jjitz

I hate to gatekeep, but I find it pretty impossible that you are "in the crypto space" in any meaningful sense but somehow have not heard of FTX. That's like being "in the crypto space" but not knowing what Ethereum is.

SF has a homeless population like 5x that of Denver even though the cities are of comparable sizes.

bitter about something?

well, they might also not be surjective :) but I guess we'll probably never know

> The NSA and CIA are probably more interested in feeding Wall Street insider information

Citation needed. What a ridiculous thing to say.

It basically means instead of measuring "papers published" they chose to measure "papers published per year"

As someone who has gone through quite a few application processes in academia, I can say the results of this (subjective) survey:

> We followed up our research with a survey of 231 academics, asking for their attitudes towards discrimination in hiring to editorial boards. Although two-thirds of academics supported no bias, for every 1 academic who supported discrimination in favour of men, 11 supported discrimination in favour of women. Our results were consistent with the hypothesis that academics and journal editors are biased in favour of women, rather than against women

Do not surprise me at all, and qualitatively the bias favoring women has seemed to be true in my experience.

HOWEVER, it's very hard to give this paper any credibility when the authors are willing to casually drop a statement like

> As mentioned, the variance in intelligence is higher amongst males, and their average also seems to be somewhat higher

On the third page. I'm aware there have been one or two studies to this effect, but a quality like "intelligence" is so amorphous, and any attempts to measure it are surely met with confounding variables, and even if treated statistically carefully is such a controversial topic, it really just makes me feel like the authors performed this study with a certain agenda / chip on their shoulder. You may notice that both authors are men.

You can do other things with the stablecoin. You own the upside and downside of the collateral, and you also own the downside of the collateral, and the upside of whatever you bought with the collateral.

Stablecoins are not meant to be an investment; they're for leverage. I agree it is probably a terrible idea to borrow a bunch of stablecoins and then just sit on them.

But you do own upside---of the collateral.

There is a litany of research showing that proportional representation leads to more representative and stable democracies, both in terms of empirical outcomes and normative political theory. Saying we don't have enough data just because some borderline-crackpot blogger doesn't like it is pretty disingenuous.

AV is great for a single winner. As you have noticed, if you elect multiple winners the "naive" way then you can get unproportional outcomes. However, there are simple ways to use approval to elect winners proportionally! One easy example is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approv...

Yes. A lot of the tech is very interesting, despite all the hype and fluff.

If they get a 2/3 supermajority? yes...

Eh, there are some pretty cheap places in Allston and Brighton. Last spring I had a place for $700 (although it was a whole house rented w some of my classmates)

Or maybe just like, build more houses

As an MIT grad with many friends at other Ivies, I can tell you that it is more rigorous than pretty much all of them. Princeton is probably the closest.

How do you think approval voting will affect long-term incentives for campaign strategies?

this is untrue