fanzhang

It's not just RNG. Men are known to have more variance so top record holder can be a very different spread than the 10th best person of each gender.

If they put the sign up first, you wouldn't know how much more information you'd need to give before doing a search (just a string), and that seems like it would undersell themselves.

This seems a lot better than those quizzes or quotes that ask a bunch of questions first and then ask for your email at the end -- or worse -- a payment.

Bingo -- analysts of Trump are way too overeager to attribute "4D Chess" super analytics driven goals to Trump.

In reality, he's doing exactly what is on the tin: reducing tariffs, and doing what he wants to do, because he feels like it.

Mostly because the definition of decent life has shot upwards way faster than economic standards.

From fixed standards, the median kid being raised today is doing way better than 100 years ago, even though people chose to have way more kids 100 years ago: - Cars were death traps. - Dying in infancy and 20s, 30s was common. - Very few people went to college.

100 years ago, no one felt "indecent" to raise a kid they can't afford to send to college, or knew at a 1% chance of dying due to malnutrition. Now, for many people, they would feel indecent bringing someone into the world in that state.

Agree that this is how papers are often judged, but strong disagree on how this is how papers should be judged. This is exactly the problem of reviewers looking for the keys under the lamp post (does the paper check these boxes), versus where they lost the keys (should this paper get more exposure because it advances the field).

The fact that the first doesn't lead more to the second is a failure of the system.

This is the same sort of value system that leads to accepting job candidates with neat haircuts and says the right shibboleths, versus the ones that make the right bottom line impact.

Basically, are "good" papers that are very rigorous but lead to nothing actually "good"? If your model of progress in science is that rigorous papers are a higher probability roll of the dice, and nonrigorous papers are low probability rolls of the dice, then we should just look for rigorous papers. And that a low-rigor paper word2vec actually make progress was "getting really lucky" and we should have not rated the paper well.

But I contend that word2vec was also very innovative, and that should be a positive factor for reviewers. In fact, I bet that innovative papers have a hard time being super rigorous because the definition of rigor in that field has yet to be settled yet. I'm basically contending that on the extreme margins, rigor is negatively correlated with innovation.

Yes -- all the people I know withdrawing from small banks are going to Chase or Morgan Stanley. These largest banks have to mark-to-market their losses and have a lot of cash (short duration) assets, and are literally too big to fail.

If this were a concern, a user can easily bypass this by having a work-for-hire person add a minor transform layer on top of the DALL-E generated images right?

A lot of replies on twitter critique dang on moderating their comments. But in reality, I think this is a good thing. There are already enough near-total-free speech zones on the Internet (and we see how many of them turn out). It's far more personally interesting to me to see how a conversations in a space moderated above a certain threshold evolves.

Ah okay thanks for replying. That's great to hear you're speaking from experience then. Did you need to convince your spouse of it or was your spouse for it all along? Sometime I think having these conversations is hard. Also do you act as if you're married or is the relationship "looser" in many ways (like living apart)? I'm genuinely curious because I do think the institution of marriage is a little dated in many ways.

Is this something you've done yourself (either cohabing or getting married is fine), or is this more theoretical / speculative?

Well for almost any service, people would rather prefer it to be free than paid, so it's almost an instinctive emotional reaction. Google being huge makes it a particularly easy target.

When I first heard about LIBOR in 2002, I was surprised that the number is just based on a survey of bankers. Surely there would be accuracy issues with that?

But at that time I was young and had no finance experience, so though that the adults in the room knew best. Turns out not!

I don't think the base problem is that people shaded their numbers one way or another, it's that the system is designed wrong.