= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Upvoted because I think taking people's objections at face value is something we should be more open to. That being said, I'm a bit worried that the reason this has so many upvotes is because it tells us what we want to hear. (We're better than the common man! We have real interests and ambitions, not just staring into the water and waiting for a fish to bite!)
In response to
[Link] First almost fully-formed human [foetus] brain grown in lab, researchers claim
How do you give an unplugged brain PTSD?
In response to
Ideas on growth of the community
One problem as I see it is that Self-help as a community driven thing never really took off here. I think a big reason why is the perceived high bar to post quality. Self-help involves engaging with lots of idle weird ideas that don't work out before you hit on something useful. I'll also note that most of the online communities that really seem to be "communities" have an off-topic area that attracts a lot of posts where people feel free to be more casual. When brought up in the context of LW people point to the IRC chatroom, but that is a very different type of interaction.
I would be in favour of an offtopic tab separate from Main and Discussion
You imply that the market is zero-sum. Some markets are, but a lot are not.
Correction: You would beat the market.
Yes, but I don't see why Paul thinks that's a good thing when you're actually not strong.
Usually, I think his advice is spot on, but in this case his advice that you want to signal that you're strong when you're actually not seems backwards. You don't want to be seen as a credible threat to competitors until you're ACTUALLY able to defend yourself.
I have no experience with startups, but I imagine most startups fail because of apathy (from either customers or investors), rather than enemy action.
This seems to me a clear case of reversing (most of) the causation.
Which makes it a good target for signalling. If you want to seem strong, you get the domain.
Then a person placing a dumb trade is creating a mispricing, which will be consumed by some market agent.
Well, that looks like an "offering to buy a stock for $1 more than its current price" scenario. You can easily lose a lot of money by buying things at the offer and selling them at the bid :-)
But let's imagine a scenario where everything is happening pre-tax, there are no transaction costs, we're operating in risk-adjusted terms and, to make things simple, the risk-free rate is zero. Moreover, the markets are orderly and liquid.
Assuming you can competently express a market view, can you systematically lose money by consistently taking the wrong side under EMH?
It seems you shouldn't be able to, since if you had such a system you could use the complement strategy (buy everything else) and make money.
Not sure that generalises outside of math. Is it really better to solve one problem really, really thoroughly, than to have a good-enough fix for five? Depends on the problems, perhaps - but without knowing anything else, I'd rather solve five than one.
I think the point of the quote is that in the first case you have five methods you can use to attack different problems. In the second case you only have one method, and you have to hope every problem is a nail.
Occam's razor has little to do with probabilities.
Then why accept the simplest solution instead of say, the most beautiful solution, or the most intuitive solution?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Very interested in this one.