socketnaut

Someone less cynical might recognize prioritization of technological advancement over video games as a good thing.

Had to triple check that this wasn't satire after reading the first two points. Focusing on familiarity with buzzwords and trendy tools is exactly the wrong thing to do.

I see, so you're saying the expected profit on the trade is $0 assuming an efficient market and ignoring trading costs? Your comment is confusing the way it's worded because the expected value of the option is non-zero.

When you say "expected value" are you trying to say most likely value?

You can reliably lose money in absence of commissions by buying at the ask and selling at the bid. You can't invert that to make money.

Because most people search fares online and book the cheapest ticket.

Framing it as a loan seems like a good way to get funds out as quickly as possible while making it easier to get back anything that's misused.

It’s not a statement about fairness: it’s a statement about filtering / sampling bias.

“actualllllyyyyy” he’s saying something different. If you take a 0.3% chance for N days where N is large, you’ll land it 0.003N times, or once every ~333 days.

The chance of landing it within any particular window of K days is a different concept (which you showed how to reason about).

Depends on your field. If you're studying mathematics or computer science, learning happens mostly through deep work in isolation and there's enough material out there (books, papers, etc.) to support more than a lifetime of problem-solving.

Events and conversations might offer superficial exposure to new ideas or areas of interest but actual understanding requires extended, focused thought that nobody else can do for you.

You need to be smarter than volume-weighted average, not smarter than the average participant. The demographic you have in mind is trading relatively small amounts of capital.

Calculating opportunity cost for time spent based on wages is pretty meaningless for salaried jobs. I might make $X/hr at my day job, but I don't actually have the ability to work an extra hour and get an extra X dollars.

The statistical claims in the article make the assumption that tweets are being sampled uniformly at random, which is most likely false.

The fact that 3 machines handle 20% of tweets suggests that tweets are not in fact assigned to machines in a uniformly random manner. I would guess that there is a geographic bias as to which machines handle which tweets.

Which mountain was it?

This just seems like survivorship bias. An algorithm / tool / technology tends not to remain in use if something that is both more elegant and more efficient is available. Therefore, if you survey the well known options you'll see a negative relationship between elegance and efficiency. It doesn't imply a general relationship nor does it preclude the discovery of an approach that is both more elegant and more efficient than anything available today.