citrablue

Just to be clear here, you have internally discredited the group that says "its racist to depict black people as animals in a zoo"?

It sounds like you believe people can behave more in line with the Rational Human used to model older economic theories. I'm not so sure confirmation, affinity, or proximity biases can be held down. What we need is a system that is either immune to these biases, or is designed to thwart them.

My opinion: individual's actions and beliefs do not put a dent in the tsunami of bias that swamps our brains. We need systemic thinking (e.g. science has a decent structure with double blind studies).

But they were genetically related to him. I don't think this is a good example.

It rarely seems to have the effect of promoting healthy and respectful discourse. Instead it appears to always inflame.

One example from your own experience is not generalizable.

This does not hold water. Did the left occupy the Capitol building in 2016 or 2000, when they won the popular votes but lost the presidency?

It's kind of a MJF signature word - I heard this in his voice. He says it in several of his roles, IIRC.

Of course, you miss out on real estate for a number of years while you do this. Time in market and leverage are important.

If time and date are unpredictable, what's the use? Suppose you switch to conservative investments now -- say, bonds. You're going to be hit less hard by the recession, but you also will have missed out on gains.

So, unless you believe you can time the market, it doesn't appear like there is much to do except to make sure you have a rainy day fund.

All my other money goes into the system.

Worth noting that the FB acquisition of WhatsApp was a massive unicorn success for the WA team. While the point doesn't hold, the "breaking" of it is the best case outcome for the people who build the product.

Sure, but you aren't getting 5x leverage in an index fund.

What does your pre-code design process look like? Might beef that up; its what has helped me quite a bit.

Ah, I understand what you're saying. You are right - meaningless is too strong of a statement.

If I could edit my comment, I might say something more accurate, like "trying to evaluate this number without more context is not useful."

For comparison, the stock market has done 9.1% during that time. $40k in an index fund back then would be worth around $390k today.

Leverage is the biggest benefit, I would imagine. Although paying half as much in rent sounds really nice these days :).

Glad it worked out for you.

Is your argument that a CSV file of everyone's data should be publicly accessible? Because that's not what I understand the fee to cover; it covers extra personnel to field and review the requests, computer systems to process it, paper to print it out. It probably also covers supervisors time, office space, printers.

Like most government spending, I'm sure it's excessive. However, I'm not clear what your counter-point was. Yes, producing a CSV costs less than $42M. No, producing a CSV file is not what this service entails.

Is that a lot, or a little, when compared to the cost of providing the service? Without context, this number is meaningless.

The problem is that many problems are so because of their scale. For instance, you have billions of harmful bacteria in your body, but are (presumably) not afflicted because they can be handled by your immune system. It would be bad to eliminate all the bad bacteria (even if this were possible without killing good bacteria) because your immune system would become more fragile in future infections.

For many things, the scale is the problem.

What are the differences between good and bad CEOs? From my vantage, companies sure seem to be awful at identifying these before hiring someone...

I agree with some of your underlying sentiment, but this is a textbook "no true scotsman" example.

It seems pretty clear he doesn't want FB to be the decision maker. Guessing his reasoning is probably more projection than anything else.

But back the "punting" metaphor -- he only has the ball because the US government never picked it up. Doesn't it seem pretty clear that these standards (re: hate speech, election ads, etc.) should be made at a national level, rather than a FB level?

This article appears to have some fundamental misunderstandings. Their description of the review system is not stack ranking, in which employees are ranked in a hierarchy and the lowest on the totem are fired. Instead, the "meets/exceeds" scale has been pretty standard wherever I've worked.

Further, it seems that FB HR asked the source of this article to not speak to the press about an internal event that involved a very sensitive issue. Yet, the journalist repeatedly states that Mr. Yin was asked to speak with nobody about the issue. It looks like he ignored the advice, and became a very visible interviewee, even appearing on public news. He told his manager after the interviews - what was he thinking? It's pretty obvious that FB doesn't want it's employees speaking to the press.

This article's inaccuracies in an attempt to spin a tragedy into some sort of Facebook conspiracy reinforces the correctness of the company's "do not speak to the press" attitude.

Wouldn't it be expected that companies who are targeted by PE are more likely to go bankrupt, independent of any actions by the PE firm? They say they're targeting poorly run companies, after all. (Not to disagree with your larger point, but want to correct any mistakes in my understanding.)

180 is mid senior according to levels.fyi.

You basically load the cartridge in by hand every time. If you leave some space between the powder and projectile, you risk the gun blowing up.

San Diego and the Lockheed contract team determined where to put cameras based on where they thought the maximum revenue stream was, instead of danger to others. One light -- at an intersection that is frequently gridlocked because it's the most popular route out of the airport, which frequently has out of town visitors -- generated nearly 50% of the revenue from the red light systems.

It was clearly not about safety, but about selectively enforcing laws to maximize revenue. That's why the city stopped doing it.

How about when traffic rules are created not for safety, but to maximize revenue? 6 years ago, San Diego finally dropped red light cameras because they were installed as a revenue generation device, not a safety device.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-san-...

It becomes cheating when it's an unfair advantage that isn't available to other people. The fact that it was cheating based on race makes it problematic. The fact that black applications likely faced other unfair difficulties makes it less problematic.

I guess it boils down to whether you think life should be like golf, where (terrible term in this context, apologies for the usage here) you carry a handicap to level the playing field.

This is a common misconception. Beane did use statistics, but the central point of Moneyball was how he found market inefficiencies and exploited them. Other teams were using statistics as well, but it was Beane who applied market principles.

That's basically what early Michael Lewis books were about: exploiting market inefficiencies.

(Agree with your larger point about sports, however.)

I live in San Diego, and have followed this with great interest. From my understanding, they are only doing this for scooters that are parked illegally: e.g. on the shop owners property, blocking vehicle access, etc.

It's very interesting, because the riders don't have an incentive to park appropriately (and that is sometimes a guessing game -- street signs don't exist for where you can park scooters legally). However, I'd warrant that it's the sheer carelessness of riders who cause this issue.

Without people like these repo folks, there would be no disincentive for either the riders or the scooter companies. The riders don't care (and making them care would hurt the companies' growth/user retention -- part of the appeal is that "drop anywhere" thing).

In short, I see no problem with this. We allow tow truck companies to do the same, with private citizens as the victims. This only forces the scooter companies to solve the problem they created.

Isn't it just as plausible that early adopters bought BTC because that's all there was, then bought altcoins as they appeared in order to diversify their crypto portfolio? It'd be interesting to find out if there are more investors in "crypto" as a strategy versus BTC specifically.