hnhg

27 ms·

1. 301.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   Also worth a read: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/quasim-soleimani...
2. 302.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   It's PG's habit of using his own arbitrary measures of intelligence as a proxy for worthiness, and where these measures of intelligence are usually a function of the ability to make money.
3. 303.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   Perhaps 'accidental moderate'='independent' and 'intentional moderate'='centrist'?
4. 304.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   I'm intrigued by how this analysis fits in with increasingly 'tribal/team politics' - do intentional moderates try to appease every team? Thinking out loud, I think this piece misses that aspect of team-seeking behavior.
5. 305.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   I believe that's incorrect under GDPR. There is a legitimate interest to keep records for fraud use, and also they must not delete anything that's required for regulatory compliance. GDPR is very clear on that.
6. 306.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   Ah, ok, I think my right lies somewhere in me withdrawing consent and my belief that they lack a 'legitimate interest' (which is somewhat well defined under GDPR) for retaining it. I might contact the ICO and Telegram and see what
7. 307.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   Thanks. I might try that. All reports seem to say they are actually based out of Dubai (previously Berlin?). It's all very murky. I'll see if they respond.
8. 308.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   Thanks. That's unsatisfactory to me, alas.
9. 309.▲
   by hnhg 7y ago

   I believe they do store data on their servers. Their desktop app doesn't require syncing to your phone. Can you explain your thinking about why you believe that? I would have interpreted the guidelines in the opposite way. Telegram doe
10. 310.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    What about 'startup/tech' companies like Telegram? I can't bulk delete data in group chats, which to me seems in violation of my GDPR rights. I also have no idea where they are permanently based or how to properly contac
11. 311.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    This headline is so infuriatingly misleading. They didn't spend the money on the dress, they bought the image. The BBC should be above this clickbait.
12. 312.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    In what timescale though? There are huge differences between the timescales of "realtime" (say HFT), a second later, a minute later, an hour later, a week later and so on. Do they operate at all of them? I have no specialist knowl
13. 313.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    In France there might be another dominant selection process other than cost (e.g. attending the 'right' schools, which again might be a matter of what connections you've had, or if you can afford to live in the catchment area
14. 314.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    Thanks. I dived into this and tbh I'd like someone to take what you've mentioned and extend the discussion in the original paper further. IMO, the paper's simulation tells us explicitly the full extent of what they've be
15. 315.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    I don't think that's a problem. A lot of valid work has been done on simplified models and they're there to illustrate what might be going on rather than absolute proof. And yes you can criticise them, since that is the point
16. 316.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    I won't dismiss what you're saying but tbh it's very opaque - do you have a link to something that explains what you're trying to say? Something mathematical would help (for the reasons I outlined in my earlier reply!)
17. 317.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    My point is that the mathematical simulation is more precise because you've exactly stated the model and ran it. While doing it verbally allows for all kinds of interpretation and is therefore much harder to interpret. I apologise but
18. 318.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    I remember another study that looked at people who had made it very rich, and they saw that luck was something like 'being educated in a field just when that field is about to make a huge impact in the world' - in other words, gre
19. 319.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    Can you clarify this? 'However, you don't need the simulation to add to this argument. If anything, the simulation undercuts it because now you point out small errors and end up doubting the whole argument.' I would say that
20. 320.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    It depends on the person you get to help you, I think. Some friends have had faulty power supplies replaced even out of warranty but I was told they couldn't help me and I had to buy a new one. It's down to luck, I think.
21. 321.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    I felt you were. While your point is not unimportant, it stands separate to the original one.
22. 322.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
23. 323.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    A gift to enemies of the USA :)
24. 324.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    Isn't that what lobby groups do anyway? Seems like this is somewhat covered by the current political system.
25. 325.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    You raise an interesting point, and I'd like to follow it further with some numbers across job creation, charity, arts funding, etc, so I can follow things more closely? Also, how do contributions to these differ across the rich? Are t
26. 326.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    Is that what you wanted?
27. 327.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    This is a far gentler introduction, and the rest of the blog is pretty good too: https://www.countbayesie.com/blog/2016/5/1/a-guide-to-bayesi... Edit: this is a different take on the subject but an enjoy
28. 328.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    For as long as we humans have existed, we've sought for better and more effective tools, and now you're saying that's overrated?
29. 329.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    And even across the pond in Manchester: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatx2RLVyj0
30. 330.▲
    by hnhg 7y ago

    What about privacy regulation? Why is that not also feasible?