overcode

There are people in the industry who

- know what they are talking about

- have presence on social media

It's just that their numbers are incredibly low relative to the bullshitters and they don't label themselves as influencers.

Thanks. Getting started is a hurdle - I often look at an interesting project on github and find it difficult to identify what can be improved.

Oh sure, but that's why you have the context. My point is that the time gap between a tool like this becoming technically possible and someone executing it successfully will be incredibly small. So the chances of the current moment in time being in that gap is tiny.

If we could, we would have. But we haven't, so we can't.

I understand where you coming from but I don't think that a politician's apparent knowledge about a subject is a good indicator of how good their decisions regarding this subject will be.

Of course it doesn't. My point is that even if you have knowledge about technology/science, that's completely irrelevant when you then go on to support and represent people who actively ignore science/expertise and have no concept of evidence based decision making.

Someone's education or knowledge of technology is a bad indicator of how competent they would be in decision making.

A libertarian republican from Kentucky... while your answer might be technically correct, I really don't think that this is the rare gem of a politician that OP is looking for.

That doesn't address the question at all.

Very often these personal efforts are simply virtue signalling or a way for people to feel better about themselves. Doesn't mean that you should be wasteful with your resources or actively damage your environment but please, don't pretend to be saving the earth by drinking less milk.

Where a difference can be made:

- politics - if you are in politics yourself, or you can lobby and exercise some pressure to dictate policy, that can go a long way

- industry leaders can actually make a difference but don't have the incentives for it

- research and innovation - if you're an engineer this is probably where you can make the biggest difference even if you're unlikely to be one of the few people who have a breakthrough - renewable energy, alternative materials, new ways of food production and so on - you can put in work to improve the technology behind any of these to the point where they make more economic sense

Not sure what data you expect to see. People generally don't publish their discriminatory lending and insurance policies. Or do you think that the statement that it's profitable might be incorrect?

People fall into the trap of expecting otherwise, because otherwise is easier. MOOC are often used as a shortcut rather than a legitimate way to learn about a subject.

Based on my experience, apart from a handful (really a handful) of open courses by elite universities (e.g. Harvard's Stats 110), the vast majority of online courses are garbage - low quality of content, insufficient coverage of the material, inappropriate format, bad teaching. I'm talking about almost anything on Coursera/Udacity/Udemy. Even if the courses were good, you still need to spend a good amount of time with a textbook and practice the subject. And considering that most courses are useless, you're usually better off skipping them altogether and getting straight to the book + practice approach to learning.

If an employer needs to see a resume first and what you apply with is not a resume, you won't even get past the first and most basic filter of the hiring process. There is no good reason to ever do this.

The time and place for those is the interview stage.

Any arguments against storing your bookmarks in your browser of choice?

Yes.

Casino house games are set up in a way that the player is guaranteed to be losing in the long run (all of the player's decisions have negative expected value). So maybe trading is more similar to poker because in both of them it's possible to have positive EV but they still have many of the problematic aspects of gambling such as:

- uncertain outcome

- opportunity to lose or win large amounts of money

- some element of skill and the opportunity to "have and edge"

- confounding skill and luck - it's easy to attribute your wins to your skill and your losses to bad luck

- need for emotional regulation to avoid making bad decisions (also known as tilt)

- need for emotional regulation after a session to deal with large losses (or even large wins)

- the fact that you can make good decisions and still lose, in fact this will happen a lot

- the randomness of the outcome and all the associated cognitive biases are prime factors in creating addictive behavior (often to the point where it's problematic)

That's why I would label it as gambling, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad. But it's important to be aware of the risks and know that most people's personality and their emotional and mental tooling isn't well suited for it.

Not only that you can - you have to do this to make better decisions. It's called focusing and everyone does it all the time.