Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: morganism 19 February 2017 11:58:12PM 0 points [-]

From a review article:

"The review pays particular attention to gas hydrates beneath the Arctic Ocean, where some studies have observed elevated rates of methane transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere. As noted by the authors, the methane being emitted to the atmosphere in the Arctic Ocean has not been directly traced to the breakdown of gas hydrate in response to recent climate change, nor as a consequence of longer-term warming since the end of the last Ice Age.

"After so many years spent determining where gas hydrates are breaking down and measuring methane flux at the sea-air interface, we suggest that conclusive evidence for release of hydrate-related methane to the atmosphere is lacking."

Professor Kessler explains that, "Even where we do see slightly elevated emissions of methane at the sea-air interface, our research shows that this methane is rarely attributable to gas hydrate degradation."

The review summarizes how much gas hydrate exists and where it occurs; identifies the technical challenges associated with determining whether atmospheric methane originates with gas hydrate breakdown; and examines the assumptions of the Intergovernmental Panels on Climate Change, which have typically attributed a small amount of annual atmospheric methane emissions to gas hydrate sources.

The review also systematically evaluates different environments to assess the susceptibility of gas hydrates at each location to warming climate and addresses the potential environmental impact of an accidental gas release associated with a hypothetical well producing methane from gas hydrate deposits."

above http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Gas_hydrate_breakdown_unlikely_to_cause_massive_greenhouse_gas_release_999.html

topic thread over at Arctic Sea Ice forum

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=12.msg102955#new

Comment author: gjm 18 February 2017 02:46:59AM 1 point [-]

the frontrunning that algorithmic trading is driving

[citation needed]

it is what causes flash crashes, and huge price spikes

[citation needed]

and also is too easy to game that system by having a faster connection

You can certainly make more money in HFT with a faster connection. Why is that actually a problem for anyone other than (other) would-be high-frequency traders?

Would also be nice to force folks to "buy" their shorts, instead of just "borrowing" stocks to short.

What exactly is your proposal?

In response to comment by gjm on Basic Income. org
Comment author: morganism 18 February 2017 11:51:05PM 0 points [-]

Frontrunning

https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/hsbc-foreign-exchange-executive-charged-with-front-running-order-2016-07-20-151031929

http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-accused-of-front-unning-2014-1

https://www.quora.com/Is-HFT-basically-electronic-front-running-due-to-differing-latency

Article out this week on the microwave vs. fiber time delay between NY and Chicago, and a new trans-Atlantic cable being laid just for London quote time efficiency.

Algo trading researcher

http://www.nanex.net/NxResearch/

And the SEC doesn't think he is accurate, but...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-flashcrash-nanex-idUSTRE6935SA20101004

I would like to see a fee imposed on puts, and have a long enough time for those micro-payments to clear, so that an actual, visible quote is available to call them, rather than just a ramping of prices. It doesn't have to be large, but it does have to clear, to stabilize prices a bit.

I also think you should have to buy your shorts, not just borrow them. Some closely held corps don't even have enough outstanding shares to cover what some short sellers are using against them.

Comment author: gjm 17 February 2017 10:29:33PM 0 points [-]

This assumes that introducing transaction fees sufficient to bring in $300B/year in revenue would not change trading behaviour in a way that (1) substantially reduces that $300B/year figure and/or (2) has other adverse consequences.

(It might, of course, have good consequences. The author seems to think so -- "they'd discourage speculation and help stabilize our financial system". It would have been nice if they'd explained why they think that.)

In response to comment by gjm on Basic Income. org
Comment author: morganism 17 February 2017 10:51:05PM 0 points [-]

Actually, we really need at minimum, is a put/call fee, just to slow down the frontrunning that algorithmic trading is driving, it is what causes flash crashes, and huge price spikes, and also is too easy to game that system by having a faster connection...

Would also be nice to force folks to "buy" their shorts, instead of just "borrowing" stocks to short. Too easy to force a hostile takeover that way, and causes companies to carry toxic loads of debt to keep em from being ripe targets.

Comment author: morganism 17 February 2017 10:43:13PM *  0 points [-]

yum.

just found some ming beans sprouts that should go in here when you pour/crack the egg in...

http://www.mariespastiche.com/2014/01/around-world-with-pancakes-chinese-jian.html

http://jianbingjohnnys.com/

just a cheap and easy way to counter the "cheap food" meme everyone is talking about

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2017/02/10/20-groceries-driving-up-your-bill-the-most/print/

Comment author: morganism 17 February 2017 10:42:43PM 1 point [-]

Nature news

"Gene drives thwarted by emergence of resistant organisms"

"The Target Malaria team has developed a second generation of gene-drive mosquitoes, hoping to slow the development of resistance, says Andrea Crisanti, a molecular parasitologist at Imperial College London. The researchers plan to test them in their new Italian facility later this year to get a sense of how the mosquitoes might fare in the wild. But molecular biologist Tony Nolan, also at Imperial, expects evolution to throw up some surprises. He says that his greatest worry about gene drives is that they simply won’t work."

http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drives-thwarted-by-emergence-of-resistant-organisms-1.21397

In response to Basic Income. org
Comment author: morganism 17 February 2017 09:50:42PM 0 points [-]

Universal income can come from universal assets"

"modest transaction fees on trades of stocks, bonds and deriva­tives could generate more than $300 billion per year. Such fees would not only generate in­come for everyone; they’d discourage speculation and help stabilize our financial system. Similar fees could be applied to patent and royalty earnings, which are returns not only to inno­va­tion but also to mono­poly rights granted and enforced by society."

