546 karma · joined October 25, 2021
A string of length N is vastly more likely to be a valid Perl program than a valid Python program. Ultimately this meant that Perl programs, while easier to type, were much harder to read, and extremely easy to misinterpret.
I did not say anything about "new investigative journalism". I said it was not news reporting.
The claim that is is entertainment journalism is very simple. This type of piece is written, not to inform, but to entertain. That's why it focusses on color and character, while missing basic story details - the 5 W's, any overview of how the bankrupt businesses worked, etc. Such pieces are often designed to give the impression of information, because this impression is part of the entertainment experience. You can easily find decent and free writing on this topic which provides way better analysis and is generally accurate and honest.
As you have probably noticed, stories about scams and frauds are a very big business, and articles about them are now part of a well-worn pipeline by which books, movies and mini series are made. Very few of these have any commitment either to accuracy in general or to useful information about why such scams are possible, why they are socially important, or how they can be stopped. They exist merely to entertain and titillate. A writer like the author of this piece, will be aware that they are part of this machine, and that there is lots of career advancement to be made in writing fluff about grifters, particularly in a way which tends to get you closer to other grifters.
Wikipedia is not news reporting either. Not sure of your point, however note that the wikipedia page about Sam Bankman-Fried, while shorter than the NYT article, contains vastly more detailed information about his career, and has 85 citations to its sources.
Your fourth example, Blackrock, is tellingly neither a seasoned venture fund nor an experienced crypto investor.
If the company turns out to be a fraud and the investment worthless, are you still entitled to say "nobody could have known" and "only 1 in 10 has to be a winner"?
What was it about FTX's lack of internal controls or experienced decision-makers which only TVG was able to identify as a source of value?
TVG put well over 1% of its assets into FTX. Numerous people who work for the venture fund, who are paid 10-100X the income of the retirees in the fund to make investing decisions, went ahead with this investment without asking themselves:
1. Why isn't there a crypto-savvy lead investor for this funding round? Why are we, Teachers Venture Growth, the best placed people to make this investment?
2. Why are 3 individuals with, ostensibly, enormous personal wealth, seeking outside investment from Ontario Teachers for this business?
3. Why isn't this business headquartered in a jurisdiction where people who commit massive financial fraud will be investigated and held to account?
4. What checks and balances regulate the relationship with Alameda, a hedge fund which a) trades with leverage and favorable fee structures on FTX b) is reputed (long before the Series B and the recent trouble) to have privileged access to FTX data c) is run by a romantic partner of the head of FTX?
5. Who are the grown-ups at FTX? You might well think that SBF and his posse have some magical crypto skills. But why don't they have senior people with experience in accountancy, compliance, or risk management helping keep them on the right path? This is the easiest question to answer - you can simply check who works for them, who's on risk committees and other oversight bodies, and what their resume is.
People like to excuse massive due diligence failings like this by pointing out that not all venture investments are supposed to end up in the money. It's fine, if you have huge winners, to use them to justify a certain number of losers.
If you don't have a proven track record for finding out-of-the-park winners, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why you think you can risk large amounts of money on things that look dubious to other investors, while not performing basic checks.
Ontario Teachers were an anchor investor in a round which lots of less clueless people must have passed on.
Not sure why you think this is ok.
> Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange,
Par 6. Common knowledge, finance-splained and followed by equivocation and hand-waving from SBF.
> On Nov. 6, Mr. Zhao announced on Twitter that he was selling the FTT, spooking customers who rushed to withdraw their FTX deposits
Common knowledge for more than a week (in par 28). More well-known things about the Zhao deal in the next couple of pars. Obv suggesting the two key questions, why did they need a bailout in the first place, and what was wrong with the business that led Zhao not to invest? Needless to say, neither of them is answered in the article.
> Her voice shaking, she apologized, saying she had let the group down. Over recent months, she said, Alameda had taken out loans and used the money to make venture capital investments, among other expenditures.
> Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang.
> The meeting was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Several day old scuttlebutt taken from another newspaper in par 30+. (And nicely written to suggest that it's an urgent eyewitness dispatch "Her voice shaking")
That's it. Literally no actual news reporting was done in this article.
The high standards of reliability and standing up to scrutiny are worthless, because they are not actually applied to any useful or new information, but just to the human interest color that 90% of the piece consists of. Yes, the 'facts' that SBF has 15 room-mates and not 12, and that he plays League of Legends not Terraria are rigorously fact-checked, but they might as well not be. The actual question of Where did the money go is completely ignored beyond what is widely known.
This isn't news reporting, it's a form of entertainment journalism, which allows people out of the loop to get a sense of the excitement and glamor of what's it like to live in the Bahamas and have your crypto exchange go bankrupt. (And it equally fulfils the desire for other clueless people to tut and sigh over the way the world is going.)
Isn't it much more useful to write something which actually tries to answer the question of what happened, albeit with appropriate caveats, than something which doesn't advance the understanding of the reader at all?
2^n is the number of subsets of the string of a's with no contiguity requirements. Nothing like this number of possible matches should need to be checked. What am I missing?
I have noticed that in France glasses with decent but standard frames cost around 5 times as much as in the UK. My suspicion is that the difference is related to how supplementary health insurance works in France rather than any special manufacturing requirements.
How does the behavior of Instagram, Pinterest and others fit into this theory?
