ctlby

13 ms·

61.
by ctlby 9y ago
Please stop peddling this science denialism. There is great consensus outside the intellectually-bankrupt fields of sociology and gender studies.
62.
by ctlby 9y ago
But they are well-accepted, and they have been for decades. If scientific consensus is any measure of truth, you should be defending his propositions with the same fervor you would global warming. Anything else is just science denialism.
63.
by ctlby 9y ago
The most direct reading of his claim is that they're hiring unqualified women. He would presumably be happy with a larger mix of female colleagues if he felt standards weren't being lowered.
64.
by ctlby 9y ago
They've only been "debunked" in the lazy, anti-intellectual corners of academia; that is, gender studies, cultural/social anthropology, critical race theory, etc. The factual points made by the author (re: gender differe
65.
by ctlby 9y ago
This guy takes a crack at exactly what you propose. The factors you mention do not undermine the manifesto's thesis. https://nintil.com/2017/08/07/why-so-few-women-in-cs-the-goo...
66.
by ctlby 9y ago
Nearly all of the document's factual claims are squarely in the middle of academic consensus. If you find the arguments morally troubling, just say so, but don't contribute to the raving anti-scientific delusions of the blank-slat
67.
by ctlby 10y ago
If they're willing to labor for those rates, they are "market" by definition.
68.
by ctlby 10y ago
Good point, my statement is specific to the US.
69.
by ctlby 10y ago
> I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former. There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outsid
70.
by ctlby 10y ago
Nailed it. The problems they're trying to address are entirely in the realm of corporate governance. None of their stated aims require a new exchange.
71.
by ctlby 10y ago
> This doesn't apply only to expensive universities. In order for a university to saddle students with crushing debt, it must almost certainly be both a.) expensive b.) unhelpful for career prospects. This points to private liberal-
72.
by ctlby 10y ago
Of course. But in this case, this debt is non-dischargeable, so the lender (the government!) is asserting its right under the law--a law that the student should have been aware of before rushing off to expensive, no-name liberal arts univer
73.
by ctlby 10y ago
> I am glad this measure exists for the disabled Americans being shaken down Silly hyperbole. They're simply being asked to pay for a product they consumed. > the use of private companies charging usurious rates is simply wrong.
74.
by ctlby 11y ago
They're on point about his general lawlessness. It started with the Chrysler bailout (almost as soon as he walked into office!), and it continues to this day with e.g. the retroactive provisions in his latest anti-inversion proposal. &
75.
by ctlby 11y ago
I deeply agree when it comes to programming, but there's plenty of room for absolutism in other areas of life. Why subordinate strong moral preferences to hazy cost-benefit analysis?
76.
by ctlby 11y ago
> It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. Even the most pessimistic view suggests that real wages grew, especially after the conclusion of the Napoleanic Wars. [1] >
77.
by ctlby 11y ago
Check out the chart on page 18. $1.5 billion spent over 10 years, and the homeless population... increased! What a humiliating statistic for anyone who thinks this can be solved with mental-health treatment, rehab, empathy, or [homily of ch
78.
by ctlby 11y ago
The point is that no amount of money will solve the problem with San Francisco's current approach (whatever that is). If they spend $50 million with zero effect, and they spend $100 million with zero effect, and they spend $150 milli
79.
by ctlby 11y ago
The city spends $167 million [1] for a homeless population no larger than 15,000 (and probably closer to 7,000) [2]. The wealthy city isn't leaving anyone to his or her fate. To the contrary, it's expending vast amounts of wealth
80.
by ctlby 11y ago
> But you are going to get an error rate, and probably a high one in the noisy real world. They're clearly not implementing a minimum-error rate classifier. Which isn't to defend their choice of loss function (it's not 0-1
81.
by ctlby 11y ago
Bureaucracy does tend towards bloat and failure, both in the private or public sectors. I can quibble with your examples (I don't think they're appropriate), but even if we allow that they are indeed successes, for each one I can
82.
by ctlby 11y ago
> I still fail to understand what does being one millionth of a second faster accomplish. A simple example: suppose AAPL is currently quoted $95.00 x $96.00. A reasonable estimate for the "fair value" is the midpoint, $95.50. N
83.
by ctlby 11y ago
There you go again with "insertion." HFT market-makers don't thrust themselves between two people who are about to transact. Their orders were already in the market, and you came to them. The "Flash Boys" case is a
84.
by ctlby 11y ago
Obviously not. Humans just want something that feels like "now." That this has changed from seconds to milliseconds to microseconds is an inevitable consequence of the rules of the game--and is completely irrelevant to you. Your h
85.
by ctlby 11y ago
They don't "insert" themselves, they were there before you came along. Your market order trades with them because their price is the best one currently displayed. As for an HFT firm "seeing" your order and front-run
86.
by ctlby 11y ago
Makers collect the spread from participants who want to transact right now (the price of immediacy). "Real" investors are better off because they paid someone to take a position of their hands that they didn't want. They made
87.
by ctlby 11y ago
Let me clarify: my random delay shuffles incoming orders, while random exchange delays (outside of CME iLink games) do not. Removing determinism hugely hurts speed. The value of further decimalization seems questionable. It would in all cas
88.
by ctlby 11y ago
> they never seem to answer the question of why someone who is not an HFT firm would want to trade on an exchange that caters to high frequency traders. There are network effects in trading: people go to transact where everyone else is t
89.
by ctlby 11y ago
CyberDildonics is basically proposing frequent batch auctions as described in the Budish paper. It won't work, largely for reason you state. The appropriate solution is for exchanges to add a _random_ delay to each order (emphasis on _
90.
by ctlby 11y ago
It turns out that the only way to be profitable in trading is to buy low and sell high.

More ›