bvod

This is not only much needed, but also will help shape how our legal system can adapt to new technologies.

I had the privilege of sitting in on an Election Law class last year at YLS. The topic was gerrymandering, with a discussion of the legal arguments presented in Vieth v. Jubelirer.

For non-lawyers, the plaintiffs arguments for what should constitute illegal gerrymandering is technically complex, using statistic concepts, graphs (computer science), and even np-completeness. In essence, the argument was to use computers to draw all possible congressional districts, score them on the basis of discarded votes, and if the scoring of the drawn districts is greater than two standard deviations from the mean district, determine it is unfairly drawn. I found particularly striking an audio recording the professor shared of a lawyer struggling to answer John Robert's questions on technical topics. The professor used this as an example to be prepared to answer questions that you may not have a background in, even if the expert witnesses had already explained the concepts. Unfortunately, the court rejected the proposed determination of unfair gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision, with the dissent stating that the presented way to determine unfair gerrymandering was clever, correct, and should be revisited.

As we continue to push the frontiers of what we can do with computers, we need informed lawyers who can clearly present deep technical topics, and we need judges who are capable of understanding them.

If you exclusively consider the value of the puts, then yes they made a killing. But Mexico didn't use the puts to take a huge directional speculative bet - it used them to hedge oil price risk, so the profits from this trade are structured to offset losses elsewhere. For example, sustained low oil prices will could put companies out of business or even make Mexican oil uncompetitive on a global scale.

Yup. But I didn't take the offer.

The fingerprint scanner is intended to benefit the company, not the users. It makes it significantly more difficult to share an account, which protects Bloomberg's $24,000 / user / year revenue.

I would recommend talking with a lawyer before taking any actions to circumvent international sanctions. There are very severe civil and criminal penalties.

The problem is that the rev/user isn't constant. If they get more users, they earn more from each user. And conversely, if they lose users, they earn less from everyone. So even if a small percentage of their users opted to pay monthly, that would have a negative impact on facebook's earnings on the remaining population.

I feel like your pricing is off. $29/week is too expensive for consumers, yet far too cheap if you plan to get reimbursed from insurers. Especially considering you'll need a lot of people and show improvements for them if you want insurers to pay - this pricepoint won't let that happen.

Can anyone explain how they decide which requests to reject? The blog post just mentions that excess RPS gets rejected, but couldn't rejecting arbitrary requests cause other problems?

"'We’re trying to figure out if we can predict how much shortcutting ants will do given a geometry of their environment,' Garnier said." Garnier clearly states that they haven't figured out the algorithm. Then the separate researcher says “We describe army ants as simple, but we don’t even understand what they’re doing"

Interesting topic but the title is misleading - the article concludes saying scientists still haven't figured out the algorithm. It would be nice if the title actually reflected the content of the article

Who does this and do you have a source? It would be interesting to learn more