solveit

32 ms·

391.
by solveit 5y ago
The additional funding raises the market price of researchers. That nudges the market to produce more researchers. The marginal quant became an AI researcher because people respond to incentives[1]. This leads to more new discoveries[2]. [1
392.
by solveit 5y ago
Which thread is this? I'm curious.
393.
by solveit 5y ago
They docked you because you sometimes paid rent early ?
394.
by solveit 5y ago
> I pretty much know if I learned the material or not. Yes, but have you never met someone that was convinced they knew the material when they in fact didn't? They're everywhere! Accurately assessing oneself is a skill that n
395.
by solveit 5y ago
In this case, the data I am talking about are the polls. Of course, there's a lot of methodology that goes into designing the polls and the data collection process, but those were basically solid and importantly, not subjective. > I
396.
by solveit 5y ago
If your getting paid after the 20th makes you unable to pay on the 20th then you are illiquid. This may or may not be a big deal but it is strictly worse than the alternative. For instance, what happens if you lose your income for whatever
397.
by solveit 5y ago
In principle, sure. But in practice for many politicians, sending a letter will receive a copy-pasted reply while replying on twitter might get you a personal response. Similarly, getting kicked off Instagram will cause many businesses to
398.
by solveit 5y ago
Funnily enough, for me it's the pragmatism of the politicians that makes me want to move there.
399.
by solveit 5y ago
So OP is illiquid? Then categorising OP as a risk is perfectly correct.
400.
by solveit 5y ago
I hate to call something gaslighting, but this is gaslighting of the highest order. I am not familiar with Australian politics, but the other three cases were textbook cases of the data saying one thing (Trump might win, BoJo will probably
401.
by solveit 5y ago
Depends where you're looking. If you look online, anti-tech sentiment has never been stronger. These are of course, very different groups of people we're talking about.
402.
by solveit 5y ago
> have easy alternatives to Well that's always the million-dollar question, isn't it? Take Twitter for instance. Whether there's an easy alternative to Twitter depends entirely on your reference class. The social aspect ma
403.
by solveit 5y ago
I'm not the guy you were talking to, but let me make one thing absolutely clear. You can't read that blog post on Tor because nobody is interested in making things "actually work" for you, because you (and the other peop
404.
by solveit 5y ago
They're used all the time, we just call it logistic regression.
405.
by solveit 5y ago
> FU money is literally the ability to say FU and do something anyway when someone says you can't. I always thought FU money was enough money that you can say FU and not do something when someone says you have to. That is, enough
406.
by solveit 5y ago
Perhaps an insider trader trying to outpace all the other insider traders?
407.
by solveit 5y ago
Despite the lack of fanfare, this is the biggest news on HN today, much bigger than, say Robinhood paying a fine. Historically, Malaria was the single greatest killer of human beings. It is even possible that Malaria killed the majority o
408.
by solveit 5y ago
> I don't think there's a generous salary that would cause them to not want more. The point is that you give them a generous salary and take it away if they misbehave. Every carrot is a stick in waiting.
409.
by solveit 5y ago
> I think you can crack down on even the appearance of corruption without paying huge salaries. Sure, go ahead. Less flippantly: Of course there's no law of physics forbidding it, but I believe the structural dynamics I described ma
410.
by solveit 5y ago
The way to do it is to give a very generous salary and to simultaneously crack down hard on even the appearance of impropriety. Neither is being done right now, and part of the reason is that you can't really do one without the other
411.
by solveit 5y ago
> top 3% of the American income distribution Pelosi has a good claim to being the most powerful woman in the US, and she makes less than a twentysomething hotshot engineer/banker/consultant/whatever. Any system that actua
412.
by solveit 5y ago
Sure, but are you willing to apply the same test to every other job and outlaw the ones that fail?
413.
by solveit 5y ago
How the hell did you do an entire PhD without having answered that to your satisfaction?
414.
by solveit 5y ago
Granting your premise that you can pay zero tax by donating half your wealth (which I'm guessing assumes you have zero cost basis for your assets), wouldn't that still leave you with... half your money? It doesn't seem worth
415.
by solveit 5y ago
Oh I agree completely that there are better and worse ways to structure donations. And maybe there's even some perversity in the tax code that lets you make a few thousand bucks by making some very specific donations under convoluted c
416.
by solveit 5y ago
Actually, I'm going to make this a top-level comment. Would one of the people claiming that she's just doing it for the tax benefits please explain to me, in excruciating detail, just how you would legally end up with more money
417.
by solveit 5y ago
Please explain to me in excruciating detail how you legally end up net better off by donating ten billion.
418.
by solveit 5y ago
Mozart is literally in Gladwell's book as an example of someone who got their 10k hours in early. Why do you feel the need to comment while clearly never having read the book you're defending?
419.
by solveit 5y ago
> "So people start buying it, because it's going up". That's speculation. Mostly but not entirely. It's also previous shorters who buy to manage risk. These people are qualitatively different from the speculators
420.
by solveit 5y ago
> there is absolutely NO benefit to having them. Oh come on this is absolutely hyperbolic. > They do way more harm than good. Well that was quick. Can we start with the more nuanced position next time? Now we can analyse costs and ben

More ›