volatility arbitrage exists in pretty much every currency, so this isn't a vulnerability, it's a FX trade.
273 karma · joined June 12, 2016
However, not everyone is ambitious and competitive, but not everyone uses social media. They do seek a sense of approval (or attention), even if it is defracted via a pseudonym. Most social studies are irreproducible bunk anyway.
Our 'real' identities are but a hash away, where you give me a place to contact you and tell you the contents of this sha1 sum: b967696ff8376ccd0feb6170b469e23588d702bd . If you wanted to get fancy, we could start by agreeing on a modulus and a base....
They can make more money, but imho it will be through value added services on their graph and service diversification, not on user growth against todays advertising model.
The real reason social media sites die without moderation is not because it alienates people who take bullying, it is that when there is no way to become a moderator, people seek status and power elsewhere. Reddit survives because it is a status pyramid scheme. HN survives because of similar aspiration to be seen as that smart person in front of a VC audience, a kind of Enders Game fantasy.
Facebook and Twitter are waning not because of trolls, but because they have signaled a nannying supervisory role that reduces overall user optionality, and takes away the thing that drew people in in the first place: Hope.
It can make you seem like a generalist, when in fact you are just a transcendent specialist.
If driving causes cancer, at least the people who drive in the passing lane (the left one) deserve it.
It threatens a lot of conventional beliefs, but they are conventional mainly because, as shown, people are sheep.
This is probably the most dangerous video ever produced.
There should be an Onion article titled, "Challenger to status quo is racist, anti-Semitic, transphobic, misogynist, possibly gay, rapist, pedophile, terrorist, bogeyman."
Yawn.
Writers like that are why people are backing the republican nominee.
The big secret in a lot of countries where energy and communications are state monopolies or semi-private corporations is that they are LOADED with debt that the govt used as a private slush fund.
If you are looking for "off balance sheet" liabilities in a government, look at its utilities that are exempt from public records laws. This is where a lot of the bodies are buried.
If people start dropping off the grid, states will just convert the power bill to a straight up tax bill, but without the pretense of a service attached to it. There are already precedents for charging electric vehicle taxes to make up for the shortfall in fuel taxes they create. Govts say, "well, if they are using the roads, they should pay for them." except gas taxes go into the slop bucket of general revenue, and the roads have been paid for through other taxes. The largest state expense is employee salaries, yet all road maintenance is done by contractors, so the "roads" thing doesn't really wash.
When Greece was trying to sort out its default, it outsourced tax collection to its utility companies as part of the bailout.
Efficient power storage will be a game changer, like a redrawing of international boundaries game changer.
"Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that form an identifiable other. It's a general problem of how should a society deal with extreme exceptional minorities. From a majority rule perspective, there are probably still more homeless people than millionaires (let alone billionaires) in the bay area, so maybe they will organize and win the right to camp anywhere.
Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community consent to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much. In fact, if the resolution doesn't pass to prevent people from camping in the street, what's to stop anyone from setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk camps like those at burning man.
What does the street provide an alley or park doesn't? I've said before, the perceived security from non-underclass people walking by. Police protect non-underclass people from violence, and the homeless get this additional benefit by extension by being nearby. In shelters and tent cities, you are more likely to be targeted for crime.
Sure people without addresses have a right to safety and security of person like everyone else, but their behavior (often due to mental illness or drug use or factors outside of their direct control) makes it extra difficult/costly to provide it.
Other people pay a lot of money in tax to the state to reduce their daily exposure to violence, regardless of the factors that might contribute to it. Tent cities are a source of risk, and they are provocative symbols of the limits of the ability of the local government to operate credibly. Governments, mainly for their own sake, must remove tent cities when they pop up, arguably because that's what they were originally chartered to do.
Some may say that the homeless are "just trying to live," but it could be said they are hovering around public services without any sense of responsibility to the local society that provides them.
They are human beings, but ones who take advantage of the lack of a continuous tribal identity in cities, where they can live with people believing they are someone else's problem. People who don't learn to get along get run out of small towns (or worse). Add a drug addiction to severe mental illness, and you basically get a municipal zombie problem.
