3 ms·

What is your personal take on the smuggling of budgie smugglers? is it fraudulent? Central bank: HN had a bit to say on MF’s thermostat, id=4915751, rayiner on

What is your personal take on the smuggling of budgie smugglers? is it fraudulent? Central bank: HN had a bit to say on MF’s thermostat, id=4915751, rayiner on pubgoods 4915946 psmith pants-mongering on JW Central Banking 101 (very likely that one o both psmiths econometrician, btw): >On twitter you can see our real rulers humiliating themselves [meanwhile on HN…] On immigration i submit that it is morally wrong to avail foreigners of the capital destructive tools of the geographic rome of our times (which some, ahem, poets identify as carthage of Moloch)

aebtebeten 2y ago
I arbitrage away regulatory inefficiencies You are a smuggler They fraudulently profit (but we shouldn't expect much budgie smuggler smuggling, because although they are small and light, they aren't worth anything. Cicero claims most quotidian decisions are taken between more honourable and less honourable or more expedient or less expedient, and that it is exceptional to weigh the less honourable but more expedient course against the more honourable but less expedient; in this case smuggling budgie smugglers is neither) Is econometrics something like https://xkcd.com/1838/ https://xkcd.com/1838/ ? Re: rayiner, I'd say Pareto was right on there: a think tank's job is not to discern, as Cicero would have it, but to come up with derivations that fit their funders' residues. As far as twitter goes, I'm pretty sure foxes have more sense [this is also one of the areas where I take issue with the psmiths[0]: they don't seem to think of CEOs as the hired help; high class house servants as The Virginian (1902) puts it]; the lion has a huge mane but the fox has at least two exits to its den (and, if we believe the eastern tales, more than one[1] tail). We do get to see some amazing spin on it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE0GTgTzoxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE0GTgTzoxs [0] with Cicero, it'd be his spiessig bent — but looking at his background he would be; wouldn't he? [1] to what extent are prison tattoos a means of making it impossible to become a turncoat/change tails? (compare Maori moko: your face is your id card?) EDIT: forgot capital destruction; that's a wonderful example of a lion (the Rastafarian one) infamous for doing the foxes' dirty work.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Mea culpa. I've done the econometricians a great disservice! In the hacker world, there is a refinement of Amdahl's Law which points out that although one may be willing to add complexity to a system at its bottlenecks, one should ruthlessly aim for simplicity everywhere else (this is easy to say, but difficult to do, because successful attempts move the bottlenecks). I like to think of this as a computation being like a mountain stream, where changing the topography only matters at waterfalls; inside of pools it'd just be wasted effort. (to first order; at higher orders I'd hold that adding complexity inside of pools is actively detrimental, while removing it there may [beware of parenthetical above] be helpful) In the econometrics world, Shapley–Shubik clarifies* the circumstances under which relative power differences between members of a coalition become moot: either they hang together or they hang separately. * in particular, a functional triad is worth 417/2145. ERRATUM: also, please correct "amazing spin on it", supra, to "amazing spin on X (né twitter)" EDIT: even the appearance of a functional triad; for those more utilitarian than Pareto optimal that 417/2145 would be worth hecatombs of glowing boomers. Today I don't enjoy the "P! Who put valenki on management panel?" anecdote so much.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    wrt to psmith pants-mongering (hip trendy rascal Archer slid panty?), I always figured that if short squeezes are billionaire's poker (4 years being the longest hand of which I'm aware), betting against a major central bank would be trillionaire's poker. For most people, it's not a question of if* they know what they're doing, but if you can stay solvent (pace "in the long run") long enough for the tide to go out. (I don't know about you, but if I ever attempted to attack THB, my net worth would a.a. meet an absorbing barrier at 0) * if I were a central bank, and someone asked me if I knew what I was doing, I would be tempted to reply "we do not have a single theory, but rather a cluster of models and results".
    - gradschoolfail 2y ago
      Did you mean 421? It’s embarrassingly peripheral for now to say that this empirical index (as well as _lambda) is related to “entropy”, or even more shamefully, “sophistication”. Why india not perm, as romer says, population size <-/-> human capital, uk has veto o’er hollywood (only a brit can order hollywood to GTFO) & hollywood has the mandate o heaven, bollywood not (yet) a substitute. For we need a workable modern definition of lion & fox (the 2 forms of human capital) to cover all the cases. we agree that designori are humans who can switch modes or engage both simultaneously? [Pants were intended to be a gadget to help foxes adopt a (intellectual) lion mode, or vice versa] Lion: embraces externalities/expediencies, values unpredictability & loyalty Fox: rationalizes away externalities, seeks truth, values legibility, respects prowess (Seems too simple to classify preferred heuristics as DAGs or even poker strats) [another possible triad is {lion,fox,externality}, so that wolves & traps can be shoved under that last bit] [you observe that i tried to combine Jacobs & Rao explicitly, Boyd & Nietzsche implicitly] Concerning historical rhymes, nakamoto “chef marinetti” sakamoto prescribes decentralization, while sam “nielsbohr” altman prescribes AI?

