I have some familiarity with the Markowitz model, but certainly not as much as you do about the practical use — could you share notes/articles/talks on the practical use? I’m super interested to learn more.
Black-Litterman model is an example of how to address the shortcoming of unreliable empirical inputs.
You'll also see more ad hoc approaches, such as simulating hypothetical scenarios to determine worst case scenarios.
It's not math heavy. Math heavy is a smell. Expect to see fairly simple monte carlo simulations, but with significant thought put into the assumptions.
If the archive.today contact is telling the truth, then this implies that WAAD had collected links containing CSAM and chose not to contact the person who could best get rid of the material. I think it implies either:
1. WAAD has developed a good way of detecting CSAM, but is ok with the CSAM staying available longer than it needs to, and remaining accessible to a wider audience than needed, in order to pursue their ulterior motive. In this case, they could be improving the world in some significant way, but are just choosing to do something else.
2. WAAD has intentionally had archive.today index CSAM material in order to pursue their ulterior motive.
Of course, option 2 is _much_ more damning than option 1, but I feel both are really bad, and naively I'd still expect option 1 to be illegal. If you know of a crime and intentionally hide it, that seem illegal.
This strategy is often called a "concierge" MVP. You deliver the service you claim, but behind the scenes everything is incredibly manual. Once you've proved people like the service, you then go make the process less manual. Zappos and Amazon are both famous for doing this.
p.s. -- I already put this in a chain, but the majority of comments are just claiming this is fraud. Thought it might be worth posting something slightly more visible.
There are many times a service like that might not be fraud. For example, if you never explicitly said it was an AI, and if every detail of the service remains the same, from the customer's perspective.
The privacy implications alone make the difference between a human sitting in on your meeting and an actual AI enough to call this fraud. Giving it a fancy name doesn't change that.
When I was teaching product development I called this the Mechanical Turk strategy. Completely agree that it isn’t automatically fraud, it can also be a cheap prototype that lets you start testing hypotheses ASAP.
+1, this strategy is often called a "concierge" MVP. You deliver the service you claim, but behind the scenes everything is actually incredible manual. Once you proved people like the service, you then go make the process less manual. Zappos and Amazon are both famous for doing this.
customers pay for the service, not the method-by-which-the-service-is-provided. If they explicitly sold it as a service without a human in the loop, then I think that's bad. If they just sold transcription..... then this is transcription.
> stock exchanges, banks, toll road operators, financial services and asset management are in … rent-seeking.
This is an absolutely insane take. If you truly believe it, then I propose two tests:
1. You should start a business that provides the same services without rent seeking. If they’re really these low-value things that are just charging high prices, then you should be able to setup very attractive alternatives, make a ton of money yourself, and improve the world in a big way.
2. If you don’t have the energy or willingness to start them yourself, you could limit your use of them to the absolute bare necessity. If you believe they extract value, you could probably do better for yourself by using them less.
> Software patents are mostly garbage and unneeded. And I say that having some in my name (I actually tried to get my name off them, but our lawyers said it's not possible)
I want to know about these patents that you want your name off of! What were they for? Why do you want your name removed? This is the opening to a great story, please tell!
I worked under Dave Limp for multiple years in Amazon's Consumer Devices group (like way under, I think he was my manager's skip manager?). I like him personally. But:
(1) His management in the Consumer Devices group did not lead to success, I feel we (and especially the consumer robotics group) basically floundered for 7 years :(
(2) He only left Devices to join Blue Origin like 2 years ago. 2 years is a decent length of time, but far too short for us to credit this success to him -- there have been many other forces building Blue Origin to what it is today. Maybe he gets 30% credit?
p.s. no offense to Mr. Limp, I must emphasize that he was a kind, polite, caring person, and certainly had the capacity for great decisions. It is unfortunate that Consumer Devices and CoRo hasn't had great success, and success may yet be just around the corner.
Hot as in, I’m feeling kind of feverish because I’m now sick because we let whooping cough spread to prove a point to people who get their medical information from Facebook.
I mean you could listen to the reasons that people who have lost trust in the institutions say they lost trust, and then try and rectify those reasons. But to do that is to admit that MAYBE the US govt didn't handle COVID perfectly. And that's a conversation many folks are unwilling to have. So this is the alternative we're left with.
It's uglier this way for sure and will cause more suffering. Sucks.
Those reasons are simple. People they trust are lying to them for monetary and political gain about a subject they personally know nothing about.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
---
> But to do that is to admit that MAYBE the US govt didn't handle COVID perfectly.
My friend, antivax bullshit has been swelling long before COVID. Turns out there's way more money and power in peddling these people snake oil than something that will help their health.
And secondly, whatever complaints you have about handling COVID, the vaccines for it were and are safe and effective, but no amount of evidence will ever convince them.
Current estimate is that some 5.6 billion people took at least one dose of a COVID vaccine[0]. You would think that if there severe complications, we would have seen them in, I don't know, hundreds of millions of people by now. Any day now, I am sure those people will all get super cancer and/or turn into zombies.
reply