OJ will probably be granted parole today. How about that?
Printable View
OJ will probably be granted parole today. How about that?
I think he should run for governor.
They had to rob a bank to save the bank from bankrobbers
Interesting times we are living in
http://haseebq.com/a-hacker-stole-31m-of-ether/
^^^^
Oh and BTW, this is some crazy shit
My mate potentially lost $40k in lost bitcoin returns by going on holiday. He's been forced to sit on his wallet rather than game the system. He might have turned a corner the last 48 hours, depends what he's been doing.
I try to tell him it's like me thinking I could've won a huge pot if I hadn't sat out for a piss and played the 89o that would've crushed a set of aces. But really he's sat out for longer than a piss, and would've folded a fair few premium hands. So while his $40k figure is unrealistic, he certainly could've made significant returns.
I'm not sure I'm cut out for this kind of thing.
Holy shit. I don't even want to touch stuff like that. Like I almost put a couple k in bitcoin for some shady bitcoin poker sites after black friday. I would have made over 1000% on that money. I'd rather not even consider gambling like that. That shit will follow you. Fuck stocks and currencies.
I'm not interested in stocks and currencies from a short-term pov, but as a long term investment, I can see the appeal. You invest x amount, with a return of y amount in mind. It remains a risk, of course, but it's easier to not think about how much money potentially could've been earned with optimal trading.
The problem with trading as an income is that without any knwoledge on what is actually causing the market fluctuations, essentially every time you buy or sell you're taking a 50-50 risk as to whether it's going to go up or down in the immediate future. Furthermore, you have the added question of when to buy/sell. The probability of optimal trading is ludicrously low, and if you're acting on pure faith or gut, it turns it into a lottery (quite literally).
Seems like the same as mashing buttons in poker. I'm no poker expert, but I at least try to make +ev moves. If I were trading in bitcoin/ether/whatever, I'd be mashing buttons and basically would be lucky to make money.
Long term though, well it's reasonable to think it's going to be a better investment than putting the money in the bank. I have enough confidence that cryptocurrencies will thrive over time that I'd risk a few k if I had it. It's just it would have to be money I could write off for 5 years or whatever my strategy is.
Smart isn't about not making mistakes, it's about making mistakes and learning from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
It's too early to argue it's not a smart system.
Do actual humans do trades anymore? I thought the proliferation of the success stories where some nerd wrote an algorithm that made him loads of monies in micro-transactions was the game changer that would make human involvement nearly obsolete.
What is the role of a human broker these days? Assemble a portfolio upon which to run the computer program which buys and sells?
Or is that pretty much automated, too?
It's not a bank. It's decentralised, it's the polar opposite of a bank. /pedantry
But yeah ok for some reason (even though you bolded "default smart") I thought you were saying "smart contract" was the oxymoron.
As much as it shows how stupid lots of security checks are on systems where you're basically giving your details away to hackers who want it with the company thinking you're protecting your account more, does that not show how great hcakers are? How many times in history can you think of a bank being robbed and at the end they are just like "just did it for lulz guys, here's how you can improve security".
Netflix and Youtube @ 10Mbps and the Pai shill hasn't even overturned the law yet
https://arstechnica.com/information-...deo-to-10mbps/
Buhbye internet video streaming in the US without paying moar, been nice knowing ya
Get ready for dat slo lane
In other news, if I order twenty steaks, I should pay the same as the guy who orders one steak and I should get my twenty steaks at the same time too.
But I do see what is going on. You just accept whatever corporate line being thrown your way as unquestionable fact. The public is always wrong and they corporations are always good because they know what they are doing.
And yet we just caught them lying. They are throttling and yet deny vehemently that it is happening. We, the public are all delusional, collectively.
And these are the people you want to entrust with the future of American internet
Ah, the standard "but ... economics!" trope. I am dissapoint
As I highlighted above, a ≠ b, almost insultingly so
So the ISPs charge more for more use for the lolz?
I just presented you with facts indicating these people are lying
"Yeah but you have to pay moar! 1 steak is not 20 steaks!"
Umm
I don't, can't and won't ever trust PROVEN liars that want me to "believe in their models" "because economics". Also, they are under legal obligation not to bullshit their shareholders, and guess what
https://arstechnica.com/information-...ps-themselves/
The exact opposite as to what they spent $600B arguing FOR.
