If you watched the movie, you might have noticed in the snow scenes, there's a vehicle that has 4 triangular tank tread kinda things, instead of normal, round tyres. What are they called, and are they commercially available?
we haven't and we won't ever will. all we can do is get as close as possilbe, and have artificial government mandated correctives to counteract the rot and corruption and neotism and other wealth accumulating abuses of capitalism
Wont we simply get the winners saying "the current system is meritocratic" and the losers saying the opposite?
I believe in safety nets too. But I'm also concerned the well-intentioned tweaks end up making things worse. Take rent control for instance.
Of course this assumes that income is (or should be) merit. Not everyone thinks money is the only reward. Once upon a time, people who didn't make much money were respected in their communities, based on their merits.
Not having a college degree makes you much less impressive when I have a stack of 200 people who do.
Basically, you are unwilling to do the hard work required to build an effective team. Instead, you take the easy path and assume that an institutional designation of qualified is the same as the correct qualifications for your company. You are part of the problem.
That's a bit harsh. How's he meant to sift through hundreds, potentially thousands of resumes? I remember putting up an ad for a job which got us 3000 CVs in our inbox, most of them irrelevant.
True story: a mate of mine was working at a firm that was looking to expand. Boss comes in, ask the secretary what she's up to. Secretary: "Sorting through this big pile of CVs!" Boss takes half the pile, throws it in the trash. Secretary: "Why'd you do that?" Boss: "We don't hire unlucky people!"
You'll get dinged for a lot less than not having a qualification.
You're right, but HR is just a symptom. It's the CYA culture that's to blame. These days, a great number of people work for large corporations, where everyone has a boss. If you hire someone without credentials and they screw up, you're in the firing line. In a small firm, where the hiring manager owns a significant piece, it's up to him if he wants to hire a guy without a diploma. If he screws up, you can fire him, and any loss is your own. But you don't have to justify not following some random guidelines.
This is exactly right. When I was an Engineering student at Oxford, it didn't take long for people to figure out what society was signalling. I remember being offered an internship at an engineering firm, £11K/pa. Compare this to finance interns, at around £26K, plus a place in London to live in. You think it's just the internships that have this wage gap? Ask your upperclassmen what they make.
If your passion is science and tech, I can see most people taking maybe a 10-20% pay reduction just to do something cool. (Heck, I'd take minimum wage to travel round with Formula 1 for a season.) But we're talking multiples, not fractions. I got an email from a recruitment agency the other day, with suggested averages for staff pay. A guy running a trading desk can make £1.5M a year. That's maybe 10-15 years experience. Can anyone see an engineering middle manager (that's what an MD is) making that much before he's 40? No, of course not. I'm guessing they're on less than £100K. So the kids like me, at universities that are the recruitment grounds in finance, obviously say "hey, wait a minute. Not everyone gets a shot at this. I'll take it."
A couple of suggestions that would help: 1) Give the engineering title protected status. Over here in the UK, a guy who changes your fridge is an engineer. 2) Stop making fun of nerds. You should respect people who know stuff that's hard to learn, not pretend you're somehow better than them. 3) Make finance less attractive.
What you're thinking about is scalability. In certain professions, you can increase your output without much increase in effort. A sports star like Cristiano Ronaldo can play a game in front of 10 people at his local field, or 100million on television. So, if you're good enough, you'll get selected to be the provider of such services. If you're just mediocre, you're putting in the same effort, but only a few people want to pay you.
A good doctor, while highly valued in the community, can only do a certain amount of good. He can help more patients by working longer, but he can't change his scale of output by orders of magnitude like the sports star.
There is one con though - I assume the car just blindly follows the car in front, which itself follows the car in front of it, all the way to the lead car. Thus the driver in front can become the proverbial old goat that lead the herd off a cliff. I mean what happens if the car in front really runs of a cliff. Nowadays he risks just the life of his family. Tomorrow we might have news such as "A driver fell off a cliff. The train of 200 drivers who had been following him fell as well".
