gridlockd

Efficient market hypothesis is nonsense. A lot of institutional investors are long-only. That is their mandate. All the information they may have does not change that fact.

It is unlikely that you will beat the market in the long run and if you do, it may well be down to chance, but it is possible, because the market is not perfect.

Furthermore, you can not "buy the market" in the first place. You can buy ETFs replicating stock indices, but that is not the same. If you bought the S&P you will have performed differently than if you had bought MSCI world. Ultimately, stock picking is just a less diversified version of buying an index.

Tensorflow-JS is that framework that you export to from Tensorflow. Tensorflow-JS is not Tensorflow, it's just the same brand.

Smash that downvote button to make society more just and less racist!

That "tiny minority" still has an outsized impact. The pareto principle applies to pretty much everything.

So you're saying that telling people to shut up will not actually change their minds and make the world a better place?

I don't like that. I'll give you a downvote, that will set things right!

Unfortunately, the self-styled "anti-racists" of today are giving me a tough time convincing actual Neonazis that there isn't some sort jewish marxist conspiracy out there to censor them.

The point is that people want to know what's going to happen before it happens. If I believed a Democrat was sure to win, I would want to allocate my stock portfolio different than if a Republican were to win.

Also, you can make money betting on the outcome itself. If the odds you get are underpriced relative to an accurate forecast, that's a great bet to take.

Furthermore, these forecasts influence where politicians put their focus. Let's say you're Hillary in '16 and you think Wisconsin is yours despite the forecast showing a narrow lead, maybe you should reconsider.

> Because a PhD is useful for a lot more than getting a permanent academic position. My first "proper job" was at a research division of a big corporation. They had ~20 PhDs when I started and expanded to ~100 over 3 years. I don't think any of those people would say their PhD was wasted because they didn't get an academic job at the end of it.

Why do they have so many more PhDs now? Because PhDs are a now a dime a dozen, not because a PhD itself is valuable. The opportunity cost of a PhD is four years of lost income during prime employment age, plus extra student loan debt.

Even with a higher salary (and higher tax burden), it's not clear that you come out on top during your lifetime. If you don't come out on top, it's a waste, unless maybe these years you spent doing your PhD were the best years of your life (probably not).

This isn't going to piss off current customers though, it's going to piss off customers from fifteen years ago, who haven't upgraded, or maybe the freeloaders that used CS2 lately.

A lot of people were pissed off about Adobe stopping perpetual licenses, but that didn't hurt their bottom line. In fact, they increased revenue because a subscription is a low upfront cost.

Most of the people complaining about this are non-customers whose strong-held beliefs on how to license software have been offended. These people don't matter to Adobe's business.

five sigma