slymon99

I would sell that 99% number for a six figure sum if you'd like to define terms, an arbiter, and setup escrow.

The other answers here are fairly uninformed. AI has been reliably beating humans in NHLE since 2019 with just deep learning [1], modern solvers can play within a small epsilon of a nash equilibrium (a perfect strategy) and are effectively unbeatable.

Referencing a solver while playing (what people call real-time assistance or RTA) is definitely a problem in online poker and is always prohibited. Solvers however play in a fairly predictable way and poker sites can detect if people are using them, though I'd imagine imperfectly. Saying that 99% of online poker is vs AIs is a hilarious overstatement.

[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay2400

Exactly what wealth are cities draining from rural America?

Is it possible there's a simpler explanation? That the economy of the twenty-first century is dominated by information and technology, and that these demands are better matched to the agglomeration affects of true urban density, where the best and brightest can learn from each other?

Comparing living near jobs and quality schools to living by a mansion on the beach is quite unfair - people don't solely desire the luxury of cities, they desire the opportunity for themselves and their families.

"Working your way up the property ladder"? The median sale price for a house in Westchester County, NY is seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. With insurance and property taxes and the current interest rate, that's over six grand a month. That's a hair shy of the US median household income (before taxes!). How exactly is a person ever supposed to afford that?

Cities have jobs. Cities have opportunity. Cities have diversity. Why should we expect, encourage, or even desire that young people sacrifice economic and social opportunity and mobility?

Why is the response to high housing cost in cities lecturing "current generations" about their choices? There are glaringly obvious problems in many of our cities that make housing so expensive. Is it so outrageous to try to solve those problems, and allow people to be able to live where they want to live?

Yes.

Yea, the bonus point is interesting, especially in finance where bonuses can be > 100% of base. You can't insist on firms paying last years bonus, or else people would just quit and get a non compete if they had an insane year. But paying only base also seems a bit unfair.

A thought I had was you'd have to pay whatever their new offer is paying. The argument is that if you want to prevent someone from working, you should have to pay them their worth - which, in the case of someone resigning with a competing offer - has just been priced by the hiring market!

> If companies actually paid employees not to compete they would be able to keep them

Why is this true? If someone is making $200k and leaving to make $350k, an employer may well be able to afford the $100k for 6 months to prevent them from immediately handing over IP, but not be able to match the $350k their new employer is offering.

> So, it's conceivable that an ex-employee could receive 6 months severance in trade for a non-compete of that length, but I doubt it's very popular.

It's quite popular in finance. Also, it's not a one time severance, its paid as a standard paycheck. A firm might "release" someone from their non compete while it is still active (basically saying it's no longer active and we are no longer paying you).

When were trades reversed when a market maker had a bad algo? If you are doing market manipulation, sure, your trades might get reversed, but if someone wants to puke money across the tape it's absolutely legal to take it.

They go bankrupt, because their liabilities exceed their assets. There are three main sets of creditors - the US government who are receiving this $142.7 billion, equity shareholders who own $MMM, and bondholders. In a bankruptcy, you arrange levels of creditors by "seniority", where more senior creditors are paid first. In this case, I would imagine the levels of seniority are:

1. The US government 2. Bondholders 3. Equity shareholders

3M has plenty of assets to be distributed to the creditors - the manufacturing capabilities that you mention, intellectual property, relationships with purchasers. These assets might be sold directly on the market (this is easier with physical assets like manufacturing labs). A new corporation with new management might be established to handle liquidating the assets, or even running the business (this is what happened with FTX). Either way, it seems like bondholders and shareholders alike would get zero'd out and the US government could do what it want with 3M's assets.

To answer your question succintly: > 3M is the only manufacturer of tons of important materials as I understand it, so it's not like they can just get erased from the market

3M is a corporation and one of their assets is their ability to manufacture tons of important materials. 3M the corporation would be obliterated but their ability to manufacture tons of important material would likely be sold off.

I’m seeing this on mobile only

literally no big tech employer is going to allow you to add clauses to your employment contract

Why are you quoting the disclaimer as if its secret, or some kind of gotcha? Yes this is a short selling firm. While they have some incentives to exaggerate, they are trying to find and expose genuine fraud because that is what will actually affect the share price. Hindenburg's record is quite good, and many of their reports have led to followup government enforcement actions.

@danaris - if you are a bank and people want to withdraw money, you need cash to pay them. By "the market" we mean the banks depositors who withdrew their case (partially due to these very concerns, hence why bank runs are called bank runs)

> You don't get to live in San Francisco

You get to live in New York City which is unparalleled in the US in terms of urban amenities. The weather can be brutal though.

