SideQuark

65 ms·

781.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Oh, another useful fact for you - you claimed your routine is good up to $100 billion, that it takes input in pennies, and interest scaled by 1000. Your temp scale factor starts as 10,000, and then is multiplied by 10, so your principal in
782.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Oh good, that will be fun. Here's C++ code #include <iostream> #include <cstdint> int64_t scaleFV(int64_t P, int64_t R, int64_t C, int64_t Y) { int64_t SP = 10000; // tempor
783.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>See the routine I posted above in this thread. See my reply to it showing an incredible amount of errors.... I bet you work in crypto pricing, right? From your claims it is clear you do not even understand how your code works (claiming
784.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>but you can pay a significant price in terms of efficiency and storage headaches Yet the code you posted above as using int64 does not in fact work using int64, it requires arbitrary sized integers as I demonstrated above. Did you even
785.
by SideQuark 4y ago
1) I posted my code as ` total = principal * (1+((rate/100)/t)) ^ (n*t)`, and you claimed your 10 line "My standard, generalized, library routine is equally brief". By "equally brief" did you mean an order of m
786.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Don't worry - I just started looking at his code - it fails on tons of common examples, completely demonstrating what we pointed out. There's no need to even have him try to compute things past what he claimed his ever changing cl
787.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>0.3 cents is quite a bit different than your earlier claim --- "completely pukes at 4 decimals". Yep - plug 100M into your just posted code. Was it correct? Nope? >So within acceptable legal tolerance. Yes, when you hand cr
788.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Congratulations - you're 0.3 cents off, despite careful ad-hoc tuning you did to solve only the one set of numbers you set out to. Too bad your method still fails for a whole range of valid mortgages :) Like what happens when you use y
789.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Di you try it? Have you written financial software? This is terrible advice. Even the most naïve calculation, such as computing total amount paid at 8% compounded monthly over a 30 year mortgage, ends up wrong by over $100,000 compared to t
790.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Outliers don't invalidate the stats, in the same way someone getting outstanding value does not mean everyone got outstanding value. Also, how did your mortgage cost go up 5x? That sounds almost nonsensical, unless there's some re
791.
by SideQuark 4y ago
That's a small amount of people. Most people in life move from job to job by choice as they gain skills or want to try something else. Track all the people you run into in a week, and consider how many you think would choose to keep th
792.
by SideQuark 4y ago
> traditional Pension programs Which never were given to many people (so SS was the biggest source of income, even then), were insolvent, and make little sense for the mobility of a modern job market. I'd much rather get paid more,
793.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>Maybe because the long tenure with an employer went away in the 70's when we started off-shoring everything? Maybe because people started moving around in their careers a lot more than in the 1970s when you had one job for life? We
794.
by SideQuark 4y ago
You can do most of this already, right? When you can choose from 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 year mortgages, take your equity, swap to a new house, pick the mortgage closest to the term you want, and there you go. You will never get 3% mortg
795.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Inflation adjusted house per square foot has been quite stable for almost 100 years. Houses are now a lot bigger, making the inflation adjusted prices increase. If you factor in shrinking household size, then square foot per person as incre
796.
by SideQuark 4y ago
I've used it professionally for error correcting code design, robotic control, crypto (ecc and multivariate polynomial), lots of computer vision uses, grobner bases to simplify algorithms, and geometric modeling. Perhaps more if I look
797.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Besides the other list, places results from AG have uses in tech include statistics, control theory, robotics, error-correcting codes, phylogenetics, geometric modelling, string theory, game theory, graph matchings, solitons , integer progr
798.
by SideQuark 4y ago
It's clearly not part of the solution as napkin math demonstrates, and that's not even including losses into and out of the batteries, which pushes the numbers into the realm of ludicrous. If you want to argue otherwise, demonstra
799.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Take number of cars, multiply by storage capacity of an EV battery, compare to daily energy requirements, fall incredibly short. This is not a solution.
800.
by SideQuark 4y ago
AG as studied by mathematicians has produced an incredible amount of applications that would not exist without that level of abstract tooling. And it's highly nontrivial to learn those tools (as someone that has worked through Hartshor
801.
by SideQuark 4y ago
Feel free to provide the math, because it's not much at all. C suite pay drops rapidly as you move past a tiny few people. You can get all the data, do the math, then you'll be surprised :)
802.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>I am pointing at Gab as an example of definite success As far as I can tell, Gab is still losing money and not gaining users (100,000 estimated active as of now, despite 6 years of existence), so it's hard to call it a success. I
803.
by SideQuark 4y ago
The numbers include all that. Read the BLS methodology and you'll find it clearly explained. The Google CEO I listed is the same, as you can check in SEC filings. Please don't make claims without checking if it's true. It was
804.
by SideQuark 4y ago
I was replying to the person above me that specifically mentioned the results of Google CEO giving money to employees, so it was high relevance. As to the "since the 1990s," all of those are quite oddly cherry picked. The actual f
805.
by SideQuark 4y ago
If Google CEO Sundar Pichai split his entire 2021 $6,322,599 [1] compensation among their 156,000 employees [2], each would get ~$40. If he split his entire stock worth of $280M among them they'd each get under $2000. Not life changing
806.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>extra 10ms That won't even get a signal across the US at the speed of light, so real lag will be much, much higher, even with servers scattered around (speed in wires, networking device lags, etc... )
807.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>extra 10ms That won't even get a signal across the US at the speed of light, so real lag will be much, much higher.
808.
by SideQuark 4y ago
>Statistically, again, probably nothing. Yes, there still is. Any program tuned to play some level does so by making suboptimal moves enough to get that lower rating, while making really profound moves more often than a player at say 250
809.
by SideQuark 4y ago
This isn't whataboutism; it's not trying to deflect from the original. It's a very valid claim. When science (or insert topic X here) is politicized and political ads are banned, then are stories about science (insert topic X
810.
by SideQuark 4y ago
That also has the effect of locking in incumbent people and parties. No political ads means it's even less possible to get new candidates before lots of eyeballs.

More ›