> there are interesting methods being developed in this space
Would you mind posting any relevant links? Is there general agreement in the field that more data is the solution?
2,997 karma · joined February 22, 2007
Would you mind posting any relevant links? Is there general agreement in the field that more data is the solution?
"In sum, our data directly show that across cultures, emotions are expressed using culture-specific facial signals. Although some basic facial expressions such as fear and disgust (2) originally served as an adaptive function when humans “existed in a much lower and animal-like condition” (ref. 1, p. 19), facial expression signals have since evolved and diversified to serve the primary role of emotion communication during social interaction. As a result, these once biologically hardwired and universal signals have been molded by the diverse social ideologies and practices of the cultural groups who use them for social communication."
"Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal", http://www.pnas.org/content/109/19/7241
Otherwise, its a good product. The dark patterns represent short-term thinking. I'd be hooked on Audible if I could buy an Audible Prime-like subscription to purchase discounted audio books. Give me a deal on the latest recommended books and you can notify me all day long just like Netflix.
It looks like there is some evidence, from mice experiments, that epigenetic information could be synthesized to induce asexual reproduction in mammals. I also found a recent gene editing technique to directly edit mice epigenomes, in theory that might be a path to design an asexual mouse, or another asexual mammal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis#Mammals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomic_imprinting https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171207141735.h...
I've seen an analogy in hardware that is potentially interesting to explore.
There is a technique in A/D converters (ADC) where input signal noise can be reduced by RMS averaging the sequence of digital outputs. This increases the effective resolution of the ADC, while lowering the effective sampling frequency of the input signal.
In the case that the input noise of a precision ADC is very low, the digital averaging has no effect on effective resolution. Surprisingly, in this case you can actually inject a "hand-crafted" noise source into the input, and still realize the resolution improvements from digital averaging. The key is to find the right amount of noise to randomize the quantization noise.
In the case of the ADC, the structure of the quantizing hardware is known, as is the characteristics of quantization noise. This allows for a guassian noise to be injected with the input source (might be analogous to a "prior"). From there, one can balance the input injection noise with the output digital averaging to get an optimal increase in output resolution.
This technique is explained well in this paper: http://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/articles/adc-input-...
btw, $2.94B = $6.72B * (69/48) - $6.72B --> I believe thats SB's nominal gain on paper the minute the deal closes.
TLDR; Wall Street is part of an industrial/political system that extols "free market" capitalism, publicly, when in fact, "free markets" and "free market meritocracy" is a myth, and they know it. Privately, these same people hire lobbyists and otherwise influence the political system to craft regulation & policy around property, monopoly, contracts, bankruptcy, and enforcement. These regulations protect and enhance the benefit of the few.
To illustrate, you might enjoy Joseph Henrich's example of how the Ilahita tribe of Papua New Guinea was able to expand their tribe size beyond the Dunbar number (>300 people). In their case, having a large enough tribe to battle neighboring tribes was a matter of survival against an existential threat. (11:20 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmpSwbtWopM)
What's interesting in the scenario presented was the tribe expanded their religion to a dual moeity system. This introduced new rituals and gods that helped the tribe form economic, social and emotional bonds - ultimately allowing the tribe to expand in size.
Its an example of how _belief_ in gods that are contradictory to our modern science provided an organizational fitness function to combat their environment.
I'd imagine very few people actually interpret their world through a scientific belief system. Further, what some consider scientific, might not fit the belief system of others who are more rigorous. The lack of widely accepted model for beliefs based on _scientific thinking_ might be the scariest part of our society today. Personally, I blame the short-comings of our language as it is not well suited to communicate scientific knowledge efficiently (ie, for 3rd grade readers) and without ambiguity.
Fraternities might give a strong sample set of students with poor parents being separated from students who have parents with moderate to high incomes. Not to mention the obvious cultural divisions that might keep a high percentage of low income students from being included in many fraternities.
Gives some context for the kinds of fields where deliberate practice improves performance.
Try searching for taxons Spermatophyta (seed plants) and Magnoliophyta (flowering plants) and to see the common ancestor of flowering plants.
The book talks, in depth, about the convergent evolution of humans and lions in the environment of the predator-ridden savannah (both species with ancestors coming from trees).
Apparently, if you compare apples to apples, in 1953 the USSR period had more like 7.4 million "adults on probation, in jail or prison, and on parole". 2.61% of total population vs 0.76% in present US.
Then, in 2000, on the verge of the Enron collapse, Jensen offered an updated theory - "Value Maximization and the Corporate Objective Function" [2]. Here, he suggested that the definition of "value" perhaps needed to evolve, and consider stakeholders. However, I'm not sure this later work had the impact of changing executive compensation, or corporate decision-making, probably just created debate.
Probably feels something like not being able to fix a bug in production..
"Undeniably one of the most influential business theorists of modern times, he (Michael Jensen) advocated an “agency” theory of management in which management’s sole duty was to maximize shareholder value. This upended the long-held “stakeholder” model, in which management was seen as having broader obligations to a corporation’s workers, customers and communities."
Wikipedia [1]: "After Jensen and Murphy (1990), Congress passed a law, making it cost effective to pay executives in equity. As a result, executives had a financial incentive to focus their efforts on increasing stock price. In the short run, some executives even manipulated accounting numbers (e.g., Enron, Global Crossing) to achieve this goal"
HBS '00 [3]: Jensen, new theory of Enlightened Value Maximization: "We must give people enough structure to understand what maximizing value means so that they can be guided by it and therefore have a chance to actually achieve it. They must be turned on by the vision or the strategy in the sense that it taps into some human desire or passion of their own—for example, a desire to build the world’s best automobile or to create a film or play that will move people for centuries. All this can be not only consistent with value seeking, but a major contributor to it.