Or you live in Chicago which is like, still a solid city, but the weather is even worse.

I would disagree that trading firms are more boring than big tech. They are typically much smaller and leaner (even HRT and JS are like sub 2k?), and generally employees have massively more impact and ownership as opposed to being a cog in a 20k developer machine.

Do you have any evidence for this, empirically? I mean yes, HFTs aren't going to let their orders sit stale when FOMC announces a giant rate hike, they aren't going to lose a bunch of money to keep the market healthy. But generally when vol is high, liquidity is at a premium, so I would imagine HFTs become a higher percentage of the market (though spreads are still going to be wider).

Yea, I've always wondered if finance companies intentionally structure their comp this way to make garden leave more damaging

As long as "full salary" is defined as your total compensation. Financial firms set base salaries low relative to total compensation (bonus can be 200-500%+ base) so that your TC drops dramatically if you leave. Sometimes the next job will buy you out, but with 18 month non competes being common, sometimes you are just screwed.

> But really, is the amount of space, bandwidth and clock cycles we carelessly waste really justified by the gain in productivity and achievable complexity?

Yes. Space, bandwidth, CPU cycles are cheap, especially for this sort of application. Developers are expensive.

Isn't (32 bit) INT_MAX 2^31-1 and INT_MIN -2^31, so this is an acceptable solution (since the decimal average is -0.5)?

Not really - it's just saying that the definitive link is almost entirely caused by hyperinsulinemia and inflammation, and if you control for them, there's no other causality. Hyperinsulinemia and inflammation are massive metabolic problems, controlling for them is effectively like controlling for lung cancer in a study of smoker. Like, sure, people aren't choking to death on cigarettes.

This is still a useful study though! It's useful to know that the cause is almost entirely through those factors. Though this is also an epidemiological study with no randomization and some of the hazard ratios are not particularly high.

Another nutritional epidemiology study with an absurdly large effect size that is almost certainly due to confounding factors.

Yes, the researchers did an admirable job trying to control for confounders. Doesn't matter. Confounding factors for health are impossible to adjust for, whether it's healthy user bias or nutritional choices or a million other possible factors. There's just no way to take this sort of causality seriously when humans are living infinitely complex lives. Stop wasting money and do an RCT.

Also, traditional media is still embarrassingly bad at communicating correlation vs causation. How does this get past a science editorial board.

> some third factor like "propensity to consume highly-processed food products" is responsible

Even with the significant controls in the study, I still completely believe this is the case. People who avoid artificial sweeteners likely make many other health-promoting decisions (healthy user bias) that are far too granular to control against using simple factors like weight and smoking status. The HR is only 1.15. Are you really confident enough in the controls to see this as a real association?

Not even just consumption, the healthy user bias also effects lifestyle factors. People who try to avoid artificial sweeteners because they think they are unhealthy likely make many other decisions to promote their own health (increased exercise, avoiding other carcinogens). The study attempts to control for some of these factors (exercise, smoking), but given the HR is only 1.15, I have trouble believing the correlation here is anything but spurious.

I can never really take the results of nutritional epidemiology studies too seriously. How can you possibly control for all the confounding variables? People who are avoid artificial sweeteners likely make many other decisions in their diet and lifestyle. It's a healthy user bias. The study controls for some factors like weight and smoking but there's just no way to control for everything, you need randomization - especially when the final hazard ratios are ~1.15.

Facebook used to mean two things - Facebook.com and the Facebook mobile app - The company Facebook which owned the two aforementioned products, instagram, messenger, whatsapp, oculus, portal...

The second item here was rebranded to Meta, but the Facebook site and app are still Facebook. It's just the overarching company is Meta

"Moral qualities"? We aren't talking about Cuomo cheating on his wife, he used his position of authority to sexually harass eleven women.

> is it really more important to preserve it as a landmark than for the land to go to use

The Amazon has 10% of the worlds biodiversity, I wouldn't exactly call it a landmark, this isn't historic preservation - and the land is already "in use". Also I'm not sure that "the people of the country" are buying and farming cattle on large chunks of the Amazon, I'd assume the economic gains are highly concentrated amongst a few companies (this is conjecture). Either way, lowering demand for cattle raised in the Amazon would be one way to make this less common.

I assume this is a comparison to duolingo, not Nikola.

This is definitely a problem, especially because industries who frequently utilize the paid non-compete (e.g. finance) often have a significant percent of comp from non-salary (bonuses etc).

But you could fix this with craftier legislation instead of banning non-competes, e.g. maybe you have to pay the persons last years total compensation instead of just their salary