notafraudster

I moved from west Los Angeles (Mar Vista near Culver City) to Dublin and my rent is significantly higher in Dublin (renting a new-ish build 2br 800 sq ft near the Canal, city center). Dublin's a lovely city -- but it's a lovely city of half a million people in a country of 5 million, less than half greater Los Angeles county. London, Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles are major cities of the world. Dublin is a regional city. It's absurd. I never thought I'd live somewhere _more_ expensive than LA.

It’s less the formality and more the hypermodern idioms that feel out of place (what’s the opposite of anachronistic?) in talking about a historical subject. Like, yes Mark Twain had the rizz and the Confedussies took the L but that’s probably not how I’d discuss it.

Unfortunately there seems to be a bipartisan political consensus against the most profitable and useful elements of the New Deal (WPA, TVA, REA, CWA) which would be almost mandatory to go whole hog on this kind of infrastructure proposal, and as we've learned over the last 40 years public-private partnerships are thin gruel as a replacement.

Crucially, Turning Red was _not_ released in theatres in most countries due to COVID-19. It may or may not have been a money loser, but there's very little reason to believe executives think it's anything about the movie that made it that way.

My Dad died before my kids were born. When he got cancer, he recorded himself reading "The Night Before Christmas", which is about enough audio for the high quality version of this technology. Is it ghoulish on my part to want to hear his voice again or for my kids to hear it? Maybe. Do I really care what you think (or really what _I_ think) about that? No.

A little crazy that more wasn't done towards this end in summer 2020 when there was massive amounts of cash available to the hospital system, comparatively very low occupancy such that retrofitting would be less disruptive (lower respiratory disease burden generally inclusive both of COVID and non-COVID due to lockdown measures), and the social will to solve it wasn't politicized in the US or attached to other hot button stuff. I don't really know enough about HVAC to know what it would take to improve the modal old hospital's ventilation so maybe this is an orders of magnitude tougher problem than I expect or something.

I did a CS degree 20 years ago. Databases, concurrent programming, and network programming were all 4th year electives (I took network, AI, and image processing personally). But something not being included in a core curriculum doesn't mean someone can't learn it.

My curriculum was: Year 1: Intro Comp Sci / Year 2: 2 courses in Logic, 2 courses in data structures and algorithms / Year 3: 2 courses in processor design, 1 course in finite state automata, 1 course in parsers / Year 4: a course in ethics, a course in team programming (which covered UML and version control), and two electives.

I believe a major was 14 courses so I'm missing one, or it may have been it was three electives. I didn't take databases because I was already a paid sysadmin before I started college and mostly at the time database courses were just ten tedious weeks of normalization crap.

Also, treat your interns better. The reason to hire interns is because you plan to devote some of your resources to help them in their professional development. Stop asking what you can get out of your interns and start asking how you can best give something to them.

So, basically nothing about this tracks. Arnold would have been best characterized as a right-liberal during his time in politics. He was a moderate Republican in a state that was already pretty left-leaning. Since then he's drifted a little left (focusing on criticizing Trump mostly on compassionate grounds, focusing on civic engagement, and focusing on environmental issues). I think he'd best be characterized in the global scale as something between a right-liberal and a left-liberal. The Atlantic has basically Washington Consensus politics, a little left on some issues, but basically market liberals. Maybe a more simplified way to put this: The Atlantic likely would have been closer to Clinton in the 2016 primaries than Sanders, and closer to Biden in 2020 primaries than Warren than Sanders. So it's true that they don't have identical politics, but it's not true that they're really at odds.

His life story is really inspirational, but his terms as governor sort of exposed he didn't have a great aptitude for elected politics. After he got whooped in his 2nd year midterm on the bond issues, he acknowledged that to be an effective governor he needed to get better at working with the legislature and making the case for his priorities. Then he served another six years with no major accomplishments; he never really felt like he was in the driver's seat after that midterm. He remained personally likeable, and it's true that Democrats put up only a token challenge to his second term election, but this maybe emphasizes the point: he was not in control of the issue agenda in the state, he wasn't a real threat. He didn't do a terrible job as governor, but he did do a very passive job. And in his second term when he did try to engage with the legislature, it didn't work, and mostly (as the article notes) his popularity eroded significantly. After leaving politics, he didn't really stay engaged in the party or build connections in the state, and indeed it's telling that Republicans have had a terrible record in California since.

He's never sought any federal office, and I have no idea why the article accepts the false premise that after being Governor, the only other option is to run for President. He could have, of course, ran as a Senator (Governors often do this!), ran for the house (Governors occasionally do this!), gotten involved in executive politics by taking any of a number of federal appointments that could have been open for him (or made a case for a cabinet position). He didn't. The article suggests he wouldn't mind being Secretary of State. If that were true, we'd expect him to have done... uh... literally anything connected to diplomacy in the 15 years since he left elected office?

And frankly a lot of his public engagement with politics over the last few years has been pretty surface level. He's talking directly to the public, mostly in (yes, well articulated) platitudes. I agree with him on all these issues and I'm glad he's using his bully pulpit to advocate for good things that I agree with. But mostly that's where the engagement stops. He's not day-to-day running civil society organizations, he's not building connections with politicians, he's just sort of weighing in in the same way a lot of people do on issues he cares about.

