Dusting off QFT for:
"In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous."
1,089 karma · joined May 17, 2013
"In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous."
I think his numerous, recurring, overtly and thinly veiled racist remarks may play a role.
How delightfully condescending of you. Yes, I didn't realize that the 5% number came from you, that hardly makes me "confused". Taking that into light, it's not obvious to me how a very rough back of the envelop projection is significantly more ridiculous than a number pulled out of thin air. My whole problem is that you called it ridiculous when it was clearly meant to be a rough order of magnitude projection. You can't really criticize a number pulled out of the air, because it goes without any attempt at justification. But a back of the envelop calculation can be improved in a piece-wise fashion to hone in on a better result. So any attempt to model a phenomenon (as long as it doesn't come with unjustified claims of precision and certainty) is an improvement over a number pulled out of the air. But that process is short circuited when people just dismiss the projection out of hand as you did. This is why I appealed for an improvement in my first comment. It's really easy to shit on someone else's effort, but it is completely unproductive. If you see a problem, then fix it. Then you're adding to the conversation, rather than just shitting on a little bit of effort someone put out there.
Note: This is rough, back of the envelope projection meant to improve on a 5% figure that someone pulled out of the air.
Precision isn't particularly helpful for this sort of rough projection. Which highlights that your original criticism wasn't particularly productive.
clarification: In claiming that we're about where we started, I'm saying that a 10-20% correction doesn't significantly impact a rough order of magnitude estimation. The estimate was in the precision bounds of its stated goal. Therefore the estimate wasn't "ridiculous" at all, or at least, you haven't shown that it was.
After a quick Google search, the number of vehicles Tesla sold in 2015 does in fact seem to be a bit uncertain. It seems they sold over 50,000 vehicles, but I've not found a more precise number, in a few minutes of looking.
Sales from previous years seem to be:
2012 - 2,650
2013 - 22,477
2014 - 31,655
2015- ~50,000
though I got these numbers from a quora post, so take them with an adequately large dose of salt.
edit: added google findings, tweaked wording to be more specific
A more productive criticism would have been to offer an improvement, rather than to just point to the imperfections in an attempt to estimate the future impact of a new technology.
edit: added second paragraph
Humans seem to have a soft spot for narrativization, and it's easiest to pin a narrative on the chief of an organization. But it's my belief, and I think the evidence doesn't contradict it, that these narratives usually have little to do with the causes of changes in organizational fortunes, particularly in the case of conglomerates.
"But Steve Jobs!"... Well, few CEOs are Steve Jobs. None, actually...
This sort of story is pure narrative fallacy, because there is no person at Nestle that decided to exacerbate diabetes and then sell diabetes drugs to profit on the other end. Outside of that person existing, there's no story here. If you take away the conflation of a conglomeration with an entity of coherent offerings the premise crumbles.
But you are also being obtuse. A DRM'd copy is not the same as a non DRM'd copy, even if the underlying work is the same. If they were, there would be no reason to make the distinction. Really you're claim to the contrary is very Sophistic. I don't believe for a second that you don't see the difference.
The main issue being brought up here is that copyright protection is bundled with a responsibility to relinquish control of the work at the end of the copy protection period. So Johnny_Brahms is saying that if rights holders aren't holding up their side of the deal, then they shouldn't benefit from copy protection. This puts the cost of DRM back on the rights holder, where to date, the cost has been largely externalized.
Under this scheme, rights holders still may opt for DRM, if they expect that DRM will protect the work better than copyright, but they will actually have to do a cost benefit analysis on the matter. Under the current scheme, rights holders have all of the optionality. That is, they take all of the upside, and leave the downside for the public. The aim of this scheme is to force rights holders to put some skin into the DRM game.[1] Which seems appropriate to me, since there are significant costs associated with DRM.
[1] That is, the public pays the costs of access, as well as the cost of loss of access once the DRM authentication chain can no longer be completed (usually because the rights holder loses interest in the work and so stops maintaining the authentication system). We also observe that a lot of weak DRM schemes exist. This is only because copyright exists as a safety net for a broken DRM system. There are actual legal benefits to slapping a trivially circumvented (widely known to be broken) DRM scheme onto a work. But the upside to doing so is very small, and the downside is widely distributed across all legitimate current and future users (plus would be users that are thwarted from legitimate use by the DRM) of the work. If you take away the copyright safety net, then that bit of moral hazard would likely immediately disappear since the costs of adding bad DRM would be jointly borne by the public and the rights holder, rather than just by the public.
