adamiscool8

>We’ve looked at how our teams work best, and the data is clear: when people work together in person more often, they thrive — they are more energized, empowered, and they deliver stronger results.

Citation needed or this is just more vibe-xecutive decree.

This is right but missing that the goal of these corporate cultural proclamations is optimizing for people who are true believers in the mission. Whether that leads to better business outcomes than optimizing for really smart people who believe in work-life balance… I personally doubt.

Yes, optimizations of this form can work to manage tail risk on an edge and can reproducibly lift expectancy for a strategy. GP is essentially claiming no positive edge can exist, which is false - though these edges may be short-lived and dependent on particular market regimes.

In general, yes - no edge is forever. But that doesn't mean trading is a coin flip where no edge can exist. The market is adaptive because humans are adaptive - but, for example, their machine offspring are often slightly less adaptive and create opportunities for persistent returns. Even more so for most retail where your position size isn't creating slippage.

All of these points are irrelevant. If you have the data that shows 99.5% win rate, you would have the data on your expected win size, and could compute a fixed loss stop that would keep you on-side. In the example, which I'm assuming must be hyperbolic, your average win would only need to stay >1/199th of your average loss. I would agree that if a person cannot manage their positions to this, that person should stick to investing.

This doesn't make sense. If you had a 99.5% success rate, you could simply use a fixed $ stop and clean up. I agree you need an information edge, but the difficulty of finding one inversely correlates with your scale. Buying and holding is the best strategy for almost everybody - but that is orthogonal to whether trading is a "coin flip" vs mining an edge.

You could say that about building almost any infrastructure anywhere populated.

I don't think this article makes a good case for why you should.

>The more of us who incapacitate Google's analytics products and their support mechanism, the better. Not just for the good of each individual person implementing the blocks - but in a wider sense, because if enough people block Google Analytics 4, it will go the same way as Universal Google Analytics. These products rely on gaining access to the majority of Web users. If too many people block them, they become useless and have to be withdrawn.

OK - but then also in the wider sense, if site owners can't easily assess the performance of their site relative to user behavior to make improvements, now the overall UX of the web declines. Should we go back to static pages and mining Urchin extracts, and guessing what people care about?

I like the concept but shouldn't the score be counting down? Or am I trying to shepherd Pac-Man into eating as many as possible to get a high score?

I don't think this reflects a flaw in LLM's at all. It is true that Paul Newman is not "known for" having alcohol problems. Paul Newman is known for acting, and salad dressing. Paul Newman has been "known to" have had alcohol problems, which formed as a question correctly one-shots accurate results for me across a few common LLMs. Someone like Betty Ford could be "known for" having alcohol problems. Paul Newman's alcohol problems are relatively specialized knowledge.

Check out The Elephant Man

Yes, but the same contractor manages the AirNow Data Management Center [0], and according to this talk [0] DOSAir is the actual program here, and they are piggybacking the EPA AirNow data infrastructure, and per the OP they are keeping the sensors running.

So I'm all the more confused about what exactly necessitates this specific State Dept-directed funding freeze that happens to impact only the network that communicates the data from embassies into AirNow, but not the data center or other data producers.

[0] https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/hylton-st...

[1] https://youtu.be/RcdBIWdA-e4?si=PTpOEG7rFnGod7EH&t=2615

Or, the not-so-secret third option, a disgruntled State Dept bureaucrat made a choice.

Those most passionate about capital-S Science are often aggressively anti-Trump, making them prone to accepting reports like this uncritically.

If the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, questioning that expense is fair and pretending otherwise only undermines scientific credibility.

This article is a "pro-science" talking point because it admits embassies were told to keep monitors running and data sharing could resume if funding returned.

So at this point, there's not even necessarily a gap in the actual data. The only proof this shutdown was unavoidable comes from those who carried it out. Funny how that goes...

Do you have a source for this? The article on says it's "due to funding constraints that have caused the Department to turn off the underlying network" but does not elaborate on the constraints. Given embassies clearly have latitude in funding their continued operations, I find it implausible the executive halted "air quality monitoring" and much more likely a disgruntled bureaucrat made a choice.

>Air quality data is not a high profile valued thing.

