I would argue that downtown San Mateo, Burlingame, Palo Alto, and Mountain View all have a better selection of restaurants than SOMA. Cheaper rent, too, and that's just the Penninsula.
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models. Not only do plants grow faster with elevated levels of CO2, they also grow for time each year when the average temperature increases.
You can also add that changing the color (brown to green in this case) will change the albedo of the earth, which is another factor estimated by the climate modelers.
I think after Lost writers realized they can succeed by making things confusing, instead of having an actual plot. Keep it confusing enough and then come up with a Deus ex machina at the end. As a bonus, you can keep it going as long as people keep paying. I'm looking at Mr Robot and the new Star Wars here specifically.
As a counterpoint, the Marvel stuff is turning out to be coherent beyond expectations, even though they don' t need to.
All those things you say sound reasonable. You have formed a hypothesis that contradicts reality. You should reform your hypothesis. (And the investors know the cost of working in the party city: that's not a hidden cost).
1) Other countries without Glass Stegal didn't react as the hypothesis would predict.
2) The investments were triple-A rated, so were considered a 'safe' investment.
3) The proposed mechanism of action (that would only come into play when the G-S loopholes were closed): removing some capital from play, wouldn't have been enough to stop the crash. People who want to invest in that stuff would just find other ways to invest in it, causing the same bubble.
And I will add a fourth non-sequitur:
4) Fuck bankers.
When we started a branch office in China, we had a "meet and greet" videoconferencing to get to know each other. I was really impressed that a lot of the guys were interested in A.I., until I found out they were talking about Allen Iverson. Basketball? From that moment I plotted my eventual suicide.
It really depends, right? I can create a dataset and design an experiment that will give me the results I want in a case like this. So we need to read the actual report to see if the experiment was properly designed. Unfortunately, none of us have done this.
It's like those "Turing test competitions" where average people can't tell the difference between a human and a crappy chatbot. If you read the actual dialogues, you'll find that the human did a good job pretending to be a computer, the conversations were short, and Turing himself would be shaking his head in disgust at what passes for science among the proles.
Machine learning is a subset of AI. A* search is also AI, even though it's not machine learning. "AI" means "technology that was found searching for AI," just like "Tang" is "space technology" even though it practically has nothing to do with space.
If you want to differentiate, it's more reasonable to differentiate between "strong AI" and "weak AI." Strong AI is what most people mean by AI, whereas "weak AI" is "cool stuff that's not really intelligent."
Personally I think "speak English" should be a requirement for immigrants. Maybe not on your first try, but after you've been here a while.......
I don't think they should give up their old culture, but if they are coming to America, learning the language is a minimal token to show you actually like your new country.
I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight
It's mainly because of compassion, because a lot of those refugees are going to die if they stay in Syria. We don't want them to die. Apparently you don't have compassion for that kind of problem, though.
I want to point out that most of your points not only cost money, but they also are the opposite of what San Francisco does, and somehow they still manage to attract all kinds of startups, to the point that they kind of try to deter startups from coming.
1987 wasn't a recession, I think you are referring to the stock market anomaly. The stock market isn't the economy.
2008 didn't happen because of Glass-Stegal, it happened because there was a bubble in the housing market that burst. That would have happened either way.
Thinking of the high prices of electricity there, i wonder how many of them mined for a loss hoping the cryptos would skyrocket.
With bitcoin, it's typically either "win" or "lose." If you manage to find one bitcoin, then you win and it will be enough to pay for your entire rig and more. But there's also a chance you won't find anything, and you eat the entire equipment purchase.
Let's assume that there were a Glass-Stegal act with teeth, that didn't have loopholes, so that non-investment banks would only be able to buy top grade investments. One problem is that the subprime loans were being repackaged and given the rating of top grade investment by the rating agencies. The rating agencies were full of liars. Beyond that, a lot of the banks (most of the ones that crashed?) like Lehman Brothers didn't take deposits (thus were considered investment banks), and still caused a crisis. At best, Glass-Stegal will just keep FDIC protected deposits from being lost, it won't prevent other banks from causing a crisis.
I really like the way Paul Volcker looked at it: "Any bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Any bank that takes government money needs to be sold, or broken into pieces." But it doesn't really matter now, since the federal reserve has invented ways to give money to banks without involving congressional votes.
It works between servers. So more than one server can fill the order: you see that the order comes to server A first, then it's going to be filled on server B. So you hit server B first, and get the order. The broker isn't doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that downtown San Mateo, Burlingame, Palo Alto, and Mountain View all have a better selection of restaurants than SOMA. Cheaper rent, too, and that's just the Penninsula.
Yet another variable not counted for in climate models. Not only do plants grow faster with elevated levels of CO2, they also grow for time each year when the average temperature increases.
You can also add that changing the color (brown to green in this case) will change the albedo of the earth, which is another factor estimated by the climate modelers.
I like the way you think.
I think after Lost writers realized they can succeed by making things confusing, instead of having an actual plot. Keep it confusing enough and then come up with a Deus ex machina at the end. As a bonus, you can keep it going as long as people keep paying. I'm looking at Mr Robot and the new Star Wars here specifically.
