784 karma · joined February 19, 2017
🧠
If you look outside the Bay Area, I’m sure you will find people who desperate enough and would sacrifice any sense of morals they have for a $100k job.
It’s as simple as that.
Beyond two submissions sharing the same subject-title, do you think it'd be possible to find all "relevant" discussions -- say, back-links or forward-links -- as well and post them?
In general, the world is better off with more information: why not open source the data if better cancer diagnosis is the goal?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_averaging_(machine_...
In hindsight, there's always a tension between high schoolers and those who administrate them; it's never a partnership since teenagers are quick to abuse / misuse a privilege.
This is essentially the field of sequential decision making, which encompasses everything from reinforcement learning to multi-armed bandits. [1]
As an example, let’s pretend we have the task of predicting labels of a size 2 alphabet {0, 1}. These labels are come to us via a stream; so in contrast to classical ML, we are not given access to the full “dataset” beforehand to train our predictor. But instead, each round, a label is given to us; and in between each round, we can only predict the next label with the set of labels previously revealed.
Note that we have no model of how the labels are generated — this is what we mean by “predict something unknown”. In general, we can assume two cases: it’s either adversarial or predictable (shaky definitions, I know).
In an adversarial case, we assume the labels are generated such that we incur a heavy loss. Say, if we predict 0, the adversary outputs 1; vice versa. It turns out with deterministic strategies and a certain adversarial model, we can always incur loss linear to the amount of rounds; this goes a bit into game theory. To counter this, we can employ a random strategy where we flip a fair coin to decide what to predict. This is somewhat analogous to you, in the classic tie breaking game, of choosing {rock, paper, scissors} with 1/3 probability.
But what if the labels weren’t generated adversarially? Remember, we don’t have a model of how the labels were generated. Say, the sequence was 000000... predicting with a fair coin would be a bad strategy then; and instead it’d be better to simply predict 0. A better strategy here would be something like follow-the-leader, where you predict the most frequent label seen so far.
But recall, we don’t know how the labels are generated — it could very well alternate between periods of predictability and unpredictability.
What we need is a mixed strategy which does well in both cases. One algorithm that turns out to do this is called multiplication weights, which assigns “weights” to each label and increases or decreases them proportionally each round depending on what the label is.
There’s a whole lot of other ground that can be covered but I’d recommend reading a book instead of reading it here. One resource is “Prediction, Learning, and Games”—but feel free to find another book since this one assumes a background in probability.
[1] Actually the first section of the linked pdf above.
1. I would theorize that the economic benefits of transportation are directly proportional to how fast the service is, and how much people it can move. As an estimation, I'd say cars are limited to 60 mph while high speed rail would be limited to 200 mph.
2. With fixed-path mass transit, the problem of traffic is greatly simplified. Self driving cars may solve a labor issue but they won't solve the traffic problem: cars routing themselves selfishly will not result in the lowest travel time possible. You can argue that a central coordinator can exist to coordinate routes, but if there's an incentive for a person (not necessarily a driver) to deviate from their set path, why wouldn't they take it?
This doesn't seem to require driverless busses. I can see an argument of why self driving taxis would be helpful -- cost of labor is near zero -- but with busses, the cost of labor is amortized across passengers.
Anyone have more resources on this? I could only find a brief overview by Scott Aaronson [1].
[1] http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~arielpro/15896s16/slides/896s16-14.pd...
[2] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sandholm/futurematch.aaai15%20with%2...
I have the same grip with college rankings. When you look at the top 20, and then at the total student population, you'd realize these rankings are useless for the majority of Americans since only a small fraction will attend these schools.
My conversion followed from the thought of having sock-less shoes, mainly from the cathartic feeling of removing them after a long day. A cousin recommended me to get a pair of Allbirds; initially, I liked the material of the shoe but it still didn't feel "breathable" (especially on a hot day in summer) and the wool began to rub my feet in a wrong way. This is in addition to the issue of build quality: the glue at the head of the shoe was visible, and also began to deteriorate; I've also had a friend whose Allbirds ripped during a session of basketball -- it lasted only a couple of months.
I'm not sure about how other people feel about this, but if a shoe or a sandal costs over $100, it should last at least for a year or two; I sincerely doubt that the difference between retail price and manufacturing cost is small enough to not cover a replacement 3 times over.
My issues with Allbirds stirred me to find a long-lasting, breathable pair of footwear. I don't remember if it was seeing people on campus wear sandals, or hearing about the longevity about Birkenstocks on reddit that drove me to buying a cheap, "test" pair.
After test-driving a foam version, I decided to invest the mid-tier Arizona sandal (which I'm still wearing today).
Back to the main question, is the "return" of Birkenstocks unlikely. I don't think so: the culture of the company seems to fit well with the demographics of millennials, who aren't afraid to splurge on items with great story / quality behind it.
And anecdotally, the first time I wore them outside, my friends jestingly compared my sense of fashion to a "white, sorority girl" (which I take to be an implication of their popular amongst college students).
10% owning 84% seems to be the expectation then. This reminds me of an Atlantic article lamenting the “9.9%” [1].
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...