Disagree completely - saying "we had to turn off the air quality data network" is vague enough to be plausibly blamed on budget cuts for a non-tech-savvy audience, while still having a significant enough impact to attract coverage from outlets like the NYT. This, in turn, creates another "pro-science" talking point to rally "The Resistance".

>The stop in sharing data was “due to funding constraints that have caused the Department to turn off the underlying network” read the statement, which added that embassies and consulates were directed to keep their monitors running and the sharing of data could resume in the future if funded was restored.

Hmm...

>The Washington Monument syndrome,[0] also known as the Mount Rushmore syndrome or the firemen first principle, is a term used to describe the phenomenon of government agencies in the United States cutting the most visible or appreciated service provided by the government when faced with budget cuts. It has been used in reference to cuts in popular services such as national parks and libraries or to valued public employees such as teachers and firefighters, with the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore being two of the most visible landmarks maintained by the National Park Service. This is done to put pressure on the public and lawmakers to rescind budget cuts.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_syndrome

>Why would common services be overburdened?

Water restrictions? Fatbergs? Brownouts? Congestion? Traffic? Breathing room? Not to mention increasing demand on any inelastic local supply will drive up prices. To my initial point, the upscaling of utilities and infrastructure is often magically handwaved alongside the up-zoning demands. There are real negatives to cramming more and more people into one place!

Dystopia usually conjures up a neon bright towers of an overwhelming big city. I've been to Atlanta too and I quite liked it. Low density, lots of green space, decent public transit (MARTA). Lots of interesting neighborhood variability.

Would be interested in reading more about this claim, but it is not true for my suburb which raises plenty in development fees and property tax.

Looking at a random SF suburb, "Pleasanton" [0] - it looks like 72% of their budget is funded through taxes and only ~7% is transfer payments.

[0] https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/assets/our-government/fin...

Not saying those don't exist but China also has like 50 tier-3 cities significantly larger than SF. And for the most part, really great transit between them.

Granted there are economic efficiencies. But I'm not convinced the fully expanded multipliers from one Super SF with 4X the density - turning it into somewhere like Manila - would be better across all metrics (economic and human) than fostering four easily interconnected mini-SFs.

Maybe a boon for the city, but is definitively a boon for the people? Or could they be better served by building up another nearby town and connecting it?

Is it cheaper because the infrastructure is going farther, or because every individual is getting less and less of an overburdened commons?

If you build out instead and everyone gets the SFH white-picket-fence life, the escape to nature is suddenly less important. Even if it's more expensive to connect, in the process we develop ample capacity in the commons.

Maybe it's just not possible with so much cost focus and so many competing incentives in the West. And no superseding body who can make it happen like China.

Converting 4-story to 6-story isn't really what I see pitched either, it's generally rezoning SFH/2/4-plex to 6-story+ with subsidies, which is really a huge remaking of neighborhoods.

There would be 3-4X the people, yet still the same amount of roads, services, and public utilities. Why is densifying always seen as some unalloyed good? I constantly see this pitched as a plan for housing problems without the basic consideration of whether human beings thrive in such an unnatural environment.

If you're going to force-densify anything, why not actual low-per-capita population areas [0] and develop mass transit, so North America can have the successful China city-tier model [1] with spread-out opportunities instead of cramming everyone together in one place.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_population_map...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_city_tier_system

>the government's continued use of X legitimises and directs traffic to a platform that no longer prioritises fact-based, accessible public communication.

What does this mean exactly?

There's no indication the Government of Canada's profile on X will stop showing their own messages.

Granted, they might find themselves Community Noted, since the Canadian government (NB: any government, really) can also be prone to amplifying misinformation, conspiracy theories, and harmful rhetoric.

But they want Canadians to believe a new community-regulated platform, prioritizing accuracy and safety - as defined by people throwing tantrums at the mere possibility of diverse perspectives - is going to be more reliable, accountable, and accessible?

Peak performative nonsense. And I expect no less than several million signatures.

As evidenced, the scream test can be used effectively for everything.

Depends on the results. Being accidentally fired for a few days is not going to cause debilitation, death, and destitution.

This is a weird way to look at it. There's a shifting of incentives towards less "dangerous" topics. But "dangerous" just means citizens have decided research involving these terms is generally not the highest ROI for taxpayer funding. No one's going to face the wall over private research.

The alternative dogma of egocentric hedonism creates at least as many monsters.