I think you have rephrased what I said to again push the idea that it's a zero sum game. If mediocre students can be successful, given the right educational inputs (for some definition of 'successful' and 'mediocre'), isn't this a huge opportunity? Perhaps we should improve society as well as social justice by trying to promote mediocre students from poorer backgrounds to this same level of success, rather than by working on the problem of undiscovered genius.
> The basic fact that parental income is still the best predictor of educational achievement should tell you everything you need to know.
My whole point is that this does not tell you everything you need to know. If low-parental-income and high-parental-income students had exactly the same potential to succeed, the fact that parental income is a good predictor of achievement might be telling you either (or any combination) of two things: that wealthier students are achieving beyond what should be expected (and so we are ending up with incompetent people in very senior positions because they did not get them on merit), or that poorer students are achieving below where they should be (and so we are wasting the potential of talented people). These are really different problems! And probably have quite different solutions.
However, isn't it possible that giving great teaching resources to people who aren't already at the top level in terms of raw talent, allows them to succeed at a very high level? If so, it's not a zero sum game - the 'averagely clever people who have received great tuition' and who go on to succeed might be a sign of the education system working, not its failure. We might focus more on making sure a wider group of 'averagely clever people' get such good tuition, rather than on the finding and promotion of undiscovered geniuses.
Two examples that I often think about in this context: firstly the Budapest school of mathematics in the early 20th century. A hugely disproportionate number of the world-class mathematicians from that era were directly taught by Fejer and/or part of his seminar and mentee group. (He stands out as a supervisor to a far greater extent than any mathematician stands out from the pack for his own achievements.) Is it possible that while one or two of this group might have been 'born geniuses', it also includes several who might otherwise have been second-rate, but who became world-class because of the influence both of Fejer and of their high-performing colleagues?
Secondly, George Harrison of the Beatles. In the second half of the Beatles' recording career, he wrote some of their best-loved songs, several of which are regarded as absolute classics. Did the Beatles happen to contain three inherently gifted songwriters, by sheer coincidence? Or is it more likely that working for a decade alongside two extremely talented and successful songwriters nurtured and elevated Harrison far beyond what might otherwise have been expected?
When you know that the French name is Anvers it makes a little more sense.
A good manager can do some 'managing out' simply by communicating to her team that there are reduced opportunities for promotion or new projects coming up, and that they may be layoffs. At any time in any workplace a certain fraction of people are actively looking for a new job, and another, usually much larger fraction are open to a move, might be hearing from recruiters, etc. A manager can create a mood of "if you have a decent offer, you should take it" without making people's lives miserable.
It is annoying, but it's not illogical.
If you have looked at something once, say there's a 99% chance that you have no further interest in it. But the 1% chance that you are potentially going to buy it after being shown the ad again is still much better odds than showing it to a random person, or a random person who is somehow correlated to the target market.
Even after seeing the ad 50 more times and ignoring it, you are probably still a statistically better lead than someone who has never interacted with the ad. They're not making a strong assumption about you, even though it seems that way. They're making a very weak assumption based on the small number of people who clicked once, hesitated, saw the ad 49 times more, carried on hesitating, and now are finally ready to buy.
Choosing a bigger number makes it less likely that you will win by being smaller than the other two, but more likely that you will win by the other two knocking each other out, since there are now more numbers available for them to do so with.
After playing what seemed at the time like 'computer-type chess' - relentlessly accurate goal-seeking strategy, Deep Blue started to play far less obvious and riskier moves. Kasparov's prejudice that a computer couldn't play like that led him to believe that Bobby Fisher was hiding inside the machine with an oxygen tank and a sandwich.
[2] and [3] are about the impact of Christianity on the modern world. I have never argued that this is not significant. My point is that reading the Bible is a terrible way to learn about this.
Firstly, most of the Bible is not about Christianity at all, since it was written before the birth of Christ. Secondly, large parts of it are not about anything interesting at all. Thirdly, most of the parts that are about Christianity, are not particularly useful for someone seeking to understand Christian ideas or culture.
[1] is about the ideas of Luther. Again, these are certainly important. Do you think that it was necessary for Max Weber to read the Bible in order to write the key sociological text on European Protestantism? For that matter, do you think that Francis Fukuyama had to read it in order to write that book? What about Nietzsche? If they didn't need to read the Bible in order to reason about the ideas and the mythos of Christianity, why should we?
The logical step from "Christianity (and/or Judaism) have profoundly influenced us, and should be examined and understood", to "one should read the Bible" is completely flawed, and only made because of the lingering Christian superstition that doing so is 'good for one' or leads to some nebulous form of well-being.
I am not arguing that one should not read biblical texts. Just that the recommendation to read 'The Bible' is really a recommendation to read the central texts of Judaism, the central texts of Christianity plus hundreds of pages of not particularly edifying and largely irrelevant historical and spiritual marginalia, which were collected into a specific text known as 'The Bible' for fairly arbitrary reasons.
If the OP had said to read 'Genesis, Psalms and the Acts of the Apostles' it would have made some kind of sense to me. But dsr3's use of the fact that the Stanford course includes Genesis and the NT as support of the recommendation to read 'The Bible' is just sophistry.
Saying 'you should read every single thing Aristotle wrote, the important philosophy along with the archaic geometry and the incorrect biology' is on the face of it quite a lot less silly then saying 'you should read The Bible'.