2,258 karma · joined February 22, 2014
jamild.com ml.jamild.com github.com/jamil
-
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jamil; my proof: https://keybase.io/jamil/sigs/TncaBlYMwuyi1L_kBlmolqSOi8g0q89LiTWiIO2ZU3c ]
But these cute titles don't really work on the internet, where most people stumble upon Economist articles from a different context.
There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
What seems initially just like pilot error may also be due also to workplace conditions, bad training, a lack of communication, or fatigue — a chain of events and circumstances that culminates in the accident. It's fascinating.
Civilians don't have any say in the matter, and most of them want the same things we do — peace and physical security. That's it.
Reality, of course, is far more complex, and I think Rosling is trying to play to those biases in human nature in order to influence people. Pointing to one inherent "truth" in the data is far more effective in convincing people than "it's complicated".
This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you? Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?
Much of the sea is closer to other countries (like the Philippines and Vietnam), but China lays unilateral claim to many of the uninhabited islands.
edit: A map, for reference: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5464160/data/south-china-sea-map...
I don't think anyone disagrees. California's been very proactive in promoting and allowing self-driving car trials.
But you can't allow just any driverless car on the road without ensuring that it's safe — that's why there's a permit process for it. This isn't just another app — people's lives are at stake here.
"This incident was due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate."
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
And with at least two reported incidents of these cars running red lights, it seems like driver training and attentiveness was lacking. If the software wasn't ready, fine, but you have to be aware of that and train your drivers to be 100% attentive to their surroundings, especially since it's the first day of real, commercial trials.
I've interviewed for Google and Apple internships and the process has been extremely pleasant, with the interviewers happy to give their time. With Apple, I got to meet the entire team and spend time with them. I've heard similar stories about the Microsoft interview process (I mean, they even fly you out to Redmond).
What makes Amazon incapable of interviewing their interns adequately?
• Enabling members drafting résumés in Word to update their profiles, and discover and apply to jobs on LinkedIn
• Extending the reach of Sponsored Content across Microsoft properties
I can't help but feel that the direction they're taking this in will be horrible for the Microsoft experience. It looks like they're trying to monetize LinkedIn integration in Windows…
However, the people who he surrounds himself with, are. This article makes no mention of Steve Bannon, who suggested too many Asian CEOs is a threat to civic society [0], and ran a website that peddled anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Come January 20th, he'll be the chief strategist for the nation's highest office.
Nor does it mention Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State who has ties to white nationalist groups [1]. He's now on Trump's transition team.
I don't doubt Trump's intentions, but it's looking like the alt-right is using his campaign (and will use his administration) for their own ends.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered...
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/02/what%E2%80%99...
[0] https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling
Most people just aren't willing to pay for wider, more spacious seats.
[0] https://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/05/23/losing-comfort-...
Read some of the other comments in this thread and you'll see it's not common knowledge either.
If you can pick an investment that will weather an economic downturn, and still provide a decent return — let me know, because I want to get in on it ;)
This was the argument made by Protege Partners, when betting against Buffett in the great "index funds vs hedge funds" long bet [0]. It turns out that the index funds fared better — and they're mainly used for long-term investment, where the short-term macroeconomic ebbs don't have an impact on the overall return.
Of course the variance on the active side will be higher, but there are as many losers as they are winners, and much of it is due to simple randomness. Unless you're confident that you know more than other investors (for many people, including myself, we probably don't [1]), index funds, or "hugely diversified portfolios" are the way to go. Basically, no hedge fund is making those 200% returns you're speaking of, and even if some fund were, empirically it's more likely to be just noise. Look at the result so far of Buffett's bet on hedge funds. It speaks volumes.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effec...
An excerpt from the transcript [0] follows:
What I’d like you to do is for a moment, imagine that in this room, you people own all of America. All the stocks in America are owned by this group. You are the Berkshire 18,000 (or whatever it is) that have somehow managed to accumulate all the wealth in the country. Let’s assume we just divide it down the middle. On one side, we put half the people…half of all the investment capital in the world, and that capital is what a certain presidential candidate might call ‘low energy’. In fact, they have no energy at all. They buy half of everything that exists in the investment world – 50 percent – everyone on this side. Now half of it is owned by these ‘low energy’ people. They don’t look at stock prices. They don’t turn on business channels. They don’t read the Wall Street Journal. They don’t do anything. They are a slovenly group that just sits for year after year, owning half of America’s business. What’s the result going to be? The result is going to be exactly average as all American business does because they own half of all of it. They have no expenses – nothing.
What’s going to happen with the other half? The other half are what we call the ‘hyperactives’. The hyperactives’ gross result is also going to be half, right? The whole has to be the sum of the parts. This group, by definition, can’t change from its half of the ultimate investment results. This half is going to have the same gross results. They’re going to have the same results as the ‘no energy’ people but they’re also going to have terrific expenses because they’re all going to be moving around, hiring hedge funds, hiring consultants, and paying lots of commissions, et cetera. As a group, that half has to do worse than this half does. The people who don’t do anything have to do better than the people that are trying to do better. It’s simple.
[0] https://www.biznews.com/global-investing/2016/05/02/berkshir...