ryanmonroe

Well, it only looks pretty to you if you're into that type of thing. I don't think it would be hard to find people who don't think gold jewelry looks good. My point is that the utility is entirely dependent on the subjective experience of the user.

> Investments need to have intrinsic value.

> there’s no value in any particular set of random numbers

What is the "intrinsic value" in e.g. an iPhone? Would that value exist without humans? I would say no, it only has value because people are willing to pay for it. So I'm left wondering what principled distinction you can draw between a particular set of random numbers and a particular arrangement of metal and glass, both of which people want, to determine that one has intrinsic value and one does not.

Why do you say gold jewelry has utility? Because people are willing to pay for it? How does that distinguish gold jewelry from Bitcoins, which people are also willing to pay for?

It also describes stocks, and anything non-tangible which you can sell for money. I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's just "cryptocurrencies are like money", which was the point your parent was making with that statement about tokens in games. The part that makes it gambling is that you gamble with them, which maybe you can argue you do with cryptocurrencies, but the fact that they're "virtual" isn't really relevant to the question of whether buying them is "gambling". You can of course buy physical items such as art in the hopes of selling them at a profit, and buy "virtual" items such as bonds which are not very risky at all.

> iOS11 seems to have almost purposeful security weaknesses

Can you expand on this?

> Both those decryption devices seem to rely on iOS11

Why do you say this? The article says

> based on GrayKey marketing material, that the tool can unlock even the iPhone X, Apple’s most recent phone, as well as devices running iOS 11, the latest Apple mobile operating system.

The files you get from iTunes are also unprotected. Artists can choose to offer lossless format, in which case iTunes will give you the files in their proprietary format ALAC, but there is still no DRM and you can easily convert to FLAC/WAV.

I use whatever the latest version of iTunes is and sync to an iPhone X over my personal Wi-Fi connection. For whatever reason their default sync is very bad. If you instead put all your iTunes music in a playlist and choose the option to sync only that playlist it works nearly perfectly. I've been using this method since the iPhone 4s came out and have only had issues syncing maybe once or twice a year. I sync a few times per month.

Well, it also adds a space before and after so you're saving one keystroke vs space = space

Luckily iPhones 7 and up have up to 256GB of storage

> Similarly, Google might reasonably infer that if someone is searching for their own race, sexuality, or religion, they're probably more interested in information or support groups than porn.

Sure, if they have data to back that assumption up. My interpretation was that the parent commenter wanted them to make assumptions just based on politics, which I think is a bad idea.

>I think Google is responsible in 2018, now that they offer extremely tailored results. Duckduckgo, maybe not. But if Google is going to say "we're going to show you listings for restaurants in SF in your simple 'restaurants' search because we know you live in SF," I think they should also say "we're going to show you results for LGBT resources when you search for 'gay men' because nothing about your query indicates a desire for pornographic content."

Are you are saying that, in a scenario where there are more results for one sub-query than for another, Google has an obligation to assume someone is searching for the sub-query it finds more politically acceptable? This seems like a bad idea to me. We should want to reduce the political/social influence of Google, rather than think of ways to give them more tools of influence and assuming they will have a positive effect.

These two things are completely different

"Because you live in SF, if you search restaurants you probably want results pertaining to restaurants close to SF"

"Because subject X-A is socially unacceptable, if you search for subject X we will only show results pertaining to subject X-B"

Hopefully self-driving cars stuck at intersections will draw decision-makers' attention to the issue and fix it for humans.

Yes, "100% Satisfaction Guaranteed" is a common marketing theme, and explicitly encourages the behavior parent commenter calls "not a defacto right"

You start by saying the parent comment is hard to understand, then go on to explain why the statements are true. These two statements are essentially the same

>Since gathering / ad-selling services are so lucrative, they essentially subsidize the development of the highest-quality products in the market. The best engineers work for these companies. They have massive teams of people refining their products. And, these companies use IP laws to prevent clones. Essentially, they lock out for-fee competitors.

