dchftcs

Well you could play the devil's advocate the same way.

Is the UK government really caring about the children or do they just want more convenient power.

If the citizens really cared about the future of their children they would not have elected a government that is a stinking pile of poop.

One thing you should also have come to realise is that most politicians want surveillance power for themselves, but not for others.

This title is still a bit click baity because ultimately this problem has very little impact on any real world usage of stochastic gradient descent - and especially the more important ones, where getting infinitesimally close to any particular local minimum is specifically and totally not what people care about (and getting to a global minimum is something we've long known to give up on).

It is a theoretically interesting result about the PPAD complexity class itself. Not sure if it should be STOC best paper though, if it was nominated as best paper because of the weak link to machine learning I'd be a bit disappointed.

>Meanwhile I even understand why some people send her quite a lot of money via crypto to crack a game instead of spending the money directly on the game. To be fair, those people could be running an internet cafe and want to deploy the illegal copies to 100+ computers.

Independent hash functions can be as mundane as using different a,b values for ax+b, so as far as the theory is concerned, salting is indeed generating a new hash function.

I think this is the wrong question. Any number, if you define them as a representation of digits, is computable in that sense. What isn't necessary computable is the value of a function taken with a certain input or input range. BB numbers, as large as they can be, are themselves finite and therefore "computable" once you know them, but the mapping from natural numbers to BB numbers is not computable. So the real value of a particular function f evaluated at some number say 100 could be as small as 0, but maybe you just can't compute f(100) and know that it's 0.

The stress comes from constant and abject failure, not really the life style. Travelling is also like 2% of the total time.

Depends on what quality you optimize for. The quality of the execution, the quality of cost controls, etc.

If you mean the quality of each unit of the product, then yes, you're largely right. You just need enough quality to let people buy from you, and any corner you can cut without losing sales is profit. However, often a startup needs to push the quality bar at first to be competitive with large existing incumbents in a market segment.

>Virtu literally switched sides and make most of their money on order execution.

That's not true according to their filings. In their filing for 2022 Q4, I see 185m from market making, and 89m from execution.

The goals before the 4 years were probably based on results claimed, not making a product. Research management is difficult and efficiently running a lab requires some degree of trust that researchers don't lie.

I think the bigger part of management's fault here is that they should have spent some time on verifying the research before dedicating more resources.

If we limit to EU, perhaps Netherlands or Ireland?

It works until one of them stops caring. I could imagine that, if a town is dying, it would be very difficult for them to justify spending resources related to nature conservation, and would then again require the conservation foundation to step in and provide resources.

For a PE buyout to be truly successful, the current owners need to be vastly less informed and/or have access to fewer resources than the fund does. It's a function of both sides of the transaction.

When a PE doesn't think they could get a truly good deal, they are incentivized to flip quickly, potentially at the cost of the long term health of the business.

What this seems to imply is that many "middling" deals are the ones that are going to go sour - ones that worked fine before but where the PE could not figure out how to get it to grow faster. In those cases, the rational choice for a profit-maximizing PE is to use whatever tactics at their disposable to exploit it to the last cent and move on to the next project, as opposed to leaving the business alone.

More money has been going into PE, and businesses consolidate more. Good targets are harder to find, and more incompetent PE managers are coming to the market. What I feel this predicts is that the average experience with PE should decline over time.

That's not a physical law. It only happens sometimes in some parts of the supply chain in the form of economies of scale. But if you run out of easily drilled oil sources, the unit cost of produce more oil increases. If you want to build more cars, you would increase demand for parts, and would in turn be willing to pay more for the scarcer parts, and your BOM increases.

It only makes sense to refer to what you described as a phenomenon you want to pursue if you want to run a successful business, but can never be used to describe the economy as a whole.

The only way to meet the demand of the masses without inflation is increasing supply without increasing the marginal cost of the extra supply. These days, that's mostly driven by technological progress and aggressively pursuing efficiency. The primary driver of inflation is the human desire to procreate and improve their living conditions; not to say that's necessarily bad, but it imposes a constraint that can't be resolved by the rhetoric of rich vs poor people. While I agree economists seem to be too obtuse to realise the hypocrisy of increasing unemployment to reduce inflation, a primary issue is that we as a society haven't figured out how to control consumption in a way that makes everyone happy.

It looks like the most compelling differentiator is the AR and pass-through experience. I wouldn't say it's a game changer for VR, but it does sweeten the deal.

But if there is ever a perfect AR experience for desk work, if it does seriously allow me to have only a keyboard and a mouse on my work desk, without compromising my productivity like using a single screen laptop does, it could save me some real estate cost in the long run that would be well worth the price - I'd be able to work better in a smaller room or at the dining table.