To me, homelessness is only a complicated problem from the perspective of an ideology that cannot tolerate examples of the limits to its power. Everyone else has solutions, just not ones that reinforce the narcissism of maternalistic policymakers.
The only real value of any software is that it does what someone says it does, and if nobody says it does anything, then I would argue it is not creating value for anyone. It is showing up to work and consuming resources, but it's not moving the company anywhere.
Growth in a company means building things that are the foundation for something else, and those foundations are based on the assurances of people with credible word. Documentation creates a basis for that credibility. A lack of credibility means a lack of ability to deliver value.
If your backend devs won't document their APIs as a matter of backward principle, your company is probably in a death spiral, fire them or eject.
Sort of breaks with the victim narrative, but provides a more plausible story.
- 100+ years of business telecommunications without significant strong encryption. - Robust wiretapping and law enforcement access laws and practices that mean there is NO place or piece of information within US sovereign territory that is inaccessible to an authorized agent of the state. - they have the expectation of total control. Hell, beat cops can shoot you over minor "comply or die" orders. - Crypto isn't about your email or even evidence in a particular case, it is about the completeness and totality of their authority. - States around the world routinely decimate their populations in civil wars and massacres to ensure the same people remain in power. From the LE perspective, anyone who threatens the sovereignty of the state is a terrist they would complete for the opportunity to shoot.
Hackers don't get it. If the crypto debate ever gets real, you cannot imagine how real it will get.
While prison likely has a high concentration of pathological personalities, the more serious the company you are in, the more it will have collected people who are attracted by power and prestige - the more probable case that you will be dealing with psychopaths.
The ones I've met aren't actually that smart (handwavy estimate is they seem to top out around IQ120), and usually only have one or two blunt but heavy social tools that make them high functioning manipulators. They are enabled by overly trusting, high IQ but socially unsophisticated engineers who are easily bullied.
With violence largely a non-factor in a psycho's toolkit in the startup world (vs. prison), you can learn to anticipate and manage them.
While it can be fun to have the scariest dog in the park, who's just a sweetie to you at home (because all they understand is power), it raises the question of responsibility. You know it's going to do harm, it's just a matter of time, and the question for a real leader is, at what point do you recognize it for what it is and put it down?
If you have ever been to boarding school, summer camp, or worked in a large institution, the difference to prison seems largely symbolic. Different people and rules, yet still, people and rules.
Speculating I would say:
- chose younger hire because cheaper and can be moulded into company specific role. - younger candidate more easily managed by less experienced (cheaper) manager. - wants to keep culture "pure," and needs kids to drink kool-aid. - values power and control over less experienced technically acceptable candidates. - get extra effort and all nighters out of people who think they need "experience." - want to leverage kids love of novelty to react and respond to developments that seem like minor details to people with experience. - younger people have less sensitivity to change. - early stage companies want to reduce exposure to risk from having to re-negotiate once key developer has them by balls.
If you are old, present as harmless. The more hippy dippy and spergy you come off as, the less threatening you will be, the more you will disarm clients/employers.
As someone whose drink is a "ristretto" (which is mostly the crema) the espresso in a given little italy vs. something served by someone under the age of 50 is very different. The closest thing I could find to a standard Italian coffee in SF was at Mara's Italian Pastries in north beach.
Could a hipster do it? Sure. Would I ever line up or wait for their explanation to find out? No.
1. In the same job (say, sr. developer) with equivalent qualifications, what differences in approach, behavior, and performance can one attribute to someone being a man or a woman?
2. How would you recommend responding to a peer, a subordinate, or a superior who behaves in a way that reinforces negative stereotypes about their identity?
There is an old joke about how people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support and not for illumination. Given this, we can expect people to use AI like everything else in statistics, to support the agenda of whoever is operating it while defraying negative personal accountability for the results, because artificial intelligence. It's just an obfuscated and sophisticated version of, "Computer says no."
The alternative is the near future headline, "AI confirms racists, sexists, on to something."
The big winner of the U.S. presidential election will be police.