apathy

10 ms·

31.
by apathy 7y ago
Tried that. Unless you have a lot of properties or can get one who is also an REA, they aren’t nearly as motivated as your more “proactive” tenants will demand. And forget about evicting an unwieldy tenant on any reasonable schedule in Cali
32.
by apathy 7y ago
Hello fellow statistician (whether by training or habit). For everyone else, note that this approach is not limited to landlording. Excellent exposition!
33.
by apathy 7y ago
This 1000x. I reflexively said (out loud) “god no!” in answer to the title question. The only people who ask this question are people who haven’t been landlords. Every single one of my friends who has, can commiserate with me as a former la
34.
by apathy 7y ago
This. REAs live and die on referrals.
35.
by apathy 7y ago
I should probably care more, but after netting about $750k fixing up houses over the past 20 years while my wife and I worked full time jobs, I don’t. Estimates had converged on between $860k and $940k from various realtors and models; we t
36.
by apathy 7y ago
Usually it’s 1% to 3% on each side of the sale. I sure as hell didn’t like paying $45000 to the agents but we would have listed (and sold) the house for $50000 less if not for our agent’s prodding. So in the end we cleared an additional $50
37.
by apathy 7y ago
“Should” is an amazingly dangerous word (in the usage often embraced in the US, at least). I find that asking why something “should” be XYZ is much more enlightening, both for the writer and the reader, in terms of exposing structural probl
38.
by apathy 7y ago
At one point it was typical — looks like scrutiny has driven indirects down massively outside of dedicated research institutes in the past few years. https://osp.mit.edu/facilities-and-administrative-fa-rates HMS declared r
39.
by apathy 7y ago
Wait, there are groups that don’t do this already? “We thank reviewer 3 for the insightful suggestion...” (ok now copy paste the results that we cut for submission) Ha ha only serious. Otherwise you get “helpful suggestions” like “run anoth
40.
by apathy 7y ago
“Some”? Try 90% or more!
41.
by apathy 7y ago
Insane administrative overhead? http://thebullelephant.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Doctor...
42.
by apathy 7y ago
Just like in medicine
43.
by apathy 7y ago
It’s adorable that people think a research university would settle for just 50% indirects. Try 90% and almost all of it goes to the football coach or the dean’s legal fees.
44.
by apathy 8y ago
Indeed, the Sackler family is a scourge. Behind every great fortune lies a great crime...
45.
by apathy 8y ago
That’s the whole point of doubly robust models. However, in the event of confounding by indication or sampling misspecification, my experience is that nothing can save you. I am a rather strong proponent of randomized trials for this exact
46.
by apathy 8y ago
Always happy to be a bad influence.
47.
by apathy 8y ago
I hate to take “both sides” but in the absence of confounding by indication, you can often use propensity scoring within robust models to decrease these impacts. Mind you, the problem with non random and undetected sampling bias is that it
48.
by apathy 8y ago
I <3 this reply. So, so good. Sneaky way of introducing the RCT. You’re doing it right.
49.
by apathy 8y ago
“Just” This would be like saying “it’s just that we haven’t proven P!=NP” in CS. Best of luck. Meanwhile applied people will deal with the problem by model diagnostics and sensitivity analysis as has been done for decades. I can’t wait for
50.
by apathy 8y ago
Good luck in study section, especially with mouse specialists. I hope you have a mighty compelling argument for why a random sample of (say) house mice is going to be free of unmeasured confounding effects...
51.
by apathy 8y ago
AWS accounts for something like half of Amazon’s operating revenue. It may not be exciting but it is a license to print money. Why wouldn’t google (and MSFT, and anyone else with a big sunk investment in data centers) want to monetize their
52.
by apathy 8y ago
Urs and Jeff were amazing. Something has changed though. Granted it’s been 15 years since I worked there, but some of the incredible spark that used to be there seems to have gone out.
53.
by apathy 8y ago
Analyzing papers in a glam journal for a year isn’t a very good way to judge what counts as science in terms of what is publishable. (“Just because it’s in Nature doesn’t mean it’s wrong!”) That said, I agree that most of science is about b
54.
by apathy 8y ago
Except that leeching has benefits
55.
by apathy 8y ago
Not only, and not always. HGSOC-hypercalcemic is a particularly notable exception. The idea that it’s always MMR came from Lynch syndrome, but that doesn’t seem to be universal. Immunity is complicated, you heard it here first...
56.
by apathy 8y ago
That’s not the important conclusion of the primary article. Highly mutated cancers of certain types respond better to checkpoint inhibition and so forth. Melanoma, lung adeno, colorectal with MMR defects, for example. Others (glioma, high
57.
by apathy 8y ago
Where are the hills in Seattle? It may not be as flat as Amsterdam, but it certainly isn’t San Francisco (or even LA, for that matter). I had the good fortune to essentially never get in a car in Seattle — I always took the subway, or the t
58.
by apathy 8y ago
Yes, regularly.
59.
by apathy 8y ago
Oh hey, is this Nautilus the publication that doesn’t pay their authors until they sue? They used to have some excellent work before all the authors wised up... If you’re interested in this type of material, may I suggest mosaic ( https:&#x
60.
by apathy 8y ago
Unless they’re dense they used the inside of the upper arm to avoid sun damage. The bigger issue is that Steve Horvath calibrated and has successfully marketed a DNA methylation based “epigenetic clock” accurate to within a couple of years,

More ›