= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
For those of you still waiting, got an email to the effect of: We did it, sorry it took so long, it'll be uploaded in 3 weeks. Also they said that more than half were not yet done.
What kind of board games do get played at those meetups?
Every 3rd meetup is board games: there's generally dominion, Zendo fairly common, and often one "long" game going on sort of on the side.
I think I'm probably missing some common games that I don't pick as much...
In response to
Open Thread: March 4 - 10
Lately I've been wondering about telescope resolving power, and physical limits on the size of features we can see at interstellar distances.
I know about the diffraction limit, which (by my quick and dirty math) seems to imply a telescope on the order of a kilometer in size could resolve objects several meters across, but I imagine it's actually more complicated than that. Does anyone know a good source of information on the topic?
Not sure I've got a good source for you, but if you use the Rayleigh criterion you get that you can just about make out earth-sized objects using visible light at 4 ly. You could use much higher energy photons (better resolution from lower wavelength), but this gives you other problems. Anything beyond visible light won't make it through the atmosphere (1 km is a BIG thing to put into space), and x and gamma rays are really hard to build optics for.
In response to
LINK: In favor of niceness, community, and civilisation
Scott just responded here, with a number of points relevant to the topic of rationalist communities.
I would assume there was supposed to be a link there?
(Me+1) 90%
(+1 more) 50%
I understand. Nevertheless, discussion so far hasn't gotten anywhere. Perhaps downvoting meetup threads would put some pressure on people involved in meetups to resolve the matter.
As of now, I haven't downvoted any meetup-related thread.
I'm the guy who posts the DC meetups. While I'm sympathetic to the problem, I'm not sure what I can do to help, aside from not posting meetups at all (not really an option). Pressuring me won't help you if I can't do anything.
The book Fortune's Formula describes a simple investing scheme invented by Claude Shannon, referred to as "Shannon's Demon", that's specifically designed to make money in markets described by log random walks. I found a blog post describing the scheme here. (Some previous discussion.) I'd expect this kind of volatility harvesting scheme to work better for Bitcoins than for other assets because Bitcoins are more volatile.
However, I'm not convinced that the market for Bitcoins is efficient... for example, there are going to be 84 million Litecoins to Bitcoins' 21 million, but typical investors don't know that, so 4 Litecoins for $100 feels like more of a steal than 1 Bitcoin for $100 (even Silicon Valley software engineers commonly forget to account for this basic division operation). There was talk on /r/bitcoin about how once the price got to the $1000 range, people seemed reluctant to invest since it seemed so expensive and how things should be reframed as "mBTC". And I'd expect that quant firms are reluctant to trade bitcoins due to factors like institutional regulation and it not being serious-seeming enough for themselves or their investors.
I'm doing this (Shannon's Demon). So far it's profitable, although I think I've taken on more risk premium than investing 50% BTC 50% USD and not balancing.
This was based on a math error, it actually is a prisoners dilemma.
I made a similar mistake, and randomly generated defect.
Welp.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
What is 'it' here, just your particular raw SNP results and not news about any hits of reaching genome-wide statistical-significance?
Just my particular results.