Math is all about taking a notion from life that you might consider “common sense” and using it to solve a problem. You have to prove it works carefully though.

This is Turing’s works where he is translating the idea of a human “computer” into a mathematical machine.

> cutting edge of cloud services documentation

I dont know what this means

i took it as a tongue-in-cheek description of the gig at google.

Optimized the service depreciation documentation process which allowed engineers to meet their quarterly KPIs?

Not entirely true. The company I worked for, major network equipment provider, had a customer user group that had self-organised to take it in turns to be the first customer to deploy major new software builds. It mostly worked well.

Its always a great tool if you need to automate a computer task.

Everyone I know who is extremely successful in the field is the opposite. They have way more ideas than they have time for.

This is partly a matter of confidence and psychology, I think.

Lots of us have ideas that we simply never entertain because we are too good at quickly shooting them down when we spot small difficulties, before we've even let the idea out of our heads.

People who are good at ideas are also good at getting them out there, in an imperfect state, and letting other people assess whether those difficulties are dealbreakers, or whether in fact they could help mitigate them.

For example a lot of startup ideas are discarded because of fear of process/legal/regulatory stuff, when actually what you need is to know someone who can help with that. Getting your ideas out there in an open, deliberately naïve way can help.

The challenge is to beat the market in the future and put your money behind that. Not to beat the market in the past.

You're giving an example of beating the market in the past, which is not useful. You can do that with blind luck.

Yep I’m just pointing out S&P. Or VTI anre not magic

There are funds that beat them often. Is your claim they don’t exist? Or that you can’t find them.

The claim is that there are no funds that can make a convincing argument that they will beat S&P.

When you say funds did "exactly that", the "exactly that" you're talking about is not the thing OP is asking for.

Taking on 90% of upside and 100% of downside is one way to make a convincing argument, and nobody does it.

Let's make the dice analogy. You can't make a convincing argument that you will roll a 5, even though people roll 5 all the time. Talking about people that rolled 5 in the past is proving entirely the wrong point.

I think we are talking past each other and it’s not worth continuing this discussion.

The reason why no fund will take that deal is the market for investments is much more favorable to managers than that.

> I think we are talking past each other

That's the problem. When you use the phrase "exactly that", you're making a claim that you're not talking past.

I agree that this is a talking past situation. But that makes your original post wrong, because of how you used the phrase "exactly that".

> The reason why no fund will take that deal

It's less about this specific deal and more about any deal that shows confidence.

Exceptions are made all the time to this rule. So it’s never clear when something will be allowed or not.

Impeach.

Well you can always impeach a president.

Well no, technically the president can use the military to stop impeachment. That would be considered an "official act" and they would be immune.

I think you’re imagining scenarios not supported in any of the written opinions.

I don't see how.

The President has immunity when acting with powers granted from the Constitution. Commanding the military is one of those powers. The majority opinion also specifically says motives can't be considered. So they are legally immune if they order the military to stop impeachment.

Doesn't the Constitution also say that the military cannot operate domestically?