They do, can and will bullshit the gullibles in the general public though
And?
That behavior is GOOD in an economy. All the great stuff you have in your life came from markets in which some companies did exactly that. Price discrimination is GOOD even when you don't understand why. The way in which it is a problem is when the market is monopolized. The question then is "why is it monopolized?" and then you solve for that. ISP is monopolized mostly due to municipal regulation. Fun fact: one of my professors is about as deeply populist progressive pro-government as it gets and even she acknowledged that the municipal regulations is the main problem causing lack of competition.
And?
If their answer is "we charge you more because we want to nah nah boo boo" it's still GOOD for the economy in the long term. It is an important part of how markets correct and ultimately end up with higher quality and higher quantities at lower prices than otherwise.
If the government regulates the market too much, then the described companies' behavior is feasibly bad (though not necessarily so) due to unforced error, self-imposed monopoly.
Solve for that first then come back to me.
As is, it is incredibly difficult to enter this market and said barrier of entry keeps going up. I have already linked to an article detailing why, so here goes
https://arstechnica.com/business/201...s-really-hard/
Great, so solve that first then give free reign to the internet to all the newcomers. As stands, I cannot allow this much power in the hands of an oligopoly who will legally fight you for their rights to exist into oblivion with a now huge warchest.
From the article:
Quote:
"I have never seen an independent… start up without having to fight the incumbent legally," Patten told Ars. "The incumbents are notorious for frivolous delay lawsuits. They know perfectly well they're frivolous, but it's a delay tactic. They have an army of lawyers and a budget to support lawsuits the size of Godzilla. That's one of their tactics, it always has been. It probably will continue to be so for many years yet to come."
Wuf, you seem to think that adding and subtracting government is like addition and subtraction. You may be right. But Jack is making a strong case that it is like multiplication and division, wherein order of operations is paramount to a desired end. You're not making a good argument for your assumption.
I got tickets to go see Dinosaur Jr, literally no one I've told seems excited in any way about it. It's like I've told them I'm going to see some unkown band (including someone I'm going with). Am I just going to get there and it be twaty people my age and 40 year olds?
What's that movie about?
The market correcting mechanism still works with the lobby. If incumbent ISPs increase prices such that they have increase profits then it incentivizes other firms to enter (and to lobby to do so) as well as incentivizes politicians to listen to those lobbyists more than the incumbent's lobbyists due to the addition of very angry voters.
Some of the fundamental models taught in ECON 101 are about how the more profits in a market the more input from firms/entrepreneurs who want to enter the market (also incentives to produce/consume substitutes). In the short run this always looks painful and people really don't like it, but allowing the process to play out makes for a more robust market than otherwise. When the market is a monopoly, the government cant fix it by setting price controls. With price controls, the government can only entrench the monopolies and keep a stasis of quality, quantity, and price. Yet, in a growing population and a growing economy, this is negative growth. And the setting of price controls eliminates most of the incentive of additional firm/entrepreneur entry and substitution.
It sounds like your view from your last two posts is that because we haven't done what solves the problem, we should instead do something else that doesn't solve the problem.
You've made the claim that decreasing the reach of the government, despite in which order you decrease specific instances of its reach, is a good. I'd argue that even if we concede that reduced government is a good, there is likely an order of operations and ideal ratios which much be respected to see the outcomes you want.
So, to be specific here, deregulating ISP's before dealing with their virtual monopoly is the wrong order of operations. Hell, for the sake of argument, I'll even concede that either order eventually gets us to where we want to be, but still the order matters in how long and how grueling the path ahead will be.
I completely agree.
I would agree if there was sufficient evidence that when bureaucracies gain power, that power doesn't stick around virtually without end. I don't want the FCC to set standards regarding the ISP because I believe it will nearly always do so from then on. If I can pull from Milton Friedman, when asked, he gave only one example of when he has seen government give up a power it had: the draft.Quote:
So, to be specific here, deregulating ISP's before dealing with their virtual monopoly is the wrong order of operations. Hell, for the sake of argument, I'll even concede that either order eventually gets us to where we want to be, but still the order matters in how long and how grueling the path ahead will be.
