diognesofsinope

> you quickly run out of blood to write in and start writing in "well that could've been worse if the starts had aligned, let's write a rule about it".

I'm also convinced this is a primary driver of "emergency/urgency culture".

Everything is hyped as an emergency to justify bureaucratic meetings/rule writing

There was an article on Bloomberg or WSJ that said the Director in the acquisition had a Teams chat where she said "sometimes you don't need to do due diligence at all" lol

> "we've implemented all best practices, contracted out the hard parts to world-renowned experts, and had third party audits to verify that - there was nothing more we could do, therefore it's not our fault"

The amount of (useless) processes/systems at banks I've seen in my career that boil down to this is incredible, e.g. hundreds of millions spent on call center tech for authentication that might do nothing, but the vendor is "industry-leading" and "best in-class".

> It's just that understanding this explains a lot of paradoxes of cybersecurity as a field. It all makes much more sense when you realize it's primarily about liability management, not about hat-wearing hackers fighting other hackers with differently colored hats.

Bingo. The same situation for most risk departments at banks or healthcare fraud and insurance companies.

I thought risk at a bank was going to be savvy quants, but it's literally lawyers/compliance/box-checking marketing themselves as more sophisticated than they are. Like the KYC review for products never actually follow up and check if the KYC process in the new products works. There's no analytics, tracking, etc. until audit/regulators come in an ask, "our best-in-class vendor handles this". All the systems are implemented incorrectly, but it doesn't matter because the system is built by a vendor and implemented by consultants, and they hold the liability (they don't, but it will take ~5 years in court to get to that point).

Beginning to understand what "bureaucracy" mechanically is.

Vegas and prediction markets consistently had Trump as the favorites.

Polling companies are in the business of media deals and government contracts. They will develop methodology and reporting to that end and the money is in "a close and contested race", even if it won't be.

This is what it feels like -- board is filled with academics concerned about AI security.

Almost more of a "takeover" by the board after it's successful lol

If any level of government funds your institution you should have to releases the data.

The code I write is not my code, it's the banks.

It's much more of a financial intelligence collection operation.

The intelligence community has access to information about every transaction with greater than $10k (lower thresholds for monetary instruments) with at least one party of the transaction identified for over 25 years.

People also miss the fact that FIU operations also often include 314(a)/(b) letters (subpoenas for financial information on specific individuals) alongside their AML operations. Same for OFAC Sanctions monitoring (obvious example is Russian customers and assets).

I think the answer is simpler: people care about their careers and their family first. Think, "If the data says something that gets in the way of my career well I don't care about the data."

Had the same problem when I was an economics researcher -- publication bias for what stakeholders want to hear (often the government) is rampant because that's where funding for the economics department mostly comes from.

The primary problems arise from (1) mass education and (2) cheating.

Project-based learning can't be managed with 40:1 student teacher ratios. The best learning has always come from projects and apprenticeship/mentorship style systems, but even managing that with 3 classes with a 10:1 student teacher ratio becomes hard. This should make sense, almost all the economic evidence is that parent characteristics are hands down the largest factors in what a kid's future income will be (mentorship).

Cheating is rampant which is why take-home exams rarely exist.

The reality is the world would be far better off with 3 times as many teacher, but you can't keep teachers wages as high as they are with 3 times the supply.

> In South Dakota and a number of states in the south and rural districts, yes it is another story, and it is bad.

I suspect this is because teaching is arguably the most stable job in rural areas.

Half the reason to be a teacher is because half the job is having fun. Most curricula is set in stone and requirements are nationally standardized (US and Asia). You more or less get summers off (there are conferences and summer school) and there are almost no jobs where you can take ~1.5 months off every year. Teaching is also one of the few steady jobs in rural America.

I feel like most people haven't been in an actual ~5th grade classroom in a long time -- literally half of it is playing games/trying to have fun.

And Youtube, good god has the educational content on Youtube evolved in the last decade.