No that's not what the graph shows at all. It's just his win rate in terms of how many big blinds he's won per 100 hands played, against the percentage of hands he's choosing to play.
Sure, each individual instance of suspicious behavior is circumstantial evidence by the formal legal standard. But this isn't a court of law, and as a fellow poker player, I want to know about this asap and not wait until it's been "proven" - I'm completely comfortable with the minuscule chance this is a false positive, as it's not a matter of life and death, but it is a matter of integrity of any game this guy would sit at. And the statistical evidence it's quite compelling - the guy is simply winning at a rate that no other players, even world class ones, achieve.
> I've never heard a non-parent make a remotely sensible criticism about parenting
Really? What about children of truly abusive parents (who are not themselves parents)? Are their critiques of their parents as parents not remotely sensible?
I'm not at all in favor of people aggressively policing the parenting practices of others. I just don't think Dunning-Kruger applies at all here, because everyone (except orphans) has some significant experience with the practice of parenting - even if it is only as the parented, you can still form cogent opinions about the practice. It's not some high expertise domain like programming, it's literally human nature.
I also used to assume it was a field full of highly intelligent people, but when I told this to my cousin who is a doctor he laughed and said something to the effect of "The medical profession selects for mediocrity", and went on to point out that being a doctor is a fairly rote profession; most of their work does not involve creative problem solving or critical thinking. It is a very challenging profession in terms of having to learn an enormous body of material, work grueling hours in dangerous and unpleasant environments, and deal with customers who are definitionally unhappy to be your customer. But it's a set of challenges that a fairly wide portion of the population can rise to.
I genuinely feel bad for your children. You see yourself as somehow metaphysically enlightened and beyond reproach by non-parents, just by virtue of having them - I can't imagine how tyrannical you are in your relationship with them.
Ironically, this sort of outrageously absolutist assertion sounds like exactly the kind of thing a parent would say to their child to quash a debate about their decision making.
I think they mean specifically if the bartender asks you to open your tab before taking your order and/or pouring your drink. For what it's worth I don't think I've ever experienced this, but I could see it being somewhat off-putting.
The line you're quoting literally notes that this all happened before Trumps rise, and is logically prior to it. It claims they were "intertwined", which is implying the relation you're asserting (Trump capitalizing on the fallout from Title IX and other such social trends under Obama). Nothing about this is a "This is how you got Trump" story.
I think there is actually a quite simple, coherent framework for such a thing: probability theory. You could say highly improbable is a more scientific synonym for miraculous.
I don't think the problem is that people are unaware per se of the miraculousness/improbability of life, but rather that said awareness is deeply frightening and most people would prefer to sublimate it. The fact that we've all already cheated the infinite oblivion of never existing is incredibly lucky (to non-pessimists), but deeply meditating on this fact is psychologically similar to having a near death experience. So we narrativize to reassure ourselves that our existence isn't just dumb luck, in any manner of ways, both mystical and pseudo scientific: our lives are preordained by God, or by a purely deterministic set of physical laws, or by the operators of our universal simulation, or by the anthropic principle.
All of these belief systems are roughly analogous to saying "Everything happens for a reason", which is something you hear even intelligent people parrot in times of distress. But as Quentin Meillassoux argues in "After Finitude", the only truly universal law of metaphysics is in fact the negation of that platitude: "Things could be as they are, or they could be otherwise."
I don't even think the motivation is primarily about maintaining military support - it's already a given. Even if the US political regime swung far to the left, there's simply no chance they aren't going to bat for Israel in an full scale military conflict. I suspect their spying is much more motivated by anticipating and influencing political and economic events or policy that they have second order interests in - ie trade policy, foreign investments, relationship with China, etc.
There's not actually any risk, as plainly evidenced by the fact that the State Department has never even given a light wrist slap for any of the dozens of incidents mentioned in the top comment, under Bush, Obama or Trump. There's literally nothing Israel could do to cause the US to "cut ties", let alone even meaningfully rebuke them. Like his buddy Donald, Bibi could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and nothing would happen. US security and energy interests are simply too entrenched in supporting Israeli hegemony.
Not that I've been to prison in California, public or private, but if you look up a guy named Wes Watson on youtube, who recently got out after >10 years in a mix of private and public California prisons, he mentions that the guards at state run prisons were actually much more effective and actually tried to do their job the right way, because they're paid well with state benefits and pensions and such, compared to the staff at private facilities, who he likened to WalMart employees.
No, it's just that not mentioning it is has a cool factor of 0, neither cool nor uncool, and mentioning it has a cool factor of around negative infinity.
Just the existence of any kind of active, noisy global mailing lists seems like an indicator of organizational immaturity, let alone ones catering to political discussion.
I think you're confused. It's definitely not illegal in any state to have informal political discussions with coworkers. Maybe what you're referring to is that it's illegal for employers to tell employees to vote a certain a way or retaliate against them for holding certain political views.
I think you can accept or be neutral on the assertion that "the personal is political", without it entailing that you actually live in a state of political engagement. After all, the professional ought not be personal.
The confusing part to me was the language that he "surrendered the shares" as payment for the loan, which implies to me he gave it back at the same price, rather than selling it at a profit. But as a sib pointed out there was a further step to the transaction where they gave him a different asset.
> Neumann took out a much bigger loan from WeWork a few months ago. The company lent him $362 million in April at 2.89% interest to help him exercise options to buy stock. This month, Neumann repaid the debt by surrendering the shares back to the company. It’s not clear from the filing why these transactions happened.
Can anyone explain a possible motivation for doing this? It seems like it's a completely circular transaction, or is my fraudster-fu just not strong enough to see the upside?
This is awesome, I've wanted a similar tool before. Is this open source or are you planning to commercialize?
One bit of UX feedback - the modal with the commentary text is a bit low on the screen (at least on chrome on a 15 inch retina display), I think it would be better to have it higher up on the page, or possibly even aligned with the current line?
I mean, they should not just lie down, but I think the more lawful and orderly approach would be to appeal to a higher tier of authority that's supposed to be available within the legal system. Of course, easier said than done, but still I think that's what the "right thing" would have been.
I don't think this is a realistic depiction of the threat model of people who would hack commercial jets. Sure, state sponsored APTs probably could access it if they wanted, but none of them are in the business of crashing passenger planes. Maybe tracking them or grounding them or stuff like that, but they already have those capabilities through economic or bureaucratic or military power. The "bad actors" of concern here are the same types that have brought down passenger planes before - small, independent groups or lone wolves. And they are the ones who would benefit from the code being open sourced.