What you are getting at is that for a single person, the chance of going bankrupt is high but for a population ensemble, the average wealth increases.
This is absolutely true. All it takes is to understand that for the single person, the model isn't ergodic but all expected value based models assume ergodicity.
This comment thread is strange. I think you both raise interesting points, but are also rather hostile. Why not just respond sincerely? You have interesting things to say.
My forcing function was external. I was getting randomized by a lot of tasks and I felt I wasn't getting anything done. So I started to break down my day into 30 minute chunks. This got the feedback loop of seeing things get done going.
I also started to take notes about projects, other teams' working, notes from internal documentation etc. This has allowed me to retrieve some things super quickly to the point my teammates have been amazed. Another way to get the dopamine hit going.
Long story short: my brain is a primate, it needs dopamine hits, find a way to make your intended behavior give you dopamine hits.
This is such a laughably naive view. The documents in court __show__ that even microsoft could not move Google out of Apple's defaults. But sure, "removing hurdles for new businesses to start" will obviously solve this.
> Should space-time be shown to be quantum, the loser will give to each of the
winners, one ITEM* of their choice. If the alternative hypothesis is deemed to be
correct, the losers will each give 5,000 ITEMS to the winner.
> * ITEM is defined to be a object of the winner’s choice, worth no more than 20 British
pence on January 21st, 2021. Examples include some crisps, a bazinga ball, a small
amount of olive oil, balsamic vinegar, or wine
The contract doesn't specify what kind of balsamic vinegar. Supermarket balsamic is just a mixture of colourings and flavourings. Proper solera balsamic is sipped as an aperitif, and is much too expensive for me to have ever tasted.
It doesn't say the amount either, just that each item must be worth less than 20 british pence.
So it can be one drop of "Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena DOP", which is the real deal. Prices start at around 50€ for 100mL, but it can easily go into the 100s if you want the more premium ones (25 years). A single drop would fit the 20 pence bill.
Interesting that three so obviously intelligent people could get the odds of the bet wrong: it’s not a 1:5000 bet, it’s a 2:5000 bet a.k.a. a 1:2500 bet.
I mean clearly if it's a mistake this is a matter of terminology not intelligence, but could you explain how it's wrong?
If A wins, B pays A $1. If B wins, A pays B $N. For the bet to be fair (zero expectation value), the probability that A wins needs to be p=N/(N+1) and that B wins needs to be 1-p=1/(N+1). My understanding of what "odds" are is the ratio of the outcome probabilities: p:(1-p) = p/(1-p) = N/1 = N:1. (This is why the "log odds" are log(p/(1-p)).)
Do they use a different notion of "odds" in sports gambling?
Turns out the only interesting thing is how sloppy my reading is (and how quick I am to blame others for that sloppiness…).
I simply missed the second “each” below:
> Should space-time be shown to be quantum, the loser will give to each of the winners, one ITEM of their choice. If the alternative hypothesis is deemed to be correct, the losers will each give 5,000 ITEMS to the winner.
It's not $20. It's 20 British pence - about 25 cents.... "Examples include some crisps, a bazinga ball, a small amount of olive oil, balsamic vinegar, or wine."
I think, reading it, it could be £1000 worth of wine. For example two cases of decent Gevrey Chambertin, I myself could bring myself to accept such a thing.
Typically it would be framed amicably, without so much axe-grinding, particularly for public release. Even ChatGPT itself would have written a more balanced release, and advised against such shenanigans. I enjoy that irony.
That's the thing. Lawyers can give them the letter of the law but might have no idea how popular Sam was inside and outside the company, or how badly he was needed. And that's what really matters here.
Why does it matters to a board that sticks to the principles of the charter of a non-profit? Why would they look at anything else other than the guiding principles?
Because their charter says their goal is to get to AGI, or something like that.
If 99% of their employees quit and their investors pull their support because Sam was fired, they're not getting anywhere and have failed to deliver on their charter.
>> and anyone who appears to be willing to breach the status quo with violence is horrible.
Not commenting about the rest, but anyone who is willing to breach the status quo with violence IS IN FACT HORRIBLY HORRIBLY HORRIBLE. Start digging into history and each side will have enough justifications for war ten times over.
Absolutely, I agree. It should be resolved peacefully or just not resolved (status quo). My point was not that it was wrong to oppose a violent resolution - my point was that it's obviously hypocritical to oppose your opponent employing a violent resolution when they think it might succeed when you support a violent resolution as long as you think you might succeed. It's not genuine non-violence, it's just "They shouldn't be allowed to fight us unless we will win", which is obviously fair for any prospective nationalist, but is damaging to your argument that you're just a peaceful country and you don't understand why your neighbour is so warlike.
And of course, all of this is in the context of me explaining why bringing up that Taiwan nearly had nukes until the US stopped it is not a great idea for those attempting to advocate for Taiwan's side in the dispute, because it raises the obvious question of "Why did they nearly have nukes, what were they planning to do with the nukes?"
This take is so misinformed on how the law works, I am not even sure where to begin. Cases are often decided by judges and how they __interpret__ the law. If you have two generations of the judiciary who have grown up drinking the kool-aid of the magical auto-correcting market, you cannot do shit.
> And yet, this epiphany, that markets are politically structured and don’t have a will of their own, hasn’t made it to one very important place: the judiciary. The same week Sullivan gave his speech, a panel of three D.C. Circuit Court judges struck down a monopolization case against Facebook on the grounds that markets self-correct. "Many innovations may seem anti-competitive at first but turn out to be the opposite,” wrote the panel, “and the market often corrects even those that are anti-competitive." The D.C. Circuit Court panel was bipartisan, and included Republican appointees Karen L. Henderson and Raymond Randolph, as well as Obama appointed judge Robert Wilkins.
> These words undermine Congressional statute, and may devastate the ability to use antitrust law against digital platforms, at least in the D.C. Circuit. The specific procedural question was on the right of state attorneys general to bring an antitrust case over a violation that happened years earlier, as Federal enforcers can. Three judges made a policy decision to disallow that, even as Congress had just passed a law a few months earlier to make it easier for states to participate in antitrust enforcement.
This is absolutely true. All it takes is to understand that for the single person, the model isn't ergodic but all expected value based models assume ergodicity.
See [section 4 here](https://www.jasoncollins.blog/posts/ergodicity-economics-a-p...) on losing wealth on a positive value bet.