As a counterpoint, the Marvel stuff is turning out to be coherent beyond expectations, even though they don' t need to.
All those things you say sound reasonable. You have formed a hypothesis that contradicts reality. You should reform your hypothesis. (And the investors know the cost of working in the party city: that's not a hidden cost).
Yeah, most of those are how San Francisco is going these days. New college students like it, because SF is the party zone, I guess.
I don't find it convincing, for three reasons:
1) Other countries without Glass Stegal didn't react as the hypothesis would predict.
2) The investments were triple-A rated, so were considered a 'safe' investment.
3) The proposed mechanism of action (that would only come into play when the G-S loopholes were closed): removing some capital from play, wouldn't have been enough to stop the crash. People who want to invest in that stuff would just find other ways to invest in it, causing the same bubble.
And I will add a fourth non-sequitur:
4) Fuck bankers.
When we started a branch office in China, we had a "meet and greet" videoconferencing to get to know each other. I was really impressed that a lot of the guys were interested in A.I., until I found out they were talking about Allen Iverson. Basketball? From that moment I plotted my eventual suicide.
It really depends, right? I can create a dataset and design an experiment that will give me the results I want in a case like this. So we need to read the actual report to see if the experiment was properly designed. Unfortunately, none of us have done this.
It's like those "Turing test competitions" where average people can't tell the difference between a human and a crappy chatbot. If you read the actual dialogues, you'll find that the human did a good job pretending to be a computer, the conversations were short, and Turing himself would be shaking his head in disgust at what passes for science among the proles.
Machine learning is a subset of AI. A* search is also AI, even though it's not machine learning. "AI" means "technology that was found searching for AI," just like "Tang" is "space technology" even though it practically has nothing to do with space.
If you want to differentiate, it's more reasonable to differentiate between "strong AI" and "weak AI." Strong AI is what most people mean by AI, whereas "weak AI" is "cool stuff that's not really intelligent."
That's actually how mining works.
Personally I think "speak English" should be a requirement for immigrants. Maybe not on your first try, but after you've been here a while.......
I don't think they should give up their old culture, but if they are coming to America, learning the language is a minimal token to show you actually like your new country.
I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight
It's mainly because of compassion, because a lot of those refugees are going to die if they stay in Syria. We don't want them to die. Apparently you don't have compassion for that kind of problem, though.
I want to point out that most of your points not only cost money, but they also are the opposite of what San Francisco does, and somehow they still manage to attract all kinds of startups, to the point that they kind of try to deter startups from coming.
The sadder part it that it's the best system that we've found in practice.
Living with people is hard, whether in a family, or in a group of a hundred million. It took thousands of years to come this far.
1987 wasn't a recession, I think you are referring to the stock market anomaly. The stock market isn't the economy.
2008 didn't happen because of Glass-Stegal, it happened because there was a bubble in the housing market that burst. That would have happened either way.
Thinking of the high prices of electricity there, i wonder how many of them mined for a loss hoping the cryptos would skyrocket.
With bitcoin, it's typically either "win" or "lose." If you manage to find one bitcoin, then you win and it will be enough to pay for your entire rig and more. But there's also a chance you won't find anything, and you eat the entire equipment purchase.
And it's complicated because in a lot of cases, a lot of divorce cases, both sides are shit people and neither one deserves to win.
It would be cool if you could find a way to turn that heat into a giant, bright light.
I agree. I'm not saying Glass-Stegal is perfect... I'm saying it's better than what replaced it (nothing)
Why? What exactly do you expect Glass-Stegal to do? There was a bubble that popped. How does the source of funding matter?
You seem to have completely ignored my post here. But let's look deeper at your comment:
Let's assume that there were a Glass-Stegal act with teeth, that didn't have loopholes, so that non-investment banks would only be able to buy top grade investments. One problem is that the subprime loans were being repackaged and given the rating of top grade investment by the rating agencies. The rating agencies were full of liars. Beyond that, a lot of the banks (most of the ones that crashed?) like Lehman Brothers didn't take deposits (thus were considered investment banks), and still caused a crisis. At best, Glass-Stegal will just keep FDIC protected deposits from being lost, it won't prevent other banks from causing a crisis.
I really like the way Paul Volcker looked at it: "Any bank that is too big to fail is too big to exist. Any bank that takes government money needs to be sold, or broken into pieces." But it doesn't really matter now, since the federal reserve has invented ways to give money to banks without involving congressional votes.
It works between servers. So more than one server can fill the order: you see that the order comes to server A first, then it's going to be filled on server B. So you hit server B first, and get the order. The broker isn't doing it.
Ineffective.
My point still stands. If you don't want front-running, then target front-running
Ok, that's fine with me. I think you set up some kind of strawman, arguing against something I didn't claim.
Front running and other abuse of insider knowledge are not specifically related to high frequency trading.
High frequency trading mainly profits by front-running. There was a book about this, Flash Boys.