aebtebeten 2y ago

I arbitrage away regulatory inefficiencies You are a smuggler They fraudulently profit (but we shouldn't expect much budgie smuggler smuggling, because although they are small and light, they aren't worth anything. Cicero claims most quotidian decisions are taken between more honourable and less honourable or more expedient or less expedient, and that it is exceptional to weigh the less honourable but more expedient course against the more honourable but less expedient; in this case smuggling budgie smugglers is neither) Is econometrics something like https://xkcd.com/1838/ https://xkcd.com/1838/ ? Re: rayiner, I'd say Pareto was right on there: a think tank's job is not to discern, as Cicero would have it, but to come up with derivations that fit their funders' residues. As far as twitter goes, I'm pretty sure foxes have more sense [this is also one of the areas where I take issue with the psmiths[0]: they don't seem to think of CEOs as the hired help; high class house servants as The Virginian (1902) puts it]; the lion has a huge mane but the fox has at least two exits to its den (and, if we believe the eastern tales, more than one[1] tail). We do get to see some amazing spin on it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE0GTgTzoxs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE0GTgTzoxs [0] with Cicero, it'd be his spiessig bent — but looking at his background he would be; wouldn't he? [1] to what extent are prison tattoos a means of making it impossible to become a turncoat/change tails? (compare Maori moko: your face is your id card?) EDIT: forgot capital destruction; that's a wonderful example of a lion (the Rastafarian one) infamous for doing the foxes' dirty work.

082349872349872 2y ago
Mea culpa. I've done the econometricians a great disservice! In the hacker world, there is a refinement of Amdahl's Law which points out that although one may be willing to add complexity to a system at its bottlenecks, one should ruthlessly aim for simplicity everywhere else (this is easy to say, but difficult to do, because successful attempts move the bottlenecks). I like to think of this as a computation being like a mountain stream, where changing the topography only matters at waterfalls; inside of pools it'd just be wasted effort. (to first order; at higher orders I'd hold that adding complexity inside of pools is actively detrimental, while removing it there may [beware of parenthetical above] be helpful) In the econometrics world, Shapley–Shubik clarifies* the circumstances under which relative power differences between members of a coalition become moot: either they hang together or they hang separately. * in particular, a functional triad is worth 417/2145. ERRATUM: also, please correct "amazing spin on it", supra, to "amazing spin on X (né twitter)" EDIT: even the appearance of a functional triad; for those more utilitarian than Pareto optimal that 417/2145 would be worth hecatombs of glowing boomers. Today I don't enjoy the "P! Who put valenki on management panel?" anecdote so much.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  wrt to psmith pants-mongering (hip trendy rascal Archer slid panty?), I always figured that if short squeezes are billionaire's poker (4 years being the longest hand of which I'm aware), betting against a major central bank would be trillionaire's poker. For most people, it's not a question of if* they know what they're doing, but if you can stay solvent (pace "in the long run") long enough for the tide to go out. (I don't know about you, but if I ever attempted to attack THB, my net worth would a.a. meet an absorbing barrier at 0) * if I were a central bank, and someone asked me if I knew what I was doing, I would be tempted to reply "we do not have a single theory, but rather a cluster of models and results".
  - gradschoolfail 2y ago
    Did you mean 421? It’s embarrassingly peripheral for now to say that this empirical index (as well as _lambda) is related to “entropy”, or even more shamefully, “sophistication”. Why india not perm, as romer says, population size <-/-> human capital, uk has veto o’er hollywood (only a brit can order hollywood to GTFO) & hollywood has the mandate o heaven, bollywood not (yet) a substitute. For we need a workable modern definition of lion & fox (the 2 forms of human capital) to cover all the cases. we agree that designori are humans who can switch modes or engage both simultaneously? [Pants were intended to be a gadget to help foxes adopt a (intellectual) lion mode, or vice versa] Lion: embraces externalities/expediencies, values unpredictability & loyalty Fox: rationalizes away externalities, seeks truth, values legibility, respects prowess (Seems too simple to classify preferred heuristics as DAGs or even poker strats) [another possible triad is {lion,fox,externality}, so that wolves & traps can be shoved under that last bit] [you observe that i tried to combine Jacobs & Rao explicitly, Boyd & Nietzsche implicitly] Concerning historical rhymes, nakamoto “chef marinetti” sakamoto prescribes decentralization, while sam “nielsbohr” altman prescribes AI?