And, they probably -are- protecting the public in this case...companies should not be allowed to sell shares to the public without disclosing important information about themselves.
Maybe this is the future growth export industry in the US: securities fraud of foreign nationals.
Future growth industry? Dude, in the industry everyone knows not to touch US onshore investors. It's too messy in terms of documentation, and it gives the SEC powers to look at your investors from other countries. Everything US is done via offshore entities to prevent this. I'm surprised everyone thinks this is news.
If it's insurance, surely a private insurance firm would not charge the wealthy dozens and dozens of percents of their incomes to provide it. In fact, the actuarial calculation to do this would probably be done on an individual basis. And the poor might be charged much more, due to higher chance of losing their job, illness etc.
So whats the idea with the same rate for everyone, and higher charges for people who (might) need it less, if insurance is the proper analogy?
US has (together with the UK) the lowest social mobility between generations among developed countries (how far children can progress from the socioeconomic status of their parents, basically) - so much for "self motivation, personal responsibility, hard work, American Dream" (just that, a dream, another product to sell)
The highest is in so-called "nanny states" BTW.
Is tax meant to create more social mobility? It sounds like a nice idea, but I grew up in one of those nanny states, and studies have shown that there's a high degree of predictability in who gets academic degrees. You guessed it, the children of people who have those degrees.
You're saying taxing the rich makes society better, and I think the government is needed for some things, but there's got to be a limit. Especially as they're so mobile, they can decamp if they don't like it.
An individual that seeks to minimize his tax obligations, without question. I've never seen a poor person trying to lower his taxes, and I've never seen a healthy nation without a high tax rate. Little to no taxation for the rich is the recipe for a third world country, and nothing else. We don't need to become the next Mexico, thank you very much.
Do you think Switzerland is "unhealthy"? Many people who visit the place like to praise it.
we are not arguing about *whether* to pay taxes but that the rich get out of paying their fair share. we can debate what fair is, but what's clear is that they pay little to no taxes. not even close to fair, in anyone's book.
It's very simple. You are paid to think. The quality of your thoughts after 8 hours working in a day is not nearly as good as in the first few hours. Except for a short stint, the quality of thinking after 10 hours is so poor that you will spend more time cleaning up the messes you made when tired than you saved by working longer.
Very true. At the end of a working day, my brain feels fried. I can't even read a book on the way home on the tube. You can mitigate the effects though:
Plan the heavy stuff for the morning. Writing algorithms, debugging race conditions, anything that you think will require your best brain time.Stuff that wastes time if done wrong, like class hierarchy design. As you get tired, switch to simple stuff that nonetheless needs to get done. For instance, moving controls around on a designer so it looks presentable. Changing strings to be more informative. Status updates for the team.
About the datasets, you may find this is a problem. Many firms collect their own, in their own format databases. (You'll definitely need to be familiar with DBs.) But also purchasing data can be very, very expensive, especially the more granular data (short timescales). The principles are of course the same, so if you want to analyse some free data that you find, you will still learn something. But I think the effects you're looking for might not appear at shorter timescales. All depends on what you're looking for!
Also, I'd add that there is value in experiencing the markets each day. You'll have more of an idea about what's spurious and what's real.
See-plus-plus-zero-ex doesn't really roll off the tongue. How about something a bit easier? Super-C, C-flat, Cmega+ or something lame that people can actually say.
(Here's your queue to explain to me what the proper pronunciation is. AND the reason for picking such a weird name)
Slashdot Mirror
Sweet! Thanks for that link.
If you watched the movie, you might have noticed in the snow scenes, there's a vehicle that has 4 triangular tank tread kinda things, instead of normal, round tyres. What are they called, and are they commercially available?
Are you one of those guys who actually did have the burglar shit on his toothbrush?
we haven't and we won't ever will. all we can do is get as close as possilbe, and have artificial government mandated correctives to counteract the rot and corruption and neotism and other wealth accumulating abuses of capitalism
Wont we simply get the winners saying "the current system is meritocratic" and the losers saying the opposite?