"In the game Monopoly, $200 is the amount every player gets for passing Go. Such cash infusions aren’t bad for the game; instead they help all players play the game. The same would happen in our real economy if everyone gets infusions of $200 a month. The extra money would relieve some burdens of working families and heighten their chances for success and satisfac­tion. And it would stimulate our economy without higher debt."

http://evonomics.com/how-to-pay-for-universal-basic-income/

In response to Basic Income. org
Comment author: morganism 14 February 2017 10:25:36PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: morganism 14 February 2017 09:04:26PM 0 points [-]

"Our mobile learners overall showed a pattern of learning that should improve their outcomes. At Cerego, we have consistently seen that following review time recommendations, and studying in smaller sessions, are both strong predictors of more effective learning and retention on our platform. Therefore, it was no surprise that our mobile group also showed significantly greater learning after they started reviewing in Cerego, gaining more accuracy by later reviews."

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 01 February 2017 08:32:02AM 0 points [-]

Short Online Texts Thread

Comment author: morganism 12 February 2017 07:40:53PM *  0 points [-]

Why Do DMT Users See Insects From A Parallel Universe?

"This is an informal collection of tales regarding the strangest of possibilities -- encounters with praying-mantis like entities which occur after ingesting enteogenic compounds. Why is this so common? Nobody seems to mention spiders or grasshoppers, always mantids!"

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/dmtinsect.html

Robotic overlords beware, there is a preying mantis behind the curtain...

Comment author: morganism 12 February 2017 07:23:51PM 0 points [-]

Deep learning handbook from MIT, online html format only. Good maths overview.

http://www.deeplearningbook.org/

Comment author: morganism 12 February 2017 07:36:53PM 0 points [-]

Edge question for 2017 is out, with 206 essays in answer already

2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?

https://www.edge.org/annual-questions

"The extensive collection of answers includes contributions by several Long Now Board members, fellows, and past (and future!) SALT speakers:

George Dyson, who spoke at Long Now in 02013, says the Reynolds Number from fluid dynamics can be applied to non-traditional domains to understand why things might go smoothly for a while, and then all of a sudden don’t.

Long Now Board Member Stewart Brand says genetic rescue can help threatened wildlife populations by restoring genetic diversity.

Priyamvada Natarajan, who spoke at Long Now in 02016, describes how the bending of light, or gravitational lensing, is a consequence of Einstein’s re-conceptualization of gravity in his theory of relativity.

Samuel Arbesman, who spoke at the Interval in 02016, says “magical” self-replicating computer programs known as quines underscore the limits of mathematics and computer science while demonstrating that reproduction isn’t limited to the domain of the biological.

Michael Shermer, who spoke at Long Now in 02015, says the very human tendency to be “preternaturally pessimistic” has an evolutionary basis. Negativity bias, which can be observed across all domains of life, is a holdover from an evolutionary past where existence was more dangerous, so over-reacting to threats offered more of a pay-off than under-reacting.

Long Now Board Member Brian Eno sets his sights on confirmation bias after a particularly divisive election season playing out on social media revealed that more information does not necessarily equal better decisions.

George Church of Long Now’s Revive and Restore says that while DNA may be one of the most widely known scientific terms, far too few people understand the DNA in their own bodies. With DNA tests as low as $499, Church says there’s no reason not to get your DNA tested, especially when it could allow for preventative measures when it comes to genetic diseases.

Brian Christian, who spoke at Long Now in 02016, argues that human culture progresses via the retention of youthful traits into adulthood, a process known as neoteny.

Long Now Board Member Kevin Kelly argues that the best way to steer clear of failure is by letting go of success once it is achieved, thereby avoiding premature optimization.

Seth Lloyd, who spoke at Long Now in 02016, explains the accelerating spread of digital information using a centuries-old scientific concept from classical mechanics called the virial theorem.

Long Now Board Member Danny Hillis unpacks impedance matching, or adding elements to a system so that it accepts energy more efficiently. He predicts a future where impedance matching could help cool the earth by adding tiny particles of dust to our stratosphere that would reflect away the sun’s infrared waves.

Steven Pinker, who spoke at Long Now in 02012, argues that the meaning of life and human purpose lies in the second law of thermodynamics. Pinker believes our deeply-engrained habit of under-appreciating the universe’s tendency towards disorder is “a major source of human folly.”

Long Now Board Member Paul Saffo says that at the heart of today’s biggest challenges, from sustaining mega-cities to overpopulation to information overload, are hidden laws of scale described by Haldane’s Rule of the Right Size.

Martin Rees, who spoke at Long Now in 02010, says we may be living in a multiverse.

View more: Next