether being formally accused by the Department of Justice, the market may react in panic and things might get ugly. As an anecdote, I have a friend who told me she put a significant amount of her life savings into "etherium and carnado" (sic). There are millions of people like this who will get absolutely crushed.
I don't see a non-painful solution here. The regulators were too slow and have allowed a monster to be created.
Couple this with the EU's overall weakness and fragmented interests (eg nordstream 2), and it's hard to imagine a good outcome.
A few sanctions will come out of this that will make EU officials look good and further place Belarus into Russian hands (namely, as you wrote, making Belarus airspace dependent on Russian airspace). Let's see what the real leader of the EU has to say.
If the EU can't stand for the people of Belarus, for the sake of freedom and human rights, then it will have once again failed.
I wonder if a serious discussion will finally begin on moving Bitcoin to PoS. This will certainly have a strong opposition and will likely lead to a fork, i.e. two cryptocurrencies will exist at the same time, call them BTC-PoW and BTC-PoS.
In any case these news are a leap forward in the crypto space. IMO, replacing PoW by PoS is a bit like replacing incandescent light bulbs with LEDs at home.
I have been trying to analyze this Robinhood story in an unbiased and objective way. My motivation is that I am interested in contemporary history and believe that what we witnessed in these past few days is a historical event.
I have a question to those here who are knowledgeable about finance and law (I am certainly not).
If my stock trading app stops allowing buying a stock, while still allowing selling a stock, even if this is done purely for technical reasons (see quote at beginning of this comment), am I incurring in market manipulation? To me the answer is evidently yes, but I would like to hear other opinions.
The latter.
Most papers reported an improved performance over some other methods in very specific data sets, but source code was almost always not provided. Once, I dug so deeply into a very highly cited paper that I understood not only that the results were faked, but precisely the tricks that were used to fake them.
I believe scientific fraud arises primarily from two causes:
- Publish or perish. Everyone's desperate to publish. Some Principal Investigators have a new paper roughly every other week!
- Careerism. For some highly ambitious people, publishing papers comes before everything else, even if that means committing fraud. This happens even with highly successful researchers, who have the occasional brilliant, highly cited paper, but who also publish a lot of incremental, dubious work.
P.S. Mildly off-topic, but I love the Ethereum research community at https://ethresear.ch/ , precisely because it is so open and transparent! I wish an equivalent community existed for machine learning.