imh

23 ms·

61.
by imh 8y ago
>That's true (at least as long as the other strategy also bets a constant proportion of wealth each turn). Does it require that assumption? I don't think it even requires identically distributed returns on each component bet. I
62.
by imh 8y ago
Don't look at the expectation of a single throw. Look at the distribution of the outcome after many throws. Relate that to the product of each throw's relative return. Look at how the log expectation of the product of n random var
63.
by imh 8y ago
>Sometimes people say that because the Kelly criterion maximises growth rate it will be the best "in the long run" even if your utility function isn't logarithmic. But I've never seen any evidence of this. Does anybod
64.
by imh 8y ago
If a big growth rate is a composition of a bunch of small changes with their own growth rate, then the overall change is the product of the individual ones, so geometric mean is appropriate.
65.
by imh 8y ago
You can give any candidates you like a tally. The one with the most tallies wins. Do you want to increase some candidates' total tallies? Then "approve" of them on your ballot.
66.
by imh 8y ago
I do machine learning and stats for a living. You could describe practically all of what's called AI by the popular press in the same way. Mostly "complex algorithms that classify/predict/optimize/decide between thi
67.
by imh 8y ago
I'm saying that we can define what constitutes understanding by defining what constitutes reasoning within a given inference system. That's a simpler task, but doesn't solve the original problem. It just passes the buck. Now
68.
by imh 8y ago
I've started thinking about the whole "do computers grok meaning" thing in terms of proof. If a computer tells me a true theorem, I don't know if I can ascribe "understanding" to it. If it tells me a true theor
69.
by imh 8y ago
I wish someone would figure out the right UX for partial autocompletion. e.g. I type "wo" and my phone suggests ("would", "work", "wonder"), there should be an easy way to say I'm trying to type
70.
by imh 8y ago
This is why people who care about voting can't come together around up with a new voting system. They can't decide how to choose as a group ;_;
71.
by imh 8y ago
The more worried people are that there's a bubble, the less extreme the irrational exuberance. I love all the "shit, the bubble's about to pop" talk. If people weren't worried, it's just make the correction t
72.
by imh 8y ago
Perhaps if most everything an industry uses is learned in college, you're setting that industry up for a low skill cap and thus maybe ageism. Anyways, if someone can get more done by using skills XYZ, maybe they'll outcompete firm
73.
by imh 8y ago
You missed the "Nope, see above." part right before your quote.
74.
by imh 8y ago
To be perfectly clear, is this testing how antimatter and matter interact gravitationally, or is it testing how antimatter and antimatter interact gravitationally?
75.
by imh 8y ago
Off topic-ish, but what do you mean by ^H^H^H^H? I feel like it's a joke I don't get.
76.
by imh 8y ago
I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." Isn't that exactly what termination would be? If you terminate someone for a thing, I'd say that fits the bill as pu
77.
by imh 8y ago
This is an important way to look at the data. By looking at individuals over time, it essentially quantifies social mobility. But then you have to take it a step further. Does the difference in individuals' mobility over time change ov
78.
by imh 8y ago
The next comment down is also about privacy, but in the context of business model instead of security. Maybe people (in our niche, at least) are starting to prioritize their data more than ever.
79.
by imh 8y ago
The same happens with all sorts of collectiony words. You could have a set of things, or a group of them, or a variety or a category or a kind or a sort or a class or type. We're running out of collection words without formal definitio
80.
by imh 8y ago
You could totally make the same argument. And so you go with whichever rules lead to the best societal outcomes. It may be different per crime.
81.
by imh 8y ago
The distinction doesn't seem to be 'xor', but 'and'. The question of human criminality is unchanged, while they posit an additional criminality for the robot itself. The most interesting bit to me here is that there
82.
by imh 8y ago
It's one of many that were banned, across the ideological spectrum.
83.
by imh 8y ago
How do they make sure their communicator isn't working through the wrong mechanism? It could be tricky to verify that they aren't just flipping the rotate bit when their head gets zapped, or something else noticeable but not inter
84.
by imh 8y ago
If you wanted to only work 2 hours per week, do you think there's a place in the industry for you? Maybe for a freelancer or consultant or anything else where you are outside the company, but there's no place for this internally a
85.
by imh 8y ago
I'd bet many employees would be happy to work an hour or two per week. I'd be few employers would be happy to have employees work that little. It's not just a fear of being fired. It's a fear of the managerial mindset of
86.
by imh 8y ago
Yup. That "not" was a typo from before I rearranged that sentence. I spotted it too late to edit :-\ You're right that it's good for some parts of society when other parts make sacrifices. But those people are part of so
87.
by imh 8y ago
A huge number of scientists analyze the past scientifically. Between dinosaurs dying, creatures evolving, continents shifting, planets forming, climates changing, and the universe beginning, we analyze a ton of the past scientifically.
88.
by imh 8y ago
Really? I can't think of how it's good for society to ask anyone outside public service not to put their job ahead of (for example) their family. I don't see why the CEO of WidgetCo should put widgets "first in their lif
89.
by imh 8y ago
I read a post yesterday on a generalized notion of compositionality [0]. It was neat and extolled the virtues of modularity and compositionality and being able to reason about system by reasoning about its parts. If I'm understanding O
90.
by imh 8y ago
>Sources said they had come to believe that Palihapitiya was no longer putting the firm first in his life This guy's bad behavior aside, that's a ridiculous bar to hold someone to. Sounds like he hardly cared at all.

More ›