It's not very surprising they'd be distant relatives, as a matter of odds.

Taiwan is a small place and Taiwanese Han people came from a relatively non-diverse group of immigrants (e.g. largely Hokkien). For these two to have got a good education and risen to the top like this as immigrants to the US, likelier than not they were from educated or rich families.

If you filter for Taiwanese families educated or rich during the years they were born, the scope would probably have been somewhat small and covered an even smaller range of bloodlines, possibly even all somewhat related to a handful of historical clans.

The degree of separation between people like them from a small geographical region tends to be fairly small in general.

Sales and marketing CEOs pretend they work 24x7, but they spend much of their weekends on leisure activities such as golfing, travel, playing with their children, having expensive dinners with board members and politicians and so on. If you're committed it's really not hard to replace that leisure time with gaming.

Corporate contributions also suffer from the same perverse incentives. If you want that promo, better make sure it's your code and proposal that made it into the standard.

It's something they didn't really ask for, never meaningfully utilized anyway, and ultimately is an entry in a table on some servers they can't really care less about.

You can fantasize about the hardships the citizens suffered for the appropriation of the .io TLD and draw any analogy you want, but there are probably more pressing needs of the people you're not addressing by spending time to supply this sort of sympathy.

Worse, imagine a world where you actually advocate for the displaced indigenous people to care about this problem. Probably you'd be asking them to divert attention from real problems such as being able to afford food tomorrow.

>because the price of a stock is what someone is willing to pay for it. It's only true assuming fully efficient markets, which even academic economists studying markets don't do.

The fact someone is willing to pay $100 for one share doesn't mean every share is worth $100.

The fair value of a stock should always depend on the expected cash flow you can receive by holding the stock for perpetuity. Nobody can predict the future, so nobody really knows what the fair value is.

But, if you had 1 trillion dollars and still wouldn't want to pay 1 trillion to acquire an entire company, because you feel you very likely can't make that 1 trillion back, then it's fair to say the company is not worth 1 trillion to you.

There's a lot of waste based on pure nonsense and most of the public indulge in them. Individuals that actually care and make well-informed decisions form a minority.

Given their losses your rent would have to roughly double for WeWork to have any profit. May I know if the services provided to you are worth that much?

Probably the expectation is that the most marketable ones would receive special incentives including pay bumps and promotions. This makes a strong assumption that the company is able to accurately identify contributors worth the special incentives, which I have no faith in.

The only way to really plan for it, if you're running a small business with lower margins, is to raise prices, grow users or cut salary expenses. None of those are easy, even if you can see the tax bill coming.

It just reads like they optimized for best impact, trying to cherry pick their way to presenting a big strawman and strike it. At least, scientists and doctors have a much more nuanced point of view than the authors imply they do. The resentment towards constraints imposed by parenthood is also not a novel phenomenon.

Considering the background of the authors, they certainly demonstrated some expertise and put a lot of effort in the rhetoric, "Science over Mothers", which makes me doubly doubtful of their level motivation to explain the problem better and clearer than scientists do:

Jessica Clements is Assistant Professor of English and Composition Commons Director at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington, and Managing Editor of Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society.

Kari Nixon is Assistant Professor of English at Whitworth University. She is the author of Kept from All Contagion and Quarantine Life from Cholera to COVID-19.

>The fact that these people keep updating devices constantly is a testament to Apple's marketing.

Seems apt to post this exceptionally cheesy Mac ad: https://youtu.be/8kF5x2D3rqo

It's also true that he can't possibly take the entire year off as PTO, because he'd be fired before it's allowed to happen. So taking a full year PTO is already a contradiction.

Then in classicial logic, a contradiction can imply anything: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion Therefore he can be fired 0,1,2,10,100,1000 times, with all those possibilities being true simultaneously.

I'm often on board with this sort of criticism of populist finance regulation but it is a bit nuanced. One problem retail voices tend to highlight is that institutions that take stupid risks can get bailed out for being too big to fail, while "the little guy" taking the same risks would have little help.

They don't apply to all situations, and your criticism is somewhat valid for many crypto cases, but between crypto and traditional finance it's true that regulators can be too heavy-handed on some areas in crypto while being a lot more lenient on say people who run a company to ground in a leveraged buyout.

No, the bonds are worth something, and the losses can narrow by a lot if they're allowed to hold to maturity, deposit interest rates rise slowly enough and if broad interest rates drop some time on the future. The risk that they can't narrow is indeed real and whether to backstop that is a source of contention here.

There is a recent trend in database research, ML in databases. Not sure how much an impact it can make though, the sweet spot is doing relatively linear stuff, arguably just a step up from analytical functions in queries, while cutting edge ML needs dedicated GPUs for compute load and often uses unstructured and even binary data.