All of Clark Benham's Comments + Replies

I think you're asking the VLLM to do too much in a single call. 

I was trying to get the VLLM to extract GD&T data from the NIST standardized renders of ASME Y14 tolerancing standards (eg. screenshotting 1 page at a time from https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/noindex/2022/04/06/nist_ftc_06_asme1_rd.pdf ). 

Asking "List all GD&T and their matching element IDs" would totally fail, but would start to be reasonably when I only asked for 5-8 specific element ids at a time, and asking for the data of a single element id at a time with f... (read more)

Subject: On practical machine learning, taking you from the 101 to being aware of practical edge cases before using in business settings. The parts of MLE you wouldn’t get from coding tutorials or math.

Recomend:

  1. Chip Huyen’s Designing Machine Learning Systems: An Iterative Process for Production-Ready Applications. Very well structured and complete. The GitHub repo also has links to practical production blogs.

Over

  1. Machine Learning Engineering by Andriy Burkov. Not quite as full or well written as Huyen’s, but did cover slightly different topics (eg al

... (read more)

"The system will always grind you down", but you're allowed to opt out and it's getting easier all the time.

You give the constraints of the middle class worried they'll slip down, not the poorest Americans directly.  If 12% of Americans live in poverty, then the example concerns are those of the 12-50th percentiles.  You say the lumpen-proletariat will always exist, but prove that the lives of the proletariat won't improve much.

 

"credentialist colleges that raise their prices to capture more and more of the returns to the credential, until huge portions of the former middle class's early-life earnings" - Explicitly not the poorest.

"Like working 60... (read more)

1whestler
"But housing prices over all of the US won't rise by the amount of UBI". If UBI were being offered across the US, I would expect them to rise by the amount of UBI.  If UBI is restricted to SF, then moving out of SF to take advantage of lower rents would not make sense, since you would also be giving up the UBI payments of equivalent value to do so.  (Edit): If you disagree, I'd appreciate it if you can explain, or link me to some resources where I can learn more. I'm aware that my economic model is probably simplistic and I'm interested in improving it.
2Clark Benham
"The system will always grind you down", but you're allowed to opt out and it's getting easier all the time.

"the addicted mind will find a way to rationalize continued use at all costs" 

Alan Carr wrote a series of books:  "The easy way to quit X". I picked up one since I figured he had found a process to cure addictive behaviors if he could write across so many categories.  I highly recommend it. The main points are:

  1. Give you 200 pages explaining why you don't actually enjoy X. Not that it's making your life worse but gives you momentary pleasure, you do not enjoy it. 
    1. I assume it's hypnotizing you into an emotional revulsion to the activity, a
... (read more)

I found that installing 3 website blockers at once on my laptop worked for me: the same way you use multiple anti-biotics at once to combat resistance. I might’ve trained myself to disable 1, then disable 2, then disable 3 if I added another whenever I realized the blocking wasn’t working: but by adding all 3 at once I wasn’t going to unblock all 3. Now it’s been long enough I’ve probably forgotten what I’d even need to do to unblock it.

The one thing the duality section was connected to was Riesz representation theorem. Riesz states every finite linear functional φ has a unique vector f, such that for all v, φ(v) = <v,f>.  It gives an isomorphism from functionals to vectors for a given norm, as the function is just multiplication with the vector.  

It's not tied to the section on duals in the text, but the section on duals lets you appreciate the result more.

The converse of fast paced conversations leading people to say stupid things is: if someone says something foolish it maybe not be a lie nor a tendency to BS nor stupidity. They may have responded faster than they thought. You can correct them not by refuting what was said but allowing them a moment to reconsider. A liar, politician, and fool are hard to reform or work with. “Stopping to think” may be easier trained and much easier used to keep a conversation on track.

The 2000-2021 VIX has averaged 19.7, sp500 annualized vol 18.1.

From a 2ndary source: "The mean of the realistic volatility risk premium since 2000 has been 11% of implied volatility, with a standard deviation of roughly 15%-points" from https://www.sr-sv.com/realistic-volatility-risk-premia/ . So 1/3 of the time the premia is outside [-4%,26%], which swamps a lot of vix info about true expect vol.

-60% would the worst draw down ever, the prior should be <<1%. However, 8 years have been above 30% since 1928 (9%), seems you're using a non-symetric CI.

Th... (read more)

3SimonM
I think you're trying to say something here like 18.1 <= 19.7, therefore VIX (and by extension) options are expensive. This is an error. I explain more in detail here, but in short you're comparing expected variance and expected volatility which aren't the same thing. I'm not going to look too closely at that, but anything which tries to say the VRP was solidly positive post 2015 just doesn't gel with my understanding of that market. (For example). (Also, fwiw anyone who quotes changes in volatility in percentages should be treated with suspicion at best) Yeah, it's not symmetric, but I wasn't the person who suggested it. All I'm saying is "OP says [interval] has probability 90%" "market says [interval] has probability 90%". OP being my post of arunto's?  There's several things unclear with this paragraph though:  1. Stocks are currently 'yielding' 1.3% (dividend yield) or 3.9% ('earnings' yield). Not sure exactly what yield you think is 4% over bonds. (Or which maturity bond you're considering). 2. "Thinking in the level of rates not changes to rates makes more sense, since investments are based on current projected rates.". The forward curve is upward sloping, yes, but if arunto thinks rates are going to change higher than what the market forecasts that will definitely change the price of equities. "A discounted cash flow analysis works regardless of how rates change year to year." Yes, but if you change the rates in your DCF you will change your price 3. "Currently the 30yr is trading at 2.11% so real rates around the 0 bound is the consensus view.". Currently 30y real rates are -15bps after a steep sell-off after the start of the year. 30y real rates were as low as -60bps in December. 10y real rates are more like -75bps (up from -110bps in December).  "the 0 bound" is something people talk about in nominal space because the yield on cash is somewhere in that ballpark. (These days people generally think that figure should be around -50 t

Options Nitpick: You can't use equity index* option prices as true probabilities because adding hedges to a portfolio makes the whole portfolio more valuable. People then buy options based on their value when added to the portfolio, not as individual investments.

