Someone tosses a coin ten times; it comes up heads every time. What's the probability it comes up heads on the next toss? (Pretty darn high—part of @nntaleb's work is unprogramming you from your high-school rules of thumb.) Now consider the (related) Gambler's fallacy...
Very interesting thread. For more general cases (\U0001f447) I proposed skin in the game as \u201cwhat makes imitation work\u201d but didn\u2019t consider professional scammers incl. casinos— Luca Dellanna (@DellAnnaLuca) January 18, 2021
Both scammers and casinos artificially inflate the crowd to provide an illusion of \u201cI can\u2019t be the only idiot.\u201d https://t.co/cMUrQpxc15
More from Simon DeDeo
Some thoughts worked out in a letter to a friend, which is the kind of thing you do when off Twitter for a glorious week. (🧵)
“Chance is ignorance”—the Bayesian story; all probabilities represent states of mind, not states of the world. One *could* put (some) chances “in the world”, but let’s take Occam’s Razor seriously...
That the probability of a fair coin coming up heads is 50% simply means that marginalizing (tracing, as the physicists say) over the hidden facts leaves you, nearly, maximally ignorant of the outcome.
Quantum uncertainty (access below!) poses an apparent challenge to this story. There seems to be nothing to be ignorant about when it comes to (say) electron spin—there is nothing “inside” the
The electron is a simple object, in other words. So where does the uncertainty come from? One could follow David Wallace’s wonderful interpretation in terms of chaotic dynamics and decoherence, but let’s see if we can take another route...
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Put another way, the editors who built the dominant nodes in this network...
...have little overlap with the ones who made this much more recent managerial flowchart.
Internet time runs at hundred-fold speed—the difference between the people who painted what's in the Uffizi, and the people in charge of keeping those paintings from deteriorating. Very different tasks, and (one presumes) very personalities as well. @PaulSkallas?
It was pretty simple to do—Apple Time Machine backups let me do it with one click.
That first tweet captures, in two pictures, how badly Apple has “lost the plot” (to quote @wylieprof). On the right is the Apple MagSafe adapter, from 2013. On the left, what I had “upgraded” to.
Thanks, Apple! I really was nostalgic for worrying about yanking my computer off the table.
Oh and I really appreciated not knowing if my computer was charging. What was great was the little whoop sound you used, so that the speaker before me could be informed I was charging my laptop.
More from Crypto
1- Metal standards were never inflexible; they could not in order to operate properly. Qty of metal was changed, usually lowered, to accommodate for changing economic conditions: price of metal, scarcity of coins, financial needs of economic units (state and private), etc.
2- The purpose of a monetary system is to make the rest of the economy go. It is there to accommodate financial needs. The more elastic one can design the supply, the better.
That doesn't mean that monetary creation & destruction shouldn't follow any rules & have no constraint.
3- Rules and constraint impose depend on economic system and evolve over time has we learn how to manage better the system. In a capitalist economy, the private sector is subject to the profitability constraint. We have learned from experience that this is not enough.
3 (ii) Financial stability requires a "hedge finance" constraint for most private agents: profitability should be judged on income gains, not capital gains.
In the government sector, the constraints are ressource availability and political constraints.
Rule #1: DO NOT TRUST THE COMPUTER SCREEN.
The very reason for using a hardware wallet is that your computer IS compromised, trusting it makes using the hardware wallet an expensive security theatre (or 2FA at best).
Always verify on the HWW device screen!
Rule #2: Verify your "receive" addresses BEFORE accepting funds.
A compromised computer can be tricked into displaying addresses that belong to an attacker. The only way to make sure you own the addresses is to display them on the HWW device and verify they match.
Rule #3: Verifying change address should be done by the device when sending funds, not before like receive addresses!
It is pointless at best, and misleading at worst, to verify them beforehand like receive addresses...
All hardware wallets support verifying the change address belongs to you AT TIME OF SIGNING A TRANSACTION.
Verifying before that is pointless and error-prone.
Now let's talk some multisig...
1) Don't take advice about Bitcoin from those with a vested interest in seeing its price rise. That's like listening to CDO dealer in 2006. When prices go up, critical thought go down
2) Bitcoin is fascinating from a tech perspective, but don't fall for the rhetoric of monetary revolution. I was among the early users of Bitcoin & actually tried to use it as 'money', but it's not a monetary system. It's a system of cyber-collectibles, priced in dollars
3) By all means pass your money to a seller of these collectibles, but don't do so under the illusion that you're engaging in rebellion, or that you're doing prudent investment. You're doing what you're doing, which is buying a collectible from someone who is taking your money
4) Unlike many other collectibles, Bitcoin has no actual features, other than the fact that it can be moved around. It has a highly innovative issuance & movement mechanism, but that's somewhat meaningless if the thing being issued and moved is featureless
5) In fact, its only feature is its logo and the language that surrounds it. Without that the tokens are basically just blank digital objects, the digital equivalent of passing around fragments of limited edition clear glass beads
Share it with a normie friend, maybe he/she will understand the value proposition of
Reason no. 1: during its 12 year-old existence, Bitcoin has performed a lot better as a store of value than gold.
