adaptiveValleys

> middle-man firm who are creating the security and trying to unload it.

If the investment bank only facilitates the transaction, then the key incentive that could tilt the transaction toward having a sense of urgency, and as a result, indifference to the rating accuracy would be the personal gain of the individual/team attempting to process the transaction.

If that assumption holds, would tying in a performance based return to the banker who sells the security, balance it? That way they also have incentive to make sure the rating is as accurate as possible?

If so, then it seems that it would probably be resolved through legislation, because otherwise it appears to be an intractable coordination problem. Unless including a return for the seller based on the performance is something that occurs in the industry for other types of securities.

I agree. He interviews a lot of fascinating people with highly-specialized backgrounds. To research their work and understand it enough to have great conversational flow and remain highly insightful would take a lot of time.

But since this isn't his full-time job, I think trading-off asking very good questions for the flow of the dialogue is worth it.

I'm very much like you, and I think startups/small companies with a flat management structure (i.e. level obfuscation as another commenter phrased it) or where most managers have engineering backgrounds.

In my experience at large companies, on teams that were technical and heavily collaborated with engineering, but were not overseen by engineering managers. Middle management was entirely focused on optimizing for metrics that were either assigned to them, or would result in career progress; instead of what was best for the company. Regardless of whether the companies claimed to have a "nothing is someone else's problem" culture. As a result, any embodiment of that principle, was either punished or perceived as creating problems by non-technical managers. Even if direct praise was often received from engineers and their managers for those actions. In that workplace dynamic, it inherently carries a lot of risk and easily puts a target on your back.

Besides posts like this that give first-hand accounts from employees. It's quite hard to identify what would be an honest signal of true dedication to that principle. Especially in interviews where you're a very qualified candidate, it's difficult to tell if interviewer is trying to selling you the idea of working there.

True, which is why looking at so generally makes it seem paradoxical.

I can't recall where it read it, but I think it's the result of some phagocytic, either auto- (i.e. lysosomes, intracellular clean up) or macro- (i.e. macrophages, a type of white blood cell used from extracellular clean up).

Seems like there isn't a clear enough syntactical delineation between beneficial (exercise-linked) and harmful (disease/infection-linked) inflammation.

I'm sure they are, so they a pass those lovely negative externalities onto the customer because they know it's in demand and only they provide that service.

If only they had a competitor that could launch the same products a few months later but offered higher reliability off the bat, that could eventually force Amazon to improve their reliability or risk losing customers long term.

Being first to market doesn't ensure eventual market dominance. Sure, it could give you important feedback. But if your product is subpar, the feedback will have a ton of noise and possibly be useless. Plus it's not worth creating negative externalities and earning the reputation.

Agreed. I recently heard in a talk an example of NLP being used to help rank sellers by analyzing messages between buyers and sellers, before and after transactions.

Another example was how Taobao increased the number of useful reviews by allowing sellers to pay for reviews, and used NLP to determine if the review was useful. If it was, only then would the reviewer get paid. This would then dis-incentivize sellers expecting bad feedback from paying for reviews, and incentivize good sellers who were seeking honest, relevant feedback.

Seems like both examples can still be gamed, but it seems like a step in the right direction.

The criteria for adaptive evolution, in the classical Darwinian sense, are:

1). Reproduction. 2). Variation between the products of reproduction. 3). Heritability between those variants. 4). Differential success among the variants.

Anything that has those four characteristics will experience adaptive evolution. Where it gets really fascinating is when you realize it applies to things that don't go through biological reproduction, for example the graphical user interface.