In fact, they even keep putting legitimate emails in Spam folder! After a couple incidents missing important work emails due to Gmail's aggressive spam filtering (it must've been designed by people who didn't understand the giant costs of false positives, compared to tiny cost of false negatives), I disabled Gmail spam filter and I am not re-enabling it until I have seen that Google understood priorities of people whose work depends on being able to receive every legit email.
P.S. Quite obviously, I'm opting out of every other "smart" feature, if I'm unwilling to trust Gmail with simple spam-filtering.
On the other hand, a good experimentalist always blames his tools. (That is, his significant sources of error are always the instrument/apparatus, not "human error" or faulty technique.)
Now, would you bet on 10 students with 19 ACT score doing as well as 10 students with 32 ACT score on average? Sure, ACT/SAT scores don't have the level of precision sometimes people wish they had (which is probably why no correlation between ACT/SAT scores and success in college has been found; people were already segregated by ACT/SAT score tiers!), and there are individual exceptions.
But if I were taking on interns, I would much rather have 10 interns who scored 32 on ACT (and realize some of them "smart but lazy" or "cheating bastards") than have 10 interns who scored 19 on ACT (and roll the dice on whether at least 1 of them is a very diligent student who has been disparately impacted).
That's not what SAT is good for. SAT Math requires nothing above geometry. SAT, at its most ideal, would be a perfect indicator of g-score. But, of course, it's not, because you can teach (ah hem, "coach") people to do better on it, even though you are not making them any smarter.
Whoever wrote the TFS had zero chance of understanding the point or import of the upgrade. Such a hyperbolic jumble of nonsense. If you want real information, go to the people who actually do this for living.
No problem. I already cut the Netflix "cord", because with the content owners giving Netflix the squeeze, there was nothing good to stream on their website any more.
If you are worried about small players like Netflix (small compared to Apple and Google) getting squeezed, the pipe isn't the biggest problem; the copyright monopoly (and lack of compulsory licensing for video content) is.
Well, with margin accounts (which is what you need to be able to sell short), there are interest rates that you agree to. The biggest downside of options is just how much you are not explicitly aware of. Every option you purchase (put or call) has an implied leverage factor, and with implied leverage comes an implied financing cost (i.e. interest rate).
The derivatives brokers that write the options know what all these are and have written the options for them to make money under most circumstances. Most retail speculators don't have the technical know-how to be able to calculate these underlying costs and are bound to overpay for the leverage they get with options.
P.S. Options market is always more volatile than taking a short position. Every option is fragmented by the expiration date and price level, ensuring limited trading volume and limited liquidity, which leads to more volatility (again, something that derivatives brokers make their living on). This is especially true for out-of-the-money options.
Um, where do you think a lot of basic research money comes from? NSF funding is tiny compared to what DOD spends. That MOAB funded a lot of basic science researchers.
You don't want it to be like cold fusion? How about controlled fusion? That would be a better comparison to quantum computing---theoretically possible, always plagued by experimental complications.
Yeah. At least when I had brokerage account, you couldn't take short positions unless you had a margin account. Short positions were limited by margin limits; anybody trading with a fear of margin call is not, well, playing a game they are going to be playing for long.
But when you are buying put options, you are paying for something more than just a short position. Yes, it limits your potential losses (unlike a straightforward short position), but it also limits two things: (1) your investment horizon (those options come with due dates), and (2) ability to trade at volume (somebody has to write those options).
Analyses at the community level are significantly more likely to demonstrate lower rates of suicide among higher socio-economic areas than studies using larger areas of aggregation.
Read between the lines; socioeconomic status of a person is not the primary determinant of likelihood of suicide. That's why they had to drill down to community level, in order to eliminate confounding variables. There are factors aside from wealth status that affect suicide rates by a greater amount.
Having skimmed through the Nature article (I never trust popular-science paraphrases, because they're work of a bunch of people who failed their physics classes trying to translate what they couldn't possibly understand), it looks like they cast their result in terms of an upper limit on variation of fine-structure constant, which is the proper thing to do.
So you find a mechanic that you can trust who'll charge a reasonable rate for his labor (and you never take it to a dealership to get it repaired).
Depending on how much you get paid, it's not that much more cost-effective to fix it yourself, once you factor in the (opportunity) cost of your own labor.
Eh. I'll bet better than even odds that a significant number of these "shareholders" specifically bought Facebook shares in order to make these complaints. This is not all that new in political activism, pretending to be an actual investor in a publicly traded company, when these people couldn't care less about how well their "investment" does financially.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's because the GP should have used the correct term, HBCU. But yes, if you know HBCU, you could guess what HBC meant.
In fact, they even keep putting legitimate emails in Spam folder! After a couple incidents missing important work emails due to Gmail's aggressive spam filtering (it must've been designed by people who didn't understand the giant costs of false positives, compared to tiny cost of false negatives), I disabled Gmail spam filter and I am not re-enabling it until I have seen that Google understood priorities of people whose work depends on being able to receive every legit email.