> You get those free, truly amazing services for nothing because the companies found ways to generate value from the data being gathered. The cost to maintain that infrastructure and provide those great services is pretty high and has taken some brilliant engineers years of sweat.

The only real difference is your use of the phrase "lock-out", but I don't think that's a reasonable way to look at it. If enough people really want to be part of a fee-based ecosystem, no one is stopping a company from engaging those people. You bring up IP laws, but that's really an independent issue, since fee-based and ad-based businesses can both use IP laws in the same way.

It's common for brokerages to have exchanges for both their own index funds and the assets those funds track.

$150/hr is the maximum of the range they give, and then you have to subtract payroll taxes, equipment, marketing, etc. On top of that, it's not like plumbers are working jobs back to back 40hrs a week.

I think what's meant is something like p(mud_{t+1} | rain_{t}) = 1 and p(rain_{t+1} | mud_{t}) = p(rain). Say during 10 units of time it rains at points 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 and it's muddy IFF it rained in the previous period. Then the above probability statements are true and it's only muddy 40% of the time.

One of the features of iMessages is that they're encrypted and can't be unencrypted by anyone but the Apple-authenticated recipient. This has the downside that the only way to access those messages on non-Apple devices is to create some kind of man-in-the-middle attack.

fiat: An authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree.

> When I program my computer, I specify all the steps to accomplish something.

You certainly do not specify all the steps your computer must take to run the program because that would make even the simplest program a nightmare to read. In the same way, specifying all the steps a reader must take would make math papers completely unreadable. There's a line which should be chosen wisely, but it's not as simple as "just explain everything".

If they only allowed people to sell and not buy they'd probably be accused of market manipulation.

Internet Explorer 11, windows 7 (work computer). The width doesn't change. Here's a screenshot https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/GVVb0Zm.png

Just use GDAX. No fees if you use limit orders.

On smaller screens, e.g. my 1440x900 screen, the numbers in the order book on the left overlap.

Here are some percent-unsanswered stats for other SO tags

                    tf         r   julia       sql    python
    unans.pct     0.49      0.25    0.12      0.21      0.24
    all       19213.00 211525.00 3529.00 414833.00 853087.00
    unans      9379.00  52946.00  423.00  85948.00 208497.00
                java       cpp
    unans.pct       0.27      0.18
    all       1340978.00 543183.00
    unans      365724.00  99141.00

I work at a large bank. Mostly people hold all relevant knowledge in their own head, and when they receive a request for information they only respond if their manager knows yours. Then, they will mostly refuse to create any type of actual document and instead request that you set up a meeting with them through Outlook. They are of course completely booked on their Outlook calendar for at least the next few weeks, and then when you do get to talk to them they use obtuse department-specific acronyms as much as possible so that by the time you've started to understand the surface of their answer they have to leave for an urgent meeting.

R has a function for this

qbirthday(prob = 0.5, classes = 1e6, coincident = 2)

# 1178

You could also just calculate a bunch of the probabilities and find the minimum more "maunually"

in.room <- 1000:1500

probs <- sapply(in.room, function(x) prod(((1e6 - (x - 1)):1e6)/1e6))

in.room[which.min(abs(probs - .5))]

# 1178

The letter p was chosen to suggest probability because the p value is a probability.

It seems like you're using this example to imply statistical education is likely to blind people to obvious logical problems with their interpretation of evidence. If that's the case it isn't a very good example since multiple comparisons is a standard issue commonly covered in a first or second course in statistics.

I think he's just saying they will use data to determine which type of show gets funded, but will not to use it in ways that affect the internal logic of the show. So they may fund a show whose main character often goes to a coffee shop because viewers appear to enjoy that, but they won't change an existing show to make its main character go to a coffee shop because it might not make sense for the character to do that in the context of the given show. And since those involved with the data and funding process will naturally have less understanding of the show's characters than the writers, they won't attempt these changes even when they appear to make sense for a show. Of course, writers could adapt and force things to happen in a show that wouldn't otherwise, but I don't think funding certain types of shows is equivalent to changing existing shows to fit a mold.