karpierz

I was asking for a source that showed that introverted women had happier outcomes ("results") than introverted men in dating.

Introverted women probably get hit on more ("more offers"), but using that to conclude that they see better outcomes is like saying it's a good thing that my dating life is successful because my inbox is filled with unsolicited dick pics.

That's my base assumption, but I figured my message would be more likely to create a dialog to clear up the nonsense.

Interesting, I hadn't heard about research into how introversion affects dating outcomes.

Can you post the sources you're relying on here? I want to read more on this.

As written in the article:

> ... the Port is counter-suing Clark to recoup costs involved in fixing the gate layout fiasco.

You're seeing up a false dilemma where either there are layoffs or Zuck's party gets cut.

You could layoff a hundred fewer people and cut Zuck to 0 for the same savings.

Dead Cells, Papers Please, Dicey Dungeons

Haxe has been, and continues to be, used to ship commercially successful games.

There's a great book that came out recently covering in detail the various ways that truckers and trucking companies bypass the pervasive surveillance and regulation: Data Driven

> Kraken knows this.

Clearly, because they won't attest to liabilities (IE, how much money do they owe in total), but "client liabilities" (IE, how much money do they owe to their customers).

If they took out a loan for 100M, with their client's assets as collateral, that won't be covered by "client liabilities", but it sure as hell will be a problem when that loan gets called in.

Given that people can hallucinate/make up false memories, you sure you ate a grapefruit for breakfast?

So sure that regardless of what evidence you are presented, you'd be certain that you ate a grapefruit. Even if:

- I showed you videoproof that you were eating a sandwich for breakfast

- we had all of your family say they were having breakfast with you and saw you eating a sandwich

- a doctor came and said "I analyzed your stool and found no evidence of grapefruit"

- we had a message, cryptographically signed by a key you generated/controlled, that said "man this sandwich is delicious"

Even with any amount of evidence to the contrary, you'd still believe that you ate a grapefruit?

If not, then are you sure that it's fact that you ate a grapefruit, or it's just that all current evidence points to you eating a grapefruit?

> The Earth has always had the same actual date of origin.

Maybe, but I'm asking: can you show that peoples' perceptions match/differ from reality, without relying on perceptions being factual/reliable?

If not, then how do you know that reality is fixed?

You're begging the question. You started with: assume there is a factual past of where you were. And then argued: there is a factual past.

I'm not enough of a skeptic to say "don't trust the models of the past"; memory turns out to be a pretty good model. So does carbon dating.

But the reason you say "you were not there and did not commit the crime" is because you don't remember being there. Maybe you even remember being elsewhere. But that doesn't mean it's true, memory is fallible.

You might say that you even have photos of yourself somewhere else at the time. But if there were photos of you at the crime scene, would that change what the past was? Maybe your memory is shoddy, or maybe the photos are fake.

Can you show that there is a factual past without parsing it through your perception?

It was factual that the earth was 6000 years old, until it wasn't.

In case someone wants an example of a function which is continuous nowhere, but whose absolute value is continuous everywhere:

f(x) = 1 if x is rational

f(x) = -1 if x is not rational

Edit: in all this excitement, I should've just read to the end of the article

Edit: for the second question, take the function:

f(x) = 0 if: the binary representation of it contains infinite 1s

f(x) = total # 1s in the binary representation of x if: the binary representation has a finite number of 1s

What is the factual past?

It's the extrapolation of models that we've created in the present, but those models are only our best guess at the truth. They may be revised in the future or simply not hold for the past.

GPs point is that the technologies you've mentioned solved real problems before they were adapted for different use cases. They didn't make Darpanet and then think "man, if only there was some use for this" until the Internet came along. They designed it to send signals between distant nodes while being resilient to individual nodes being nuked.

Only after DARPAnet solved that problem did it get adapted to some other problems (ex: how do I send cat pictures to people)?

For one, your data already has a biased weighting, unless you think that whatever data you happened to scrape off of reddit is representative of all human dialog?

For two, all machine learning relies on manipulating data to get the desired outcome? How do you even generate data without manipulation? It's not a natural resource you just find laying on the ground.

Where do you see "Meyer lemon sherbet with candied kumquats" on the menu?

https://www.chezpanisse.com/1/restaurantmenu/

This is what's there for today:

- Fennel and leek salad with rocket, toasted almonds, and salsa verde

- Bomba rice cooked with clams and squid; with aïoli

- Becker Lane Farm pork loin roasted with Spanish paprika and green garlic; with braised greens and wild mushrooms

- Blood orange and vanilla ice creams with Page mandarins

> The product teams don’t care.

As I said, you can't patch over culture problems with a re-org.

If product people don't care, putting a person on the team that works against their interest will not make things better. Same thing with security/diversity/code quality/reliability. If the team doesn't care, putting an enforcer on the team will not fix the situation.

The (productive) point of the ethical AI team is to have internal people to consult when launching an AI product. Embedding ethical AI people on teams makes about as much sense as embedding legal counsel. Their services won't be used on a single team nearly enough to justify their inclusion.

Of course, it can be window dressing if the company doesn't actually have product teams care. Just like a CDO position. But you can't patch over a company culture problem with a re-org.

Can anyone explain exactly what made Google Reader so amazing? I never used it, but from what I can tell it was basically an RSS reader?

> if a bank loans out the money that you deposited, both the borrower and you can spend it.

When you "spend" money that you deposited with the bank, what you're actually doing is getting the money you lent to the bank paid off.

What's the difference between that and you lending money to someone to buy a bagel/T-bond, and then at some point in the future, getting money back so that you can buy a sandwich/car?

I guess it's unclear what you mean by "creating money". Anytime I lend money to someone, they're going to spend it on something.

They have a liability (their debt to me) and an asset (the thing they "bought", which could be anything from a T-bill, to a bagel). Basically, any debt "creates money."

"Uninsured" doesn't mean "all of your money is gone, sucks to be you", it means "you'll take a haircut proportional to the amount of missing assets from the pool." And yes, if the bank is a Ponzi scheme, then that pool is empty, but SVB's problem is liquidity, not overall solvency. The money is there, it's just locked at a suboptimal interest rate, which may cost you 10 - 20%.

This isn't like FTX where your "assets" are worthless IOUs written to yourself.

You can't insure the vast majority of deposits; with what money would you insure all of the world's money?

> All insured depositors will have full access to their insured deposits no later than Monday morning, March 13, 2023. The FDIC will pay uninsured depositors an advance dividend within the next week.

The difference is that SVB's depositors will see most of their money back, which is the point of the FDIC taking over.

The issue is not that SVB has loaned too much to companies that can't pay it back.

The issue is that SVB took in a lot of deposits in 2021-2022, and locked them into 10 year bonds at 2.5% interest. Now in 2023, a lot of their customers are burning money (withdrawing funds) and aren't raising money (depositing funds), and so they need to start liquidating the 10 year bonds.

The issue is that the 2021 bonds are discounted because interest rates have grown since, and they're out some money unless they can hold the bonds to maturity. So they're raising money to bridge the deficit to allow themselves to hold more of the bonds.

> Can you explain why this is bad? People lived with hard-ish money systems for extremely long periods of time.

Fractional reserve banking has been the dominant form of banking for the last 300 years, and has roots well beyond that.

This is so perfectly on the line between satire and genuine, it's fantastic.