503 karma · joined March 10, 2017
I would say players around the border of silver and gold would benefit by paying attention to the meta.
Take a look at Gogle trends for "red dead skunk". A lot of kids were using Google to figure out where to find a skunk in the game Red Dead Redemption in June 2010.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r...
Edit: And of course there was another spike in kid's interest in skunks in December 2018 when RDR2 came out. Check Google trends for "rdr2 skunk".
I can image a possible situation where this ends up taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people. Unlikely, but possible. That wouldn't be good.
It also allowed add-on data to be imported. Hobbyists would create accurate 3D models of weird shaped asteroids using the latest data from NASA, and you could download the data, and view it using the main Celestia program.
Maybe someone has posted updated data in Celestia format somewhere?
For example Martin Luther King Jr. had great success when he was pushing for one idea, racial equality. Then a year before he was assassinated, he publicly turned to a wider range of causes. He came out against the Vietnam War at a time when most were supporting it. He announced his support for economic equality. History judged him right, but his timing might have been wrong.
Because of his early stance against the war, he lost many of his mainstream supporters. His fight for racial equality started to sputter.
Maybe this is an exact application of weirdness points? But it seems like something bigger is at work here, and weirdness points are a subset of this bigger idea.
https://foundation.chestnet.org/patient-education-resources/...
A number one song earns two times as much as number two song. And a number two song earns two times as much as a number three song earns and so on.
All I need to do is sign up one or two consistently good bands to make my whole career. If I also sign up a bunch of one hit wonders, it's OK.
You see something similar in stocks. The big cap stocks are most likely to shoot way, way up. If you invest in the next bunch down, the mid cap stocks, then historically, you would not have made as much money.
It's possible that if you count the names of winners and losers, that the author is right, and there are more winners in the midcaps than the large caps.
But if you own large caps, you will own a few stocks shooting way, way up like Amazon and lots of stocks that lose a little. If you own mid caps, you might own a lot of stocks that go up a little, and only a few stocks that go down. But because of the power law, you only need to own a few stocks like Amazon in your portfolio to make more money with large caps than mid caps.
He considers if an AI could be a good judge, and decides that it would not. Even though all the facts, rules and heuristics could be fed into an AI judge, the element we would not be able to program is human compassion. He concludes that even though there are some tasks a computer might be able to do, there will always remain some decisions that should always be made by humans.
"People compete to bring up the most nuanced statements that can win most people across" different factions.
It includes an iterative process of proposing new statements on a topic, and then voting on the statements. Over time, statements are developer which more and more of the voters agree with.
I don't have any data on how this has changed over time, but my guess is that social media polarization has increased over time.
People who are in the middle, or have some beliefs on each side, or are willing to seriously consider points from both the left and the right just don't post much anymore. On the rare occasion that they do, they get downvoted to the point that they are invisible.
So yes, when you look at social media you see the extreme left and the extreme right lobbing insults at each other. Or you might catch a glimpse of the extremists working to silence the moderates, if you dig deep enough.
I don't think it used to be as bad as it is now.
The polarization is continuing to get worse and worse.
How do we stop it? I wish I knew.
I agree that pricing and setting reserves for this insurance is extremely difficult. I disagree that it is impossible. I agree that there are very few people capable of doing this. I disagree that there is no one. I agree that there may currently be no one at the regulatory agencies capable of doing this correctly. I disagree that they cannot hire someone from the industry who is capable of doing this.
BECAUSE it is so difficult and complex to price this insurance and to have sufficient reserves, it's important to not throw up our hands and say that it's impossible. Instead it's important to bring the issue into the open. If regulators are not currently up to the task again this time around, then THAT should be the headline of the articles... "REGULATORS CURRENTLY UNABLE TO PRICE SYNTHETIC INSURANCE AND SET RESERVE LEVELS WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE NEXT FINANCIAL CRISIS"
You think IBM is going to go up in price. (It should with the new CEO from Red Hat!)
You can send $100 to investment bank A which turns around and buys a regular share of IBM.
Or you can send it to investment bank B which offers a synthetic share of IBM. Investment bank B doesn't actually buy a share of IBM but collects bets from different people who think the price of IBM is going to go up, and other people who think the price of IBM is going to go down.
With investment bank A, your money may go up or down a little, but there's not much chance that investment bank A will go out of business.
On the other hand, with investment bank B, there are several different ways the investment bank could go out of business. It might not balance out it's up and down bets correctly because it's confident that IBM is going up. Or many of the other customers may be unable to pay up. Or maybe investment bank B made a deal with AIG to make sure that investment bank B would not lose money on the deal, but AIG was unable to pay.
With synthetics, there are additional risks which are more difficult to quantify.
In hindsight, AIG wasn't charging enough for this "insurance", and didn't have sufficient reserves to cover their losses if real estate prices across the whole country went down at the same time. Almost no one seriously considered that as a possible scenario at the time.
So the important questions are:
- Who is providing "insurance" this time around?
- Is the company providing "insurance" charging enough?
- Does the company providing "insurance" have enough reserves to cover losses if we have another situation where everything goes south at the same time?
Defenestration: The Movie
Seven minutes of very short clips from Hollywood movies involving defenestration.
Maybe the market today is overreacting to that fake news/rumor?
In my opinion, almost all of the actual past raises to minimum wage have been on the small side, and have not significantly affected unemployment. You're right about that.
But if my opinion is true, then there's a huge leap with no scientific basis to saying "therefore this specific large increase in minimum wage will not raise unemployment."
Unfortunately, there aren't any scientific studies of increasing the US minimum wage by 100% because it has not been done multiple times in the past. So no one really knows what would happen if we did it now.
My guess is that Asimov might have done something similar if he were alive in the #MeToo era. Some vague apologies, but no true reckoning of everything.
Next time you're at a conference, try pinching a woman's butt in the middle of a crowded room. Let me know how that works out for you.
input: "bcabc"
output: "abc"