theobon

The underlying issue appears to be that prediction systems do not take into account recent changes. Which is common sense, a prediction system is going to lag.

It makes a cute fluff article about the value of beat reporters when dealing with baseball stats. It can destroy lives when it comes to predicting if a person will default on a loan or is likely to re-offend.

I think that the odds of walking out of a casino with equal to or more than you walked into it is less than 40%. My stats knowledge is failing me right now but if you start with $100 and feed slots at $12/m after an hour the average person should have less than $50 remaining based on the house cut in the article (7.129%).

It would be interesting to see what the likelihood of being up after an hour of regular play is by different common games.

If you are going to post that why would you leave out the section immediately following that addresses why this is newsworthy

"The 2017 memo, however, differs in two main areas.

It centralizes the agency’s media inquiries and social media presence through the Office of the Secretary. As part of that, the memo asks USDA agencies to “review their websites, blog posts and other social media and, consistent with direction you will receive from the Office of Communication, remove references to policy priorities and initiatives of the previous Administration.”

It also rescinds the ability of USDA agencies to close an office or notify local delegations of office closures."

Can you expand on your comment that individuals have a lot more power?

My admittedly anecdotal evidence shows that individuals are feeling more impotent with voices washed out in a wave a noise and an inability to affect anything.

As a Canadian that hates that all my all my online shopping is dominated by US ads, reviews and prices I really want to like this. It has some great features, especially the price history tracker, but lacks usability.

I have no idea what the fu number is. Your FAQ says "which indicates how good is a particular price offer" but what is good, how is it measured?

A much harder problem is the issue of the same device given different names at different resellers to avoid price matching. For the few laptops and TVs I tested there were multiple listings on your site for the same model and for all but one the manufacture website had a lower price than the lowest you listed.

2000 customers, average of 50 devices per customer, average of $15000 per devices

2000 * 50 * $15000 = $1.5 billion

I think that objectively counts as a hit...

The people you are talking about giving up when they plateau are likely the same people that would have given up when forced to learn the grammar. The net result is a similar number of people at the higher level but the people at the beginner level have more ability to generate music.

Down the road an ability to bang off a tune at a party is far more useful to a beginner than knowledge of music theory. Makes people happier too!

Is that new. When I signed up, admittedly a number of years ago, they just asked me to tell them the amounts of the two test deposits. No login creds provided.

The problem, IMHO, is trust. We can't trust what we read online. We know there is lots of true, useful information online and there is lots of crap. So, how do you figure out which is which? Intuition, gut response, does it make sense. All are tied to our biases.

Basically we have turned "Do I trust this?" into "Do I agree with what this is saying?" I feel this is the core issue behind filter bubbles.

Fake news sites are mocking the problem. They aren't the cause but they aren't helping either.

The landing sequence appears less complex and risky than the skycrane solution for Curiosity. Does anyone know what the tradeoffs between the two options are?

I'd love to seen an ADEPT method explanation of Laplace Transforms.

I got through most of math fairly easily by having a mental model of what was going on and could always check that I was on the right track as it made sense in my mental model. However, when I got to Laplace transforms I never figured out how to visual what that meant. Everything collapsed into transform into the magical space where you can do some things easier and then you can transform out into a new place. I could never be sure of how I got from a to b without a tedious examination of every step to ensure I applied the rules correctly.

I'd love to have a mental model for Laplace Transforms.

As a generalization, how does one explain things where no good mental model exists?

That isn't unique to Computer Science or Programming. I've worked with engineers, accountants, project managers, and many trades people that never touch their area of expertise outside of the classroom or the office. No venturing outside the curriculum or the self improvement on personal time. For most of them their job is just a job and that is enough for them.

I think what is amazing about programming is that so many people are able to get jobs without degrees. There is a general consensus that self taught developers can be as good or better than formally taught ones. I haven't seen this in other fields until you get to senior leadership. Sure, areas like law and accounting require a formalized foundation that are hard to get outside of degrees but trades is an area with a lot of room for self-development yet there is little respect for those without certificates. Sure you can make the argument of insurance needs but that just raises the question of why contracted developers don't need to be bonded.

This is very interesting. There is a common belief that you cannot persuade anyone on the internet. This amazes me as the internet is the number one source of information for most people and information does change beliefs. Perhaps the reason for this is that we are arguing poorly, arguing at the wrong time and not recognizing when we have made an impact. This article gives some insight for how we can improve.

Argue when people are receptive to change. The first point was respond sooner, however, this misses the fact that these were requests posted to board dedicated to changing minds. When the poster submitted they were open to new ideas. This is the best time to provide alternative view points and it is very transient. The next question is how to identify this.

People don't like being the odd one out. When someone is open to changing their mind it means they doubt their position. This doubt is amplified by the more people that have an alternative view point. In practical application it means that it is useless to go into a group of like minded people and attack their core beliefs as is so often seen when people "raid" a sub-cultures message board.

There are diminishing returns for each exchange and after a tipping point it has a negative effect. Those long back and forth yelling matches are just as useless as they appear. Respond a few times and then disengage. Any points you have made are already done and continuing will undo that work.

Supportive evidence helps. I think this is part of the group persuasion point. It shows that their is a large group supporting the idea. However, I've had very poor results when linking to external evidence so this one is the most interesting to me as it contradicts my views.

Quoting to person you are arguing with is aggressive. This shows you are attacking them and their words directly and immediately puts them on the defensive. You have now forced the person to admit what they said was wrong if they change their mind. This is a much harder battle.

This theme continues in the "don't act too intense" point. Defensive people are not open to change.

If you want to change someone's mind put effort into your response. A longer more thoughtful response will have more effect than a pithy comment.

The last point was the most useful: provide new information. So often we attack where the person is strongest. They have the information and have made their interpretation of it. You can either say the information is wrong or their interpretation is wrong. Both of these will make them defensive. However, by providing additional information you give them an out. They can now change their mind without ever being wrong, they were just not aware of all the facts.

Core to all of this is having a definition of success. Too often arguments, especially on the internet, have the goal of the person admitting they were wrong. This leads to the poor arguments we see littering comment sections. However, if the goal is to persuade a person to take a different action then this article suggests a course of action.

Identify the action they are currently going to take: Voting for Trump. Dig into why they are going to take that action: because he will help the economy. Present additional information with supporting sources: Trumps stance on Muslims. Disengage, further discourse is unlikely to be helpful.

My guess is that as the pot increases people of a higher income get interested. I can see an argument that if the pot increases from $1M to $10M in likelihood of someone that makes $100k/y buys a ticket will increase by more than 10 times while someone that makes $10k/y wont. Part of it is the hype and part the impact to your life being large enough to override reason.

It would be interesting to see if there are any studies that show that trend and where it cuts off.

While I appreciate your humour I want to clarify for anyone genuinely confused. Yield is being used in the legal sense regarding fault not the programming shared resource sense.

What this means, as far as I understand, is that in the event of an accident between a manned and unmanned aircraft the unmanned will be at fault. However, between two unmanned aircraft both will be at fault.

Why are the majority of the comments here blaming the victim?

This is the death if a person who tried to stand against an overwhelming force. To try and stand against the cartels where the police didn't dare and instead of honouring her work or get death you mock her for not using tor.

If you seriously think that lack of cybersecurity is the problem then at least use this to highlight the lack of good easy to use security software.

Anyone found technical documentation on they implemented this? Code or paper?

Why are you resistant to doing the market valuation? It is cheap and beneficial. No matter hire certain you are it will validate and refine your offering. You get to learn the market size, the price point and create reasonable estimates for adoption all while collecting free feedback on features.

No matter how certain you are talk with your customers!