[edit: gave the discussion tree root (Johnny_Brahms) credit for the proposal rather than the article, since it was described as a previously held position.
Another consideration is that when we assume that natural processes respond linearly, we seem to have a tremendous track record of being wrong. Even with that being the case, essentially every model that covers any aspect of fitness seems to assume linear response. So it's not surprising to see demonstrations that these models don't hold to reality at the extremes.
Since the Fitbit was released, I've maintained that counting steps is a useless activity unless you are very old or infirm. I think that practitioners (i.e. athletes) have long known that intensity is the primary determinant of changes in body composition and athletic performance. It's seemed to me for a while that one of many causes of the difficulty people have improving their bodies is that they 'exercise' rather than 'train'. That is, they think of their workout as putting in time or quantity of work, rather than just trying to improve their performance across various physical tests.
This is one of my pet peeves. The number of applications you get has absolutely nothing to do with the number of candidates you should consider, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of candidates that you can competently consider. You don't have to get through every resume, and trying to do so will just lead to biased "how can I say no" ad hoc filtering games.
The solution is to use an unbiased* pre-filter to restrict the number of applicants that you let into a thorough consideration process. Random selection is the pre filter that I would use, but there may be other valid choices (though outside of random selection, it's easy to let bias slip in).
Bonus points if you are transparent with candidates that get filtered out this way about why and how that happened. If you're messaging is constructed well, then they should understand that there were too many candidates to give all of them fair consideration, and that being filtered out reflects in no way on their worth as a candidate. So, they will be more likely to apply for future openings.
Sorry if it feels like I'm criticizing you. I don't mean to at all. It's just that this idea of being overwhelmed by candidates is absolutely pervasive in discussions of hiring, and it's a completely fake problem that leads to absolutely real difficulty on both sides of the hiring process.
* A lot of organizations resort to biased pre-filters to cull resumes, like unnecessary requirements. I'm of the opinion that this leads to suboptimal results, particularly if they align significantly with the biased filters that the rest of the industry your company is competing in uses. It means that there are qualified candidates that end up systematically under-recruited. Those are the Moneyball candidates. You should want those candidates because they are the most productive relative to the salaries they can demand. And even if you don't give them a lower salary than you would give a candidate that passes all the typical filters, then you will still have a significant retention advantage, which all told may be worth more than shaving salary in many (most?) situations.
That doesn't mean that the investment isn't expected to be hurt (or wiped out completely) should the price of oil rise, it just means that a competent investor would have looked at that possibility and decided that the investment was still worthwhile.
The comment I was responding to IMO assumed flippancy on the part of investors and implied that they would be surprised by an increase in oil. That's absurd.
He does also mention how one seller tried to demand a 40% discount at close, and that the broker had a better deal waiting in the wings. So we can have a pretty high degree of certainty that the sale price was between $28,500 and $57,000, likely closer to $57k.
Re: the common refrain that always pops up with these stories about how companies are "forced" to defend their trademarks lest they lose control of them
The issue I have with this argument is that, while I accept that it's largely true that once you try to obtain a trademark in a given domain that you have to defend it, nothing is forcing anyone to overbroadly define the reach of their trademark. Kik is a mobile communication app company without a household name, whose name is an obvious web2.0 style construction (so not unlikely to be replicated by chance) who asserts that their trademark applies to the entire software industry[1]. Kik elected to enter that difficult to defend position, and that's a common decision among companies that get negative press for overaggressively asserting trademarks. These companies are culpable for the social impact of their strategic decisions, and so I have no issue with blaming them for the results.
Asserting a not particularly creative trademark like Kik for the entire software industry was an aggressive stance in the first place, so I don't think that the apparent fact that you can't let competitors blatantly use your trademark without defending it absolves them of culpability here.
When you try to defend a trademark against a tiny, not-for-profit non-competitor, you come off as an entitled bully. Companies should take that into consideration when staking out their trademark territory. It works for some (Trump's hard to avoid here, and at one point it looked like Palantir was using the "I don't care if people don't like me" thing to great gain), but if that's not the DNA of your company, then you should consider whether you're biting off more than you can chew in your trademark assertions. If you can handle the heat of that kind of aggression, then more power to you, but don't come crying about how you are obligated to defend your unreasonably aggressive initial position when you get a little negative press.
