danielharan

This is a great explanation: http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/22/apartment-blockers/ "The research hints at the rent increases caused by some of the “rent raisers” above: 6 percent higher rent per parking space in Los Angeles, 12.5 percent in Litman’s model, up to 35 percent in the forthcoming Sightline analysis."

You need a bit more to than simple disagreement when the initial statement is that a donation (of $1,000) and a vote are different.

Whoa - they just told you now? :O

I'm sorry you've had to wait this long.

This whole situation is insane. We could actually just let more people in; we need more for long-term demographic reasons and the current policy is just a xenophobic disaster.

Save for the fact that as an industry, the VCs are not even trying to be fair. Much as it sucks, asking the government for permission seems better than what that group would achieve.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to be more careful how I state things.

If a company as large as IBM systematically discriminates, I sure hope they end up in legal trouble.

FP says the "entrepreneur visa", IIRC it required putting up your own money:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/24/startup-visa-pr...

No one was proposing that in Canada either... :(

Down-voters: explain, please?

You don't think the experience from this type of policy being tried somewhere else is relevant? That it won't backfire?

So you get a visa, with fewer rights? How long would that restriction on their freedom of movement last?

This is a terrible idea.

VCs have proposed the same solution in Canada; the government canned the old investor visa and allowed founders to get a startup when they receive investment from some of our VCs. (There were many more investor visa than VCs can even process. We'll end up with less total job creation. You have to be careful what you lobby for, and how it will be implemented!)

What was once a process over which government had visibility is now in the hands of the private sector, with firms that have historically discriminated on age, ethnicity, gender, etc.

I'm not saying I wouldn't trust Sam Altman. I just wouldn't trust most VCs with this task.

The critical thing that makes this affordable is only using light for 3 days. Growing full-sized veggies would probably be cost-prohibitive.

That is not at all what I've seen from various founders in my network. Those who fail spend far more time analyzing what happened.

Besides choult's point, users can often be de-anonymized based on just a few ratings. Someone did this by cross-referencing dates in the Netflix data set and those available on one of the bigger sites.

Suddenly the fact that you were watching documentaries or movies that let you infer their political or sexual proclivities could be determined by outsiders.

Same with startups: we don't analyze successes as much as we scrutinize failures.

"Bayes’ theorem– a sophisticated and complex tool for analyzing probability"

Uh... really?

I'd certainly pay $2 a month to get art instead of ads.

Kittens might be more popular though.

Senator Kennedy's woes have not resulted in the no-fly list being thrashed. Not sure we'd get a better outcome for financial transaction if something similar were to occur.

My guess: over-fitted. It will make money until it explodes.

Thanks!

Not said, but isn't that exactly what his cost cutting implies?

How confident are you that these will come to pass?

How confident are you that half of your predictions come true?

Upvoting this, if only for the suggestion to "Don’t think at your desk", which is a strategy I hadn't heard before.

Neat. How long does it take to do a wash with that?

Almost 334 now; it was the first thing I checked after reading that story.

A hostile take over might be cheaper than paying royalties.

There are two problems that need to be fixed.

-Housing prices. Supporting affordable housing isn't the solution here; there needs to be more supply. Given all the money invested in tech, surely the bigger companies could invest in some real estate. Or announce that you're ready to do so, when the city finally allows it - now the city's the villain.

-Fix Transportation so you don't need private shuttles. Either force the city to improve transportation or support startups that can do it instead.

Just because his empathy requires effort does NOT mean it is poor.

Your theory, by focusing on the situation rather than personality, at least avoids the fundamental attribution error. Your model however fails for outliers; not everyone can be modelled as "like-me". Sociopaths, borderline personality disorders, senility: there's a long list of ways in which people are different enough that simple unconscious models will not be accurate.

Nonsense.

Bugging a hundred thousand computers? That's a lot of resources thrown at a problem and the results are terrible. Maybe a single attack averted since 9/11. We know why: too many false positives waste resources - and you don't have that much humint to start with.

That they're doing that much surveillance is a sign that they're either incompetent or the official justification is a smoke screen. They're also spying on allies. Was it really necessary to bug Merkel's cell phone?

Spying on allies and passing off trade secrets only results in backlash - and when that many computers are bugged it's only a matter of time before it's discovered.

While you're growing sigint budgets, you're not spending enough on humint.

Do you really feel safer with the government conducting spycraft so incompetently?

Wow, these talking points are hilarious:

"We do not use foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of - or give intelligence we collect to - US companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.''

“In practice we have found that if you only ask one question, ask that.”

As most CEO salaries are low, the answer has very little information value. Adding numbers from that chart, ~8k / 11k founders surveyed were making do with less than 50k/yr.

Looking for the top 10% of businesses by asking a question that only discriminates against the bottom ~30% is better than nothing. Assuming this gave no false negatives, it would increase the investor's hit rate by ~43%.

Any lower than 50k and a founder is either independently wealthy, living a pauper lifestyle (and being stressed out instead of concentrating on their startup), or using an expense account. So the positives don't all mean the same thing. If you're independently wealthy because of a previous success, your odds are already much higher. A person stressed out about money however is likely to make really poor decisions.