All of Euglossine's Comments + Replies

Historically, haven't assets that claim to take less than 3 years to double in value had a high probability of losing value instead? What are examples of the assets of this sort in the past few decades and at the present time?

1MikkW
Of course, it's easy for someone to claim that something will double in value quickly, and sometimes things even double in value quickly, despite being built on hot air (textbook example, the dutch tulip rush). The important trick is to use first-principles, real-world reasoning to identify the few opportunities that actually can generate real value that quickly. The world would be very different if such companies didn't exist. I invested in Tesla, Microsoft, and Google using such real-world, first-principles reasoning, and these companies has grown at such a clip during the time I have been invested in them (which has been for ~1-3 years depending on the specific asset)

Which thing you think is good and right is unclear, unless I assume you think like me. 

Texas hospital suspends 200 workers for refusing Covid-19 vaccine. Governor has vowed to stop this sort of thing, so we’ll see how that goes. This seems obviously good and right

2Zvi
Fixed in original for clarity along with several other minor things, mods can reimport.  I don't think this is unclear to anyone who reads the posts (to the extent that I'm not going to clarify within this comment), but in isolation it is indeed unclear. 
Answer by Euglossine*20

The big problem I see with all of the methods you describe to avoid matching is that they are one-offs. A mask obscures your identity; you are attempting to make your face indistinguishable from anyone else's. But alterations like (most of ) the ones you describe just create a separate identity -- more akin to plastic surgery. This is great if you are trying to avoid linking yourself to a former identity, but not as useful for trips to the grocery store, where this new ID will be tracked and monetized.  

My suggestion would be to wear something that hi... (read more)

As an ML practitioner, that's not what I'd mean if I said "94% accurate". I would mean that the label was correct 94% of the time. This is very much affected by the size of the db -- that is probably why the use a weaselly phrase "can reach" -- "The average recognition rate can reach 94.1%"  says the Watrix link.