Assorted links


#2 I couldn't find the words "money", "pay", or "salary" in a link apparently about excellence. The standards of these Assorting Links seem to be falling.

But now they are apparently self-assembling.

Raising the minimum wage still a bad idea:

Do they accept bitcoin?

A case for more H1B Visas?

May as well light your money on fire.

#4, Soros's $7B in puts:

With $28B under management, Soros's fund would probably have $28B-$42B invested (leverage ratio between 1 and 1.5). $7B in puts would constitute a pretty solid position, it seems - presumably outside the range of traditional insurance use and well within the land of the "bearish bet" as BI claims.

Is the expy of the puts published anywhere? Would be relevant.

Also, note that options tend to increase in value when volatility (Chart: VIX) increases. It's currently extremely low.

Probably a smart move.

“I don’t know how many levels there are after that.” Recommended.

Well, let no one accuse you of linkbaity scumminess.

I cannot decide if this is snarkiness or not. Where's my emotional valence conducting emoticon?

@#5 - was good. Apparently "certified Kosher" means something more than just being able to consume the food without violating Jewish scriptures and dicta. So observant Jews can eat stuff made for Gentiles and not violate kosher dictates, but only if said stuff is not certified kosher.

I always like reading things where strange (to me) words are randomly dispersed through the text in place of words I may know. Very clockwork-orangey.

Horrorshow baddiwad, kopat?

(Emotional valence indicator: I am being sincere, I enjoyed the article.)

6. (outsourced) Markets in everything.

A complement to #2.

#5...Suppose you produce a Kosher Hot Dog that, while once produced mainly for Jews, is now produced and marketed mainly to.Non-Jews, the Hechsher now being a Mass Selling Point? Has the Status of the Hot Dog changed?

I buy kosher hotdogs under the assumption that there is a lower "lips and bungholes" content.

I have done the same. Not sure I want to know whether it genuinely is lighter on the gross bits. Better to pretend. Or to not eat hot dogs.

"I don't know how many levels there are after that": if the knowledge confers the ability to speak in another language, how do I tell whether the person is a self delusional twit or someone who genuinely knows what they're talking about? Because, obviously there is a payoff in status to be perceived as a genius (regardless of whether you actually are).

Seems to me that you'd have a strong possibility of following the thoughts of a lunatic - and for that reason, perhaps choose to never bother following the thoughts of a genius at all.

You can try to follow a chain where a person you know is one level above you respects a person who is one level above them and so forth.

Yes, sometimes "appeal to authority" is the way to go. If someone purports to be three or four levels above you, and the people following that person's words are the top experts in the field, that's one thing. If the people following that person are a bunch of nincompoops, stay away.

I remember those Hood versus Garelick Farms commercials. I forgot or never heard the "smelling fishy" one, but there was one Garelick commercial where they had a customer read the ingredients in Hood Milk and found "disodium phosphate" and the announcer shouts "THAT'S A CHEMICAL!"

Was the link to #2 a link to a sort of non-4/1 April Fools Day joke? I think the essay linked to was either a surprisingly simplistic (and, in a negative sense, an unfortunately neurodiverse) essay on how learning a specific and large number of things that other people have figured out a long time ago makes you intellectually more robust, or, in the alternative, a deceptive paean to the current academic ideology (destructive of the first and sometimes even the second decade of intellectual maturity) which holds that one must submit to the path of learning the thought patterns of dozens or even hundreds of others (a path that nobody from Democritus to Aquinas and Pasteur to Ramanujan would have thought remotely worth spending time on) before expressing one's own marginally (necessarily marginally, in link #2's system) creative thoughts. By the way, for a non-spoofing take on the subject of levels, Eliezer Yudosky (spelling of the last name might be off), an eccentric blogger and extreme auto-didact, wrote a post a few years ago on how some obscure Bayesian statistician (named Jaynes) was a "level" above him. That post, which was full of actual desire for accurate knowledge, both of one's thoughts and perceptions and of the real objects of those thoughts and perceptions, seemed to me (in spite of E.Y.'s comically foolish world-view) to be exponentially more insightful than the recommended post at link #2. (By the way, I would, on one level, love to be wrong with the opinion I have expressed in this comment, because the idea of ascending from one intellectual level to the next is so enticing - I sometimes am nostalgic about the modest, cheerful and humble hopes of my graduate school years - but, on the other hand, magna est veritas et praevalebit - great is the truth and it (i.e., the truth) will prevail... no matter how many hours it takes to be able to brag about one's self-improvement before and after graduating from MIT or Caltech or some other citadel of visible intellectual power).

Just reread the linked article in its entirety, I noticed that my objections to the wasting of time aspect of seeking levels was partially or fully answered by the anecdote about the poor extremely talented PhD candidate who wasted all those years finishing up his dissertation. I still think that comparing the art of mathematics to one of the least artistic competitive Olympic sports (swimming) is unfortunate, and I don't think there actually are mathematical levels (in a real, non-Platonic sense) "above" the level of the author of the linked article (or even above the level of himself 30 years ago, as he claims), but I would not, upon further reflection, use the word "spoof."

6. The Swiss are definitely not conservative Republicans who oppose taxes, but quickly justify spending without limit when it comes to military force.

Democrats tax and spend which is a good way to budget - if you want something, figure out how to pay for it.

I found it interesting that the article did not point out that the "escort" was mostly an observer - does anyone really think a passenger airliner would be shot down?

Another thing I noticed in Switzerland besides the surprisingly aggravating train system, was just how militarized the place was.

You can go a long time in the United States without ever seeing evidence of the armed forces. Switzerland feels like the civilian housing near a military base. Weapons and soldiers are everywhere.

I suppose this really says more about density and lack of open space than militarism, but it's much more in-your-face than in the rest of Europe.

6.) And the Swiss army wants to go buy Swedish (yet to be finalized) Gripen for 4b USD. I always believed they do not need them, now they clearly proved it.

Some time ago, I saw an article in the Guardian titled "Here's the truth about Shanghai schools: they're terrible"

One comment blew it all away.

'This article boiled down basically says "The children of Shanghai are excelling, but in away that violates my ideological prejudices, therefore I will deny the results and declare, despite all the evidence, that Shanghai's education system is inferior."'

So it is with this equally dismal Economist article. South Korea is clearly an Internet world leader (by far). However, South Korea's practices violate the ideological prejudices of the Economist. Hence we are told that up is done, right is left, and success is failure.

The core of quality journalism is reporting the truth, even if you don't like it.


Pretty impressive to win the SCOTUS prediction league three years running when there are 20k participants.
The guy is either extraordinarily skilful at predicting the swing votes on the court, or he's the only one really trying.

BEIJING, Feb. 21 (Xinhua) -- A Beijing-based Tibetology scholar has criticized the Dalai Lama's Friday meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House, saying it was another "anti-China farce." "Once again, the Dalai Lama slipped into the White House Map Room for a so-called 'unofficial meeting' with Obama. This was another farce against China," said Lian Xiangmin, a researcher with the China Tibetology Research Center, in a signed article.

Comments for this post are closed