I believe in safety nets too. But I'm also concerned the well-intentioned tweaks end up making things worse. Take rent control for instance.
Of course this assumes that income is (or should be) merit. Not everyone thinks money is the only reward. Once upon a time, people who didn't make much money were respected in their communities, based on their merits.
And how do you know when you've achieved your meritocratic heaven?
I don't have the time to find out
Not having a college degree makes you much less impressive when I have a stack of 200 people who do.
Basically, you are unwilling to do the hard work required to build an effective team. Instead, you take the easy path and assume that an institutional designation of qualified is the same as the correct qualifications for your company. You are part of the problem.
That's a bit harsh. How's he meant to sift through hundreds, potentially thousands of resumes? I remember putting up an ad for a job which got us 3000 CVs in our inbox, most of them irrelevant.
True story: a mate of mine was working at a firm that was looking to expand. Boss comes in, ask the secretary what she's up to.
Secretary: "Sorting through this big pile of CVs!"
Boss takes half the pile, throws it in the trash.
Secretary: "Why'd you do that?"
Boss: "We don't hire unlucky people!"
You'll get dinged for a lot less than not having a qualification.
You're right, but HR is just a symptom. It's the CYA culture that's to blame. These days, a great number of people work for large corporations, where everyone has a boss. If you hire someone without credentials and they screw up, you're in the firing line. In a small firm, where the hiring manager owns a significant piece, it's up to him if he wants to hire a guy without a diploma. If he screws up, you can fire him, and any loss is your own. But you don't have to justify not following some random guidelines.
This is exactly right. When I was an Engineering student at Oxford, it didn't take long for people to figure out what society was signalling. I remember being offered an internship at an engineering firm, £11K/pa. Compare this to finance interns, at around £26K, plus a place in London to live in. You think it's just the internships that have this wage gap? Ask your upperclassmen what they make.
If your passion is science and tech, I can see most people taking maybe a 10-20% pay reduction just to do something cool. (Heck, I'd take minimum wage to travel round with Formula 1 for a season.) But we're talking multiples, not fractions. I got an email from a recruitment agency the other day, with suggested averages for staff pay. A guy running a trading desk can make £1.5M a year. That's maybe 10-15 years experience. Can anyone see an engineering middle manager (that's what an MD is) making that much before he's 40? No, of course not. I'm guessing they're on less than £100K. So the kids like me, at universities that are the recruitment grounds in finance, obviously say "hey, wait a minute. Not everyone gets a shot at this. I'll take it."
A couple of suggestions that would help:
1) Give the engineering title protected status. Over here in the UK, a guy who changes your fridge is an engineer.
2) Stop making fun of nerds. You should respect people who know stuff that's hard to learn, not pretend you're somehow better than them.
3) Make finance less attractive.
What you're thinking about is scalability. In certain professions, you can increase your output without much increase in effort. A sports star like Cristiano Ronaldo can play a game in front of 10 people at his local field, or 100million on television. So, if you're good enough, you'll get selected to be the provider of such services. If you're just mediocre, you're putting in the same effort, but only a few people want to pay you.
A good doctor, while highly valued in the community, can only do a certain amount of good. He can help more patients by working longer, but he can't change his scale of output by orders of magnitude like the sports star.
Hmm, how do I delete this strange half-typed thing? It honestly didn't look like this when I hit submit...
Yeah I'm looking forward to reading the articles.
Good p
There is one con though - I assume the car just blindly follows the car in front, which itself follows the car in front of it, all the way to the lead car. Thus the driver in front can become the proverbial old goat that lead the herd off a cliff. I mean what happens if the car in front really runs of a cliff. Nowadays he risks just the life of his family. Tomorrow we might have news such as "A driver fell off a cliff. The train of 200 drivers who had been following him fell as well".
It's turtle's all the way down!