And this brings us up against the limits of value maximization per se. Value seeking tells an organization and its participants how their success in achieving a vision or in implementing a strategy will be assessed. But value maximizing or value seeking says nothing about how to create a superior vision or strategy. Nor does it tell employees or managers how to find or establish initiatives or ventures that create value. It only tells them how we will measure success in their activity."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Jensen [2] http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/00-058_f2896b... [3] http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/value-maximization-and-stakeholder...
You make an argument like you have a hammer in your hand and you are looking at a row of nails. I'm suggesting it is short-sighted to look at the problem from only that lens.
For instance, with a more holistic lens you might explore the right place for humans drivers vs autonomous vehicles. You might simulate entire cities from the ground up, specifically optimized for transportation. What if the real breakthrough in transportation systems actually comes from the ability to quickly construct / deconstruct roads? Or dynamic city zoning? Or any number of non-vehicle innovations? What if we were actually optimizing for safety in transportation and not just trying to compare machine ability to human ability in limited contexts?
If we are building the safest transportation system, what role do driverless vehicles play? Wouldn't that be the narrative that actually saves the most lives?
I've also read that the ability for human ancestors to organize might be based on negatively impacting emotions related to self-image: "I believe that the origins of the uniquely human emotions of shame and guilt are an outcome of natural selection pushing combination strategies for negative emotions.... to feel shame and guilt, there must be a sense of self as an object of evaluation" [1]
If these hypotheses are true, "high self-monitors" might come from from 2 places: 1. an aptitude for putting on appearances (and believing in them as an image of self) 2. high sensitivity to negative "self" emotions like shame and guilt
Consider these 2 archetypes ("A" & "P"), now also consider alongside them a 3rd archetype of all "low self-monitors" ("D"). The most interesting part is to model the interaction of these 3 archetypes working together - naturally these different perspectives cause misunderstanding, but perhaps balance. In 2004, Parker, Stone, Brady et al proposed a theory to model these relationships in simple terms. Some people have even referred to the articulation of this theory as the "greatest speech ever". [2]
[1] http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddoc... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGcjrN7X7Rc
Benefit corps have the specific purpose to increase prosperity for all stakeholders - not just shareholders. They are indeed a proposal for a "new operating system" for companies, and it is adopted by many companies (some very well-known) already.
The basic idea is to put a statement of public benefit in corporate bylaws, then sign up for an assessment that audits that your company actions are indeed aligned with public benefit.
This effort, nominally, would seem to address many of the problems laid out in the post, but benefit corps are not mentioned once. I'm not saying its _the_ answer, but seems like a more collaborative, concrete starting point for a solution than "some mass infusion of the 1960s spirit."
Iron Law of Oligarchy: https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy
Selectorate Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory
Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
The Dictators Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
The Logic of Political Survival: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival
Jackets and sexual advances are likely just the symptoms. From Fowler's account it sounds like root cause is a political culture where individuals (esp management) are incentivized to act in their own self interest. Any employee can safely ignore another if that other employee is not politically tied to their personal advancement.
I'd like to think this is the wrong side of history, and that smart people should put their self-worth in acting in ways that optimize the benefit for all stakeholders. However, many political science theories predict just the opposite in large political organizations where selfish actors aggregating power end up at the top.
I know very little about Uber's org, but a leader with a Machiavellian hat on would likely focus on hiring management that are adept at acting politically. A political culture will eventually weed out those who are not.
I'm thinking of dynamics where geographical wealth mismatches could affect prices. A couple examples I've been exposed to:
- Chinese investment in Bay Area residences
- Transient Bay Area tech workers renting in Mission / SOMA
- Residences being turned into vacation rentals in SF
- Houston oil money buying residences in Colorado communities
- NYC, LA, SF money flowing into Austin, both travel and investment
- Vacation spending and mainland investment increasing the cost of residences in Hawaii
The counter-side to this is that the wealthiest property owners (local and foreign) benefit from the free inflow of capital. These people may be more influential constituents to municipality leaders than people who would be negatively affected by rising housing prices.
This is a fixed mindset vs a growth mindset; that itself is the over-arching lifestyle choice you are making.
Getting in shape is painful, but after 6-8 weeks of a routine, your body adapts and it becomes much easier, even enjoyable to some people. In 2 months, you could have the data to know what your body is actually capable of.
> If I aggregate all those activity hours together.. it could maybe worth a couple of years of my life.
Do you really believe that? Would you tell this to a doctor, or teach this to a child?
I'm no expert, but a few reasons why its very unlikely a linear model applies here: 1) You increase risk of a life-ending event like a heart attack. 2) You are not combatting the effects of stress, which is suspected to be highly related to the feeling of time passing faster as we age. 3) Particularly as you age, your cognitive ability will decline relative to your potential. You'll be a worse programmer than you could be at 40+ - memory, psychomotor speed and executive function in particular will decline vs potential. Simultaneously you will be more likely to get dementia.
I think if you factor these things in your expected years, and expected quality years, of life would change significantly from your estimate. Further, there are plenty of ways to exercise that people consider to be an inherently good use of their time for a variety of reasons.