tanderson92

The size of the administrative state may not be a relevant metric in evaluating the extent of actions taken to equalize voice in decision making/policy based on economic power, or to limit economic inequality more generally. (In fact, one view of the large administrative state is that it's a moat designed precisely to the advantage of established actors.)

I don't know how much danger there ever was of taking an e-mail like this one seriously: https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/forum/#!topic/pqc-...

At the time, it read like pure satire to me.

You're probably thinking of this: http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral.html

Have you tried to use pass-tomb?

> If it were really the case that there's an epidemic of invented reasons for warrants then parallel construction would improve the status quo by reducing the number of dubious warrants, leaving only those that "find something."

There must be an understanding here. A warrant executed for an invented and fictitious reason doesn't become "good" because it "finds something"; it's dubious precisely because of its provenance (a lie to cover an unconstitutional search). Whether there really is anything found doesn't impact the constitutionality of a search: that is the point of the "exclusionary rule" -- to exclude real, honest-to-goodness incriminating evidence of a defendant but which is found in violation of his/her constitutional rights. We cannot judge the rightness of a warrant based on whether it leads to useful evidence because then we would have no 4th amendment at all. Therefore, parallel construction doesn't improve anything; rather, it can only serve to increase the number of searches executed for fictitious reasons, and hence the number of dubious warrants.

nb: obviously, the above comment assumes/argues that Herring v United States was incorrectly decided. Also, I am not an appellate lawyer (or a lawyer at all).

Presto chango, the poisonous fruit is magically judicially edible!

On the contrary: the Supreme Court has provided an approved way for parallel construction to be laundered into a valid evidentiary tree: by passing it off to a second officer who develops the case on a good-faith basis (see Herring vs. United States[1]).

[1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2558737

Thanks for the perspective on the actual performance of these algorithms. So yeah, as an algorithmic fact it isn't necessary to proceed sequentially, though perhaps not performant to proceed in parallel either.

Anyway, I heard AMD has 64 cores on a single chip so it may not be too long..

Yes and no: there is parallel time integration for ODEs which parallelizes using multigrid techniques.

His "are index funds communist"[0] theme is great and he has said it's a personal favorite of his (there are many of his articles over the years which discuss this question, I've only linked to the most in-depth one). I also recommend his discussion of the DAO 'hack'[1], and for pure absurdity value this story about insurance contracts[2].

[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-24/are-in...

[1]: here, he also links to other analysis by him around the same time: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-17/blockc...

[2]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-02-27/arbitr...

There is additional value that can be added by forgoing an index fund, though. Tax management can be enhanced by rolling your own Total Stock Market index fund, since individual names can be harvested for capital losses, increasing the after-tax returns of your portfolio relative to a vanilla index fund. I'm not sure quite how to quantify that, but I'm sure someone has been able to do so.

Buzzfeed has broken many major stories this year? It is wrong to conflate the Buzzfeed News of today with the Buzzfeed of yesteryear.

You joke, but a lot of savvy people hoard $100k with BoA through their brokerage in the form of ETFs specifically for the bonuses to credit card rates (and the free equity trades).

The title is (intentionally?) sensationalist nonsense since "the Philly DA" is a person not an office, and the analysis is basically entirely about the office under Krasner's predecessors.

I think a fair reading of my previous comment will reveal that I was trying to avoid engaging on the possible harm of his policies. That is not the same as absolving him. Instead, it is saying that you can evaluate his point independently of that question.

That seems like an orthogonal point. I say that making no judgement either way about the quality of his governance.

On this point, Varoufakis, one of the founders of the DiEM25 movement that this article is implicitly referencing, recently said on a leftist podcast that part of the problem is the people you would want in government positions are those who don't want to stay there very long. That is, he views actual roles in power being viewed as something akin to jury duty a much healthier model than one where people want to become government ministers.

Many Fidelity mutual funds managing assets of retail investors hold (private) Uber stock.

Will it? People die every day in the USA due to lack of access to health care.

There's no evidence that the prosecution would be for anything non-'journalism' related; that is unsupported speculation that the author doesn't imply or suggest.

Not securities fraud.

I commented at almost the precise moment (great minds!) of your comment on this fact, and cc'ed matt into the discussion: https://twitter.com/wokeberia/status/1065053152775270400

The followup tweet includes my suspicion this might have been the first because they first discovered the lack of a law, and creatively got around that fact.

You can do the math but my estimates are that the energy costs would still be too high for exascale with pure-CPU compute. Accelerators are the way anyone actually planning to build an exascale machine is getting there.

> It was significantly easier than deriving the time-dependent wave equation for hydrogen

Can you elaborate?

Thanks for this comment thread, I found it really insightful. Nuance on HN?!

Matt Taibbi in collaboration with Chomsky is writing a sequel to Manufacturing Consent, discussing history and the media environment since its publication. I'm not suggesting he is an heir, only that interested readers might check out.

This is not true. With numerical models one can quantify the level of error one introduces and introduce a rigorous error analysis around the method.

Not that I disagree with the strategy, but DJB also has no career risk. The way you know that is that I am not in his field and I know what the abbreviation stands for.

There is lots of specialized knowledge posted on HN. As a factual matter, MCMC is definitely not without real-world applications.

One place to start might be http://infiniband.sourceforge.net/