[1] Which is almost a misnomer. The software industry is more of a meta industry that touches essentially every other industry these days. This underscores just how aggressive a claim it is that a given trademark covers the entire software industry. It's essentially saying that undue market confusion would result if the name were used for a mobile game, a text editor, an aerospace software testing product, an ETF platform, a medical devices operating system, an animations library, or even a platform for programming robotic legs to kick nearby objects [which would obviously be a more suitable home for the trademark of the identifier 'Kik' :D ]
[edit: grammar]
[correction: @overgard: Jeez, I meant to transfer this comment to a top level comment, because there's nothing wrong with your comment here, it's just related to a sentiment that has seemed to be subtly off to me for a while in a way that I couldn't put my finger on. Reading your comment just kicked off that old thought process that has been churning in my mind for a while.
I didn't intend to tee off on this specific comment, because I really don't have any problems with this specific comment, the aspects that I'm complaining about are really outside the scope of what you are saying.
But now that I know that I forgot to transfer it to a new comment window, and instead responded in this thread, the beginning, which was meant to represent a stronger general argument, looks condescending to me (inaccurately generalizing someone's comment in direct response to them? Ugh... that is sooo not what I was going for). This wasn't at all my intention, and I'm really sorry if it gives that impression. I apologize for any confusion or negativity that the error may have caused.]
So, wealth distribution is a controversial topic in economics right now that is highly relevant to the conclusions that can be drawn from econometric models that deal with global trade.
The US approach to Government subsidies on the consumer side of privately supplied markets in college and health care mostly seems to accomplish raising the prices of college and healthcare as market providers raise prices to what the relatively hotter markets will bear.
One of the principal drivers of the positive effect on career prospects is the publicity this sort of public gesture would generate. Sure, all else being equal, many may prefer the engineer that sticks with the company. But all else is not equal. This particular gesture would generate a lot of publicity tied to the engineers eligibility for hire. Sticking with the company ends the story and would not likely garner nearly the same level of personal publicity, if any.
I'm not making any sort of value judgement as to whether this would be an ethically good or bad thing for an Apple security engineer to do. I just don't think they will really be risking much because enough people will view it as an attractive public display of personal integrity that s/he would have her/his pick of jobs. It would also be an ideal opportunity to launch a security consultancy.
The move isn't completely devoid of personal risk, but the risk seems to be overwhelmed by the opportunities that it would generate in my estimation. That is to say, it would be a good bet, and far from a true self sacrifice.
I would quibble with this characterization. Security engineers may well improve their employment prospects and professional visibility by publicly demonstrating that they are unwilling to do work that is counter to the mission of securing systems. It seems likely to me that this sort of highly public gesture would be personally profitable, rather than a net sacrifice.
edit: clarification
This is the fundamental issue with meme outrage. It almost always relies on assuming the complex incentive structure that leads to something existing in the world reduces to 'lazy idiots made it happen'. Looking for nuance in the subject of the meme almost always works against this assumption.
I would be much happier if more companies actually tried on security, competed on that vector and then bragged to high heaven about their successes. Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. The companies who are actually putting forth a solid effort to compete on security, and I think Apple has a reasonable claim that they are one of these companies (even if there are nits to pick), have my blessing to brag as much as they can about it. I'm talking multimillion dollar ad campaigns touting their (actual) security advantages versus competitors. Have at it. Donald Trump style. Go wild!
edit: grammar
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
I would say that these unbalanced trials are pretending toward fairness, fairness theater. If your primary concern is the cost of these proceedings, then don't argue for taking away only one of the costly, yet crucial, aspects of the trial [taxpayers already pay for the judges and the state's attorneys (both of whom are likely making much more than state appointed defense attorneys would be), so refusing to pay for defendant's attorneys doesn't save a heck of a lot of cost]. Rather get rid of the unfair trial altogether and make the thing an administrative proceeding. If you think a fair trial is justified, then you've got to provide qualified representation for those who can't come up with it themselves. That's just the minimum bar for fairness in an adversarial trial. Meet it, or get rid of the trial altogether.
I don't have enough information to really have a strong opinion on whether these situations should be handled administratively or whether the state should provide attorneys. However, it does seem that the current solution is on the order of the most expensive possible solutions without managing to meet a minimum bar for fairness. It's a worst of both worlds compromise.
There are lightears of space between doing your best to see that someone who can't defend themselves in court has qualified representation (even if there are difficulties that the representative will face in conducting defense), and pitting the same person against an expert litigation team without a qualified advocate.
The former situation is a good faith effort to give the defendant a fair trial. The latter situation is a sham trial.