gd1

One religion embraces another.

The point is though that you have shifted your daily equilibrium, and it takes zero thought to maintain that. Choosing to eat 60 calories less a day is a choice, which takes mental effort. In contrast, once you have that 10 pounds of muscle, it is burning away regardless. 60 calories * 365 days = 21900 calories a year. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so if you maintain your eating at the same level, that's ~2.4 kilograms (~5 pounds) a year you are losing without even trying. Obviously in reality, your appetite goes up as well, but the point is that once you are muscular enough you have to actively try to eat more just to maintain your weight.

You do your math. Exercise isn't just about how many calories you burn during it. Add a kilo of muscle and it will be burning energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

KDB is the tool of choice on new projects. Also, $12.5k a core these days (last I checked).

Or just:

  (-)':(10 11 2 3 4 5) 

...in K.

Or:

  (-) prior (10 11 2 3 4 5)

..in Q, if you feel more comfortable with words than symbols.

Shouldn't 'bairn' be spelt that way and not 'barn' as in the article?

>What you're describing is just as 'made up' as the metric you're opposing

So are you telling me that the very best way we have of establishing narcissism is the "the frequency with which the CEO’s name appeared in company press releases"??

If not, then a scientist is required to either:

a) Use the best method.

or...

b) Develop a proxy and calibrate it against the best method.

You can't just postulate a proxy for narcissism out of thin fucking air and then use it.

It scares me that I have to explain this.

Well, obviously there are more painstaking and accurate ways of determining whether a person is a narcissist. No doubt this is hard work. Sit down, talk with them, ask their employees, etc. Do the really hard work for a subset, check that the subset you've tested correlates well to your made-up metric, and only then can you use the made-up metric. You can't just use it without any evidence it works.

Erm, because the first thing a real scientist would do would be to test the narcissism metric and check that it does, you know, actually correlate with narcissism? You can't just invent metrics and hope that they work.

> It's how social science is done, and how you discover results that are worth exploring.

Do you see the problem here? If you invent metrics, assume they work, then only pursue the ones that produce results "worth exploring"... can you see the problem?

>which is precisely defined according to a formula, and, hopefully, correlates highly with true narcissism.

Yeah, that was his point. Hope doesn't cut it. You kind of have to go off and prove your formula does correlate highly with true narcissism, not just skip on to the next step.

I'm not a North American, but a few thoughts:

- I see that the defense can now score two points by intercepting a two-point play and returning it. Doesn't this lower the utility of the two-point play as used in the article? Or have I misunderstood?

- The article assumes the probabilities won't change. It isn't hard to imagine that teams will get better at executing two-point plays if they attempt more. Also, am I right in thinking that they are typically attempted by a team in a desperate position at the moment? If the existing stats show attempts by inferior teams or teams under pressure, they may be skewed.

- Also, since it is now more likely to miss the one-point field goal, you are more likely to fall a point behind the opposition. They score TD and convert, 7-0, you score TD and miss, 7-6, they score TD and convert, 14-6, you score TD, now what are you going to do? You may as well go for the 2-pointer to make up the lost ground, depending on how late in the match it is.

>Objective ones, like MACD, EMA, RSI, etc... can be useful when applied correctly.

True, they can serve as useful tools for describing market conditions. If I want to tell a computer to do something when the market is falling rapidly, then I might define "falling rapidly" as "price below the 15-second EMA" for example.

But do they have any predictive power? No.

>I can tell you from first hand experience that technical analysis trading strategies, when applied correctly, are very, very, very effective.

I doubt it. I've never met a professional trader (i.e. at a reputable firm) who uses them, and they'd be laughed out of the industry if they did - at least in all the places I've worked. I imagine the only people who 'use them successfully' actually derive their edge from elsewhere (institutional advantages, etc.) and just don't realise it.

So-called 'technical analysis' is bullshit. News at eleven.

>Yes, and there is quite a lot of science explaining why we are seeing a temporary rise in Antarctic

There sure is, and that was my point. Did you read what I wrote at the end about confirmation bias? The mad scramble to provide a just-so explanation when something doesn't fit the hypothesis, but when it does then no need for questions. The reduction in Arctic sea ice could only be due to warming, there is no other possible reason right? Let's look at your thought process for example, because it is a classic:

>Yes, and there is quite a lot of science explaining why we are seeing a temporary rise in Antarctic

Why the fuck are you so certain that this is a temporary rise in Antartic sea ice? Stop and think about that for a moment. Why? You and all the models didn't predict it, the article we're commenting on says they can't quite explain it, but you're here to tell me it is temporary. Whereas anything happening at the other pole, well that isn't temporary according to you. No way, that is definitive evidence of the coming apocalypse.