P.S. Quite obviously, I'm opting out of every other "smart" feature, if I'm unwilling to trust Gmail with simple spam-filtering.
On the other hand, a good experimentalist always blames his tools. (That is, his significant sources of error are always the instrument/apparatus, not "human error" or faulty technique.)
Now, would you bet on 10 students with 19 ACT score doing as well as 10 students with 32 ACT score on average? Sure, ACT/SAT scores don't have the level of precision sometimes people wish they had (which is probably why no correlation between ACT/SAT scores and success in college has been found; people were already segregated by ACT/SAT score tiers!), and there are individual exceptions.
But if I were taking on interns, I would much rather have 10 interns who scored 32 on ACT (and realize some of them "smart but lazy" or "cheating bastards") than have 10 interns who scored 19 on ACT (and roll the dice on whether at least 1 of them is a very diligent student who has been disparately impacted).
That's not what SAT is good for. SAT Math requires nothing above geometry. SAT, at its most ideal, would be a perfect indicator of g-score. But, of course, it's not, because you can teach (ah hem, "coach") people to do better on it, even though you are not making them any smarter.
Try this one.
Whoever wrote the TFS had zero chance of understanding the point or import of the upgrade. Such a hyperbolic jumble of nonsense. If you want real information, go to the people who actually do this for living.
Probably because Google Domains has been doing it since the beginning.
No problem. I already cut the Netflix "cord", because with the content owners giving Netflix the squeeze, there was nothing good to stream on their website any more.
If you are worried about small players like Netflix (small compared to Apple and Google) getting squeezed, the pipe isn't the biggest problem; the copyright monopoly (and lack of compulsory licensing for video content) is.
Well, with margin accounts (which is what you need to be able to sell short), there are interest rates that you agree to. The biggest downside of options is just how much you are not explicitly aware of. Every option you purchase (put or call) has an implied leverage factor, and with implied leverage comes an implied financing cost (i.e. interest rate).
The derivatives brokers that write the options know what all these are and have written the options for them to make money under most circumstances. Most retail speculators don't have the technical know-how to be able to calculate these underlying costs and are bound to overpay for the leverage they get with options.
P.S. Options market is always more volatile than taking a short position. Every option is fragmented by the expiration date and price level, ensuring limited trading volume and limited liquidity, which leads to more volatility (again, something that derivatives brokers make their living on). This is especially true for out-of-the-money options.
Um, where do you think a lot of basic research money comes from? NSF funding is tiny compared to what DOD spends. That MOAB funded a lot of basic science researchers.
You don't want it to be like cold fusion? How about controlled fusion? That would be a better comparison to quantum computing---theoretically possible, always plagued by experimental complications.
Here's a better plan: let's rob banks! (After all, we are brainstorming illegal ideas for making money.)
Yeah. At least when I had brokerage account, you couldn't take short positions unless you had a margin account. Short positions were limited by margin limits; anybody trading with a fear of margin call is not, well, playing a game they are going to be playing for long.
But when you are buying put options, you are paying for something more than just a short position. Yes, it limits your potential losses (unlike a straightforward short position), but it also limits two things: (1) your investment horizon (those options come with due dates), and (2) ability to trade at volume (somebody has to write those options).
They already do that.
No, I'm just better at reading than you are:
Read between the lines; socioeconomic status of a person is not the primary determinant of likelihood of suicide. That's why they had to drill down to community level, in order to eliminate confounding variables. There are factors aside from wealth status that affect suicide rates by a greater amount.
This is the most ignorant thing I have read this year so far. Everybody knows that the poor do not commit suicide at higher rates.
That's why people who do measure this sort of thing for a living measure unitless quantities, like fine-structure constant or mass ratios.
Having skimmed through the Nature article (I never trust popular-science paraphrases, because they're work of a bunch of people who failed their physics classes trying to translate what they couldn't possibly understand), it looks like they cast their result in terms of an upper limit on variation of fine-structure constant, which is the proper thing to do.
No, orphan work is just a synonym for abandonware ("abandonware" being a more software-specific term). You are looking for "public domain."
It's called "public domain." We are about to get some of it back soon.
You must have been born yesterday.
So you find a mechanic that you can trust who'll charge a reasonable rate for his labor (and you never take it to a dealership to get it repaired).
Depending on how much you get paid, it's not that much more cost-effective to fix it yourself, once you factor in the (opportunity) cost of your own labor.
Because there is a difference between "you must pay 1 million dollars" and "That 1 million dollars you have given us for 'safe keeping' is now ours."
If they could work out the legal arrangement right, Microsoft's TOS change could be closer to the latter than former.
Eh. I'll bet better than even odds that a significant number of these "shareholders" specifically bought Facebook shares in order to make these complaints. This is not all that new in political activism, pretending to be an actual investor in a publicly traded company, when these people couldn't care less about how well their "investment" does financially.