And, they probably -are- protecting the public in this case...companies should not be allowed to sell shares to the public without disclosing important information about themselves.
Maybe this is the future growth export industry in the US: securities fraud of foreign nationals.
Future growth industry? Dude, in the industry everyone knows not to touch US onshore investors. It's too messy in terms of documentation, and it gives the SEC powers to look at your investors from other countries. Everything US is done via offshore entities to prevent this. I'm surprised everyone thinks this is news.
If it's insurance, surely a private insurance firm would not charge the wealthy dozens and dozens of percents of their incomes to provide it. In fact, the actuarial calculation to do this would probably be done on an individual basis. And the poor might be charged much more, due to higher chance of losing their job, illness etc.
So whats the idea with the same rate for everyone, and higher charges for people who (might) need it less, if insurance is the proper analogy?
US has (together with the UK) the lowest social mobility between generations among developed countries (how far children can progress from the socioeconomic status of their parents, basically) - so much for "self motivation, personal responsibility, hard work, American Dream" (just that, a dream, another product to sell)
The highest is in so-called "nanny states" BTW.
Is tax meant to create more social mobility? It sounds like a nice idea, but I grew up in one of those nanny states, and studies have shown that there's a high degree of predictability in who gets academic degrees. You guessed it, the children of people who have those degrees.
That 40% is at a pretty high income level. And it's only in certain cantons. You can have a look online for the government's official tax calculator.
And their capital gains tax treatment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#Switzerland
You're saying taxing the rich makes society better, and I think the government is needed for some things, but there's got to be a limit. Especially as they're so mobile, they can decamp if they don't like it.
An individual that seeks to minimize his tax obligations, without question. I've never seen a poor person trying to lower his taxes, and I've never seen a healthy nation without a high tax rate. Little to no taxation for the rich is the recipe for a third world country, and nothing else. We don't need to become the next Mexico, thank you very much.
Do you think Switzerland is "unhealthy"? Many people who visit the place like to praise it.
You're completely satisfied with what your tax is buying you?
we are not arguing about *whether* to pay taxes but that the rich get out of paying their fair share. we can debate what fair is, but what's clear is that they pay little to no taxes. not even close to fair, in anyone's book.
Here in the UK, the top 1% income tax payers pay about 25% of all the taxes:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5245013/why-cameron-should-ditch-the-50p-tax-rate.thtml
I imagine in the US and other wealthy countries, it's similar.
or people will start to ask questions.
Also, what the heck do you do when flu season starts?
It's very simple. You are paid to think. The quality of your thoughts after 8 hours working in a day is not nearly as good as in the first few hours. Except for a short stint, the quality of thinking after 10 hours is so poor that you will spend more time cleaning up the messes you made when tired than you saved by working longer.
Very true. At the end of a working day, my brain feels fried. I can't even read a book on the way home on the tube. You can mitigate the effects though:
Plan the heavy stuff for the morning. Writing algorithms, debugging race conditions, anything that you think will require your best brain time.Stuff that wastes time if done wrong, like class hierarchy design. As you get tired, switch to simple stuff that nonetheless needs to get done. For instance, moving controls around on a designer so it looks presentable. Changing strings to be more informative. Status updates for the team.
About the datasets, you may find this is a problem. Many firms collect their own, in their own format databases. (You'll definitely need to be familiar with DBs.) But also purchasing data can be very, very expensive, especially the more granular data (short timescales). The principles are of course the same, so if you want to analyse some free data that you find, you will still learn something. But I think the effects you're looking for might not appear at shorter timescales. All depends on what you're looking for!
Also, I'd add that there is value in experiencing the markets each day. You'll have more of an idea about what's spurious and what's real.
Good luck!
See-plus-plus-zero-ex doesn't really roll off the tongue. How about something a bit easier? Super-C, C-flat, Cmega+ or something lame that people can actually say.
(Here's your queue to explain to me what the proper pronunciation is. AND the reason for picking such a weird name)