The first reason option hedges make your portfolio more valuable is preferences: people don't just want to maximize their expected return, but also reduce the chance they go broke. People don't like risk and hedges reduce risk, ergo they pay more to get rid of risk. However you can't just subtract ... (read more)

2SimonM
I absolutely considered writing about the difference between risk-neutral probabilities and real-world probabilities in this context but decided against because: Over the course of a year, the difference is going to be small relative to the width of the forecast I'd be interested to hear if you think the differences would be material to my point. ie that [-60%, +30%] isn't a ~90% range that stocks return next year and that his forecast is not materially different to what the market is forecasting.
1Jan Christian Refsgaard
I will write a post shilling for myself, thanks. I was waiting for the post to be 'liked', if it got -10 karma then there would be no use in shilling for it :)

new design without the quote looks fine. 

I seem to be having a bug though/ironically am not able to solve it; I got the matrix that is F9 here https://www.dbglab.ru/en/slovar-dannykh/61/130/ (answer is 5)

 My function f(x) = 5x³ + 14x² + 8x + 20 -> f'(x) + x = 15x² + 28x + 8 + x = 528 is being marked incorrect.

1ballerburg9005
Can you look if there is any errors in the Javascript console? Right click document -> Inspect -> Console (it is a horizontal tab).

just pull something (and quickly) from the Flat Earth Society; https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/259821-flat-earth-society-trolls-elon-musk-claims-mars-round

is a prime example

1ballerburg9005
What about the new quote?

No, it's lower than the normal "8%" you hear because I'm not averaging across time. 

[+10%,  + 1%, +9%, +20%, 15%] = 9% if you average the percentages, but this represents putting in $100 at the start of each year and selling any excess gains at year end. The way people invest of putting in $100 once and letting it compound* gives

 1.1*1.01*1.09*1.2*1.15 = 1.6711662 total gain or 

1.6711662^(1/5) =  10.8% annualized.

The technical terms for this is non-ergodic see https://jasoncollins.blog/ergodicity-economics-a-primer/ for a descripti... (read more)

It seems deluk is investing with Bitfinex (blocked in US), which has lots of ongoing issues; see Patrick McKenzie on why the whole thing is a fraud that is down several hundred million and is likely to seize accounts https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/10/28/tether-and-bitfinex/ .

IIRC some individual investors in Binance (also supposed to be blocked for US investors) were being targeted for investigation by CFTC; there's an aspect of lending that lead to Know Your Customer violations (very hazy on specifics).

 

A legal way to put on this trade is to short Mi... (read more)

3sharpobject
The exchange is mentioned in the OP and is not Bitfinex. Putting on this trade by shorting MicroStrategy and holding bitcoin is problematic if your broker doesn't let you use your bitcoin to collateralize your MicroStrategy short.

That's a very selective term history; the exact bottom of the SP500 from Covid fear was March 20 2020, vs todays March 18th. Unless you put in everything on March 18th this is highly misleading. The true comparison would be your annualized dollar weighted average return (but for Schwab at least this isn't easily calculatable, as saving is counted as increasing portfolio weight, and buying increases the base investment, but without a proportional change in 'Total gain'). 

Since 2000 the average annual return of the SP-500 is 5.9%(6.1% for VTI since inception) and a reasonable approximation of what would be earned going forward. 

1[anonymous]
Is that 5.9% after subtracting inflation?
1Dan Weinand
Picking a Schelling point is hard. Since the post focused on very recent results, I thought that a one year time horizon was an obvious line. Vanguard does note that the performance numbers I quoted are time weighted averages. You are of course correct that over the long run you should expect closer to 5-8% returns from the stock market at large.

There's a similar pattern in Rap music, the misanthropic self promotion. The message of basically every lyric is either "I'm super successful" or "I know no bounds in what I will do"; either case has the listener emphasize with the sentiment of being better than others/not caring about others. I stopped listening when I noticed the avarice it was promoting, how I could only fantasize about being a $MM success, which not having a path to improve toward just gives the fantasy of becoming $MM.

EDIT: NVM. This is just proof I didn't get enough neonatal iodine.


For Section 2 on transaction costs you write the calculation for probability of winning is:

100 / ( ( ( 100 / 0.40 ) * 0.9 ) + 10 )
Where does the extra +10 come from?

EDIT: It's so that you're not paying taxes on the amount of the original wager.

maximum_%_bet_on_P = bet_amount / (conditional_winnings - fees )

= bet_amount / (conditional_winnings(1-fee%) + bet_amount*fee%))

4aphyer
The +10 is because the 10% fee does not apply to your original $100, only to profits. So if you would have $250 without the fee, rather than 250 * 0.9 = $225, you end up with $235.

Doesn't

D_KL(P[X]||Q[X])≤E_Y[D_KL(P[X|Y]||Q[X|Y])]

mean that you can't expect to improve by integrating in additional information Y?

3johnswentworth
Bit of an accidental pun, here. "Integrating additional information" (in the usual sense of the phrase), has exactly the opposite meaning of "integrate out a variable" - when we integrate over the variable (in the mathy sense of the phrase), we're throwing out whatever information it contains. So, yes - it does mean that we can't expect an approximation to improve when we integrate in additional information (in the layman's sense of the phrase).