I do think there's a lot to admire in Arnold (his life story is amazing). and I don't have any hostility towards him. He's funny, he's using his platform for good, he's a sports hero, he's a unique and fun actor. I don't think he's great at doing electoral politics.

When you buy a stock, you pay money and someone else gives you a stock. Once you have it, you can hold it for as long as you want. Its value can go up or down. When you sell, you get money, which might be less or more than what you paid. If the value goes to zero, you can no longer sell and you will never get any money.

When you short a stock, you are basically selling a stock you don't have. Thus you get money and owe someone else a stock (in practice what happens is someone else unknowingly gives you a stock for free and then you sell it, and they get an IOU for a share of the stock later; but let's not worry too much about the mechanics). Once you have this IOU, you can hold on. The value of the liability associated with the IOU can go up or down. If it goes down, then when you discharge that liability by buying the share you owe, you will pay less than you were paid for the short, thus making a profit. If it goes up, then you will pay more and thus lose money. One risk with a short is that your liability is unbounded. In a traditional stock purchase, the worst that can happen is that you lose the money you put in. In a short sale, you can lose many multiples of the money you put in if the stock does very well. Under a few circumstances, the IOU can be called, forcing you to prove that you have the money to buy a share; for instance, if you were to short $1,000,000 in shares and the share price triples, you owe $3,000,000.

To summarize: when you buy a stock, it's because you think it will be worth more later (again, let's set aside dividends and other things). When you short a stock, it's because you think it will be worth less later.

The reason shorting is permitted is because in general, there is a belief (mistaken or not), that additional liquidity -- more trading -- benefits everyone involved in a market by reducing the spread between prices for buying and selling; additionally, shorting makes it possible to hedge your exposure to a sector (i.e. to trade off some upside in a sector with some corresponding downside and vice versa).

They do? Every single academic in the country supports open-access, lobbies their institutions to pay for the costs of open access. Every researcher will send you a copy of their article if you are paywalled and want to read it. And you, like all academics, know about Sci-Hub, so you should do what most academics do and use Sci-Hub to pirate the article to begin with.

It looks like since 1/1/2014 (convenient stopping point for my scrape), FDIC takeovers resulted in an average of 76% of what's owed paid out (range 0%-98%). My guess is the <50% payouts were mostly fraud rather than a situation like this where it's a more traditional liquidity event, so I'd suspect it'll be above average, probably in the 80-90% range.

Unsurprisingly, this is not at all what the article speaks to; it may well be true that, epistemically, some of the things you're worried about are going on. But just like this is not an article about whether trace BPA in the food supply has hormone regulation effects, or whether replacing your current car with an EV is carbon positive or negative, it's also not an article about what you just said it was about.

Rather, it introduces two basic concepts in how intelligence organizations qualify their intelligence gathering: (1) estimative language: a concept that maps numerical probabilities into specific language (e.g. in the UK, "highly likely" means 80-90%); (2) analytic confidence: a concept that speaks to the verifiability of an individual source or conclusion, typically based on the mode of intelligence gathering.

Having done this, it then suggests that most individual pieces of intelligence have low analytic confidence, but that depending on the opportunity cost (loss function) of (in)action, this may be sufficient to proceed; likewise agglomerations of low confidence intelligence may form a high confidence conclusion (as in an ensemble learner).

By way of examples, it discusses the following examples: (1) whether Russia was using T-62 tanks -> whether better sights would help night vision; (2) the DOE COVID WSJ reporting; (3) whether Iraq had WMD; (4) whether Germany sabotaged Nordstream; (5) whether Russia would invade Ukraine in 2022; (6) the NIE Havana Syndrome reporting. I assume the thing that made you write the fan fiction you wrote was #2.

Honestly, it's a 13 paragraph article and a link around the paywall was posted hours before you posted your thing, so maybe just read the article?

This seems like a flip dismissal of a pretty serious challenge to the ontology of the grandparent comment. Soldiers can also present threats and competition to government (this is literally what a coup is). Soldiers also retire and go into various fields, including science, engineering, sales, and politics. And almost everything the military does is dependent on external contractors and public/private partnerships and, indeed, university research. So it's an awfully broad conspiracy to add value to infantry grunts, who play a shrinking role in the conception of U.S. military power.

And also every other country in the world has to opt to engage in the same conspiracy, otherwise all the benefits accrue to other countries that are willing to allow the technology to be exposed to civil society (e.g. when the average Chinese university graduate has the benefit of CRISPR super brain, it's going to add much more value than if Fort Hood has a bunch of Captain Americas sitting around).

In total this seems to involve a massive and sprawling worldwide conspiracy involving the coordination of opposing actors who have reasons not to coordinate in service of unclear benefits that don't seem to stand up to much scrutiny.

And in Dublin, the first three exactly match the city area (e.g. D01 for Dublin 1) -- though outside the city the first three become less obvious.

Just the same, it's incredibly annoying that ecommerce sites still generally require full addresses rather than just using the An Post Eircode lookup thing to map an entered Eircode to an address.