Reason no. 2: Bitcoin is easier and less expensive to transfer than gold. This one is pretty self-explanatory, as gold is heavy and expensive to secure.
However, I believe that we should look up to gold a lot more often & look down to USD less
Reason no. 3: Bitcoins can be carried across borders a lot easier than gold and cash.
It's simple, really. With only a general-purpose electronic device (phone, laptop), piece of paper, or even 12 words that you memorize, you can move your wealth in a different country.
Reason no. 4: Bitcoin transactions cannot be censored.
In a world where PayPal and Visa can dictate your policy as a business and can shut you up from expressing political opinions, Bitcoin has a lot of value.
(Video version @ https://t.co/VIHEoHLYpN)
A thread. 👇
2/22 Despite last night's major Bitcoin correction, it still sits at $33k, well above the last bull run's all time high. With XRP currently at $0.28, it may seem rather ridiculous to think XRP will ever become #1.
3/22 However, it's important to compare Bitcoin and XRP not in terms of price, but market cap. That's because there are 100 billion XRP (and will never be more) and 19 million circulating Bitcoin (21 million max). So comparing the price of individual tokens doesn't work.
4/22 XRP's market cap is $12.6 billion. Bitcoin's is $623 (roughly 50x more, 55x if you factor in the 2 million Bitcoin not yet mined). That's a huge lead, but not as big as the 119,000x lead if you compare token price!
5/22 Bitcoin's primary advantage is its early adoption. It caught on earlier and became the front runner of crypto. Don't underestimate the power of being first. It gives a massive advantage. But it doesn't GUARANTEE being the winner long-term.
You May Also Like
I'm still pissed about the bait and switch they pulled by telling me I'd be working on Chrome, then putting me on this god forsaken piece of shit on day one.
This will be a super slow burn that goes back many years. I’ll continue to add to over the next couple of days. I’ll preface it with a bunch of backstory and explain what I had left behind, which made me more unhappy about the culture I had come into.
I spent most of my early career working for two radical sister non-profit orgs. I was the only designer working on
anywhere from 4-5 different products at the same time. All centered around activism and used by millions of people.
It’s how I cut my teeth. Learned to be the designer that I am today. Most importantly, the people I worked for are imho some of the greatest people on the planet. Highly intelligent, empathetic, caring, and true role models for a young me. I adore them.
You might not know who they are, but if you’re reading this then you have definitely seen their work. Maybe OpenCongress, or Miro, or maybe Amara which is Vimeo’s partner transcription service. Definitely Fight for the Future, our internet defenders, which was shortly after me.
Here are some main takeaways + my verdict 👇
(1) Acquisition is the easiest path to entrepreneurship
Don’t have an idea? You don’t have to have one. Buy one.
Don’t know how to code? You don’t have to. Use revenue to outsource development.
Don’t have money? You don’t have to have any. Bring in an equity partner. Leverage a debt from family/friends, tech lender, or even the seller.
Capital is not an excuse.
(2) Acquiring has a few distinct advantages to building
- Validated demand
- Leverage debt/equity partners
- Focus on going from 1-10, not 0-1
Acquiring a business that has paying customers saves you the time and energy you would have spent trying to figure out if there was demand for it in the first place.
Acquiring skips that step altogether.
THREAD: "Two years ago, I represented Iraq at Miss Universe. I posted a photo with Miss Israel on social media..."
"I was told to remove it and forced to denounce Israeli policies. I received death threats. Since then I can no longer return to my homeland.
Why did the Iraqi government fail to condemn the threats, or allow my freedom of speech?"
"The issue between Arabs and Israelis goes beyond policy disagreements. It’s deeply rooted in the belief systems taught in Muslim countries, which are anti-Semitic."
"Sadly, hatred & intolerance are reinforced by biased media. When I watched the news last month, why did they never report that the Hamas terrorist organization fired nearly 700 rockets at Israeli civilians in one weekend or that Hamas used Palestinians in Gaza as human shields?"
"Why do they never condemn Hamas for initiating the attacks? Instead, they only show those killed by the response, in self-defense, and blame Israel."