No, I'm not confused.

>Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected

And no, it isn't.

While it is hard to obtain the number from NSIDC, since they've stopped reporting it since it doesn't fit the narrative:

"Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?

The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends." (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#combined)

...you can still dig up some charts. Here's a few:

https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arc_antarc_1...

Or here: http://www.cato.org/blog/spinning-global-sea-ice

As it turns out, I have been a bit hyperbolic I'll admit (I was going on memory). But the fact is combined sea ice isn't "decreasing as expected" as you say. It's above average. And the original post I was responding to that claimed "we have incredible sea ice lows" is also nonsense. We don't, we have some loss in the northern hemisphere and gains on a similar scale in the south.

> I easily imagine how this has been spun in certain circles

If you want to talk about "spinning in certain circles", you might want to ask why we hear endlessly about the decline in arctic ice, how it is seen as confirmation of the global warming hypothesis because it happens to fit the predictions, and yet at the other end of the globe we see large sea ice increases being ignored, dissembled and explained away with theories about ocean currents or wind patterns. That's not science, that's confirmation bias.

I didn't say anything about the Arctic mate. I said the Earth. We have a southern hemisphere too.

>with incredible new sea ice lows

See, this is why no one can take you people seriously. We have incredible new sea ice highs. That is the truth, that is a fact. This is the most sea ice we've seen on Earth since we kept records of it. To lie, spin and cherry-pick is not science.

Besides, you're reasoning about this on a faulty premise. This is a common misconception that people outside the industry have regarding HFT. Let me assure you, often the decision making is trivial, the answer to the question of what to do can be quite obvious. Then it's more about who can do it faster, and that's all about the plumbing. Which he stole.

This annoys me too. It's not a "head transplant". You can't get a new head. You are your head. You're getting a new body is what's happening.

As you rightly realise, we can't have a situation where all money is blindly invested in passive index trackers, since everyone will be following the herd and no one will be leading it.

If active managers are under-performing, then at some point as passive funds grow we will reach an equilibrium point where they are causing such price distortion that they will produce opportunities for active managers to profit from mispricings, correcting the situation.

Hmm, as he kind of points out, there is a difference between knowing your ability in something is poor and being willing to admit it to a stranger. The usual meme of Dunning-Kruger tends to refer to people who are oblivious to their own incompetence. But there are valid reasons for the perceived score compression. I'd wager the people in the bottom quartile of grammar performance are well aware that their grammar isn't very good, they just weren't willing to write 20 on the paper (out of shame) and went for 60 instead.

kdb

Just queried my db, and 300k a second is a typical peak in CME futures (across all products). I'd imagine that options could be a lot more than that.

It's impenetrable to you, in the same way Mandarin is impenetrable at first glance to someone used to reading Latin languages.

You can see it in action on Hacker News, or any sites with downvotes. Inevitably, the downvoting will destabilise any equilibrium - the views of even a slight majority will get reinforced in a positive feedback loop, and you end up with an echo chamber. There are several opinions that I know can't be voiced here.

Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.

I think there is a name for this effect (and a wikipedia page). I've forgotten what it is called though.

"between high-frequency traders, who trade with computer algorithms at nearly light speed"

Seriously, why the do we have to put up with this shit? "Google, which returns the results of your search queries over a network at nearly light speed". "Your remote control, which changes the channel on your television at nearly light speed". It is too stupid for words. Old school luddism.

Probably the fact that no positive feedbacks or 'tipping points' happened during the Holocene Climate Optimum, so it's fairly easy to figure out that this is your usual alarmist nonsense.

>developers had built right up to the river in places

I also run that route, and what you say isn't true. The stretch under discussion has had warehouses built up to the river's edge long before urban hipsters started writing Guardian articles. In fact, most of the developments you refer to are converted warehouses. This isn't something that has been "taken away" from the public. Of course, they could knock the buildings down and create better urban spaces, but that would probably piss off the NIMBY crowd as well, who would then start a campaign in the Guardian to get them heritage listed.