Also, I think that FCC setting standards and prices in the ISP market will have a further deleterious effect on firm entry and innovation regardless of the municipal regulatory situation. Firm entry, production increase, an increase in the supply curve -- come from investors and producers seeing the potential for profits in the market. Each marginal increase in profit in a monopoly market sends a less powerful signal than in the other more competitive market types, but it still sends the signal. Government setting prices in that market mostly eradicates the profit signal and thus entrenches the monopoly. The harder we make it for ISPs to profit, then the harder we make it for firms to enter the market and compete, resulting in being stuck with the same shitty ISPs for a long time.
I forgot to add that the more firm entry you get into a monopolistic market, the more competitive it becomes. The government disallowing ISPs to charge more money based on what they want can be the difference between being stuck with a monopoly ISP market vs. getting actual competition and choices and ultimately having price reduction and quality/quantity increase.
Ok, so are the ISP's (the two of them), ignorant of the fact that they're pushing for their downfall? Shouldn't they want to preserve the status quo, or even better for them, increase government overreach, thereby keeping the crowds out of the neighborhood?
If what you say is true, their actions seem terribly misaligned with their incentives.
That's a great question. It's one I've thought some on. I've not seen the idea addressed specifically in economics and I don't think anybody knows the answer.
My idea for what's going on is that nobody knows how to quantify it. The more variables and the longer projected time, the more models fall apart. Smart companies certainly are not relying on models to determine how they should act now due to what they think will happen in 10, 20, 30 years*. The time value of money really throws this through a loop. For example, even if investors think that a gain of 1% profits today will result in a loss of 2% profits in 20 years, they make much more if they take the 1% gain now (because interest). Also, a company that makes more money now gets better at what it does, can expand more, can diversify more, and can innovate more. For example, if Comcast has some investment ideas that require a tremendous amount of capital but fundamentally change/strengthen the company, increasing profits now to make that happen can have a net positive result even if their initial business sees a decrease in profits later because of it.
Illustration of the above: if I invent the shovel and hire people to shovel things for customers, I make some sweet profits. But if I add to my business manufacturing of shovels and sell them to many more customers so they can shovel themselves, I make way more profits despite it decimating my original shovel-laborer-for-hire business.
On a more philosophical level, a decrease in profits due to how the market changes due to the profit-increasing behavior of companies is more an unintended consequence in the view of those companies. As we see in other markets, the consequence isn't enough such that the initial increase in profits is a net negative. If that was the case, profits would actually be losses.
*That's not to say that market prices don't reflect what the markets currently think about what will happen 10, 20, 30 years from now. It's common to think that markets only think in short term, but I estimate that is not true. The efficient market hypothesis (which is the standard used today) posits that current market prices do reflect what people think about any time in the future. An example to make it obvious: if we all thought that aliens are going to invade and try to wipe us out in 2075, market prices would be much different today than they are.
I should rephrase this. They do use models, just when things are simple. For example, if they have two projects that are projected to take 20 years, wherein they can only do one, if they have sufficient quantitative knowledge of the costs and payoffs of the projects, there are financial models that can tell them which project to do. The stuff we're discussing is much more complex than that though. Nobody knows how to approximate Google Fiber's response to a change in behavior from Comcast.
This is all fine and dandy and with perfect information it would work pretty well, then only stupidity and manipulation attempts would skew the results. I think it's needless to say that people suck at predicting, I see no good reason to think that masses of people would be significantly better. The market isn't a Who Wants To Be A Millionaire audience full of trivia geeks. Have there been even any attempts to measure how accurately these market predictions work, are they better than a random guess?
This is all well and interesting, but it doesn't plug the huge plot hole. Your whole argument on the issue hinges on either this being true or the big ISPs being incompetent irrational actors. You don't provide enough support for the former to argue so forcefully against net neutrality.
ISPs just think it's a great way for them to make money in the short term, that's what they care about. In a market so monopolised maybe them all goofing off will allow others to enter but it's more likely that everyone just gets worse service for a quite a while.
My argument hinges on the supply and demand model. It's quite a robust model.
The discipline may be best thought of as having at its foundation in a few ceteris paribus models and some principles that usefully describe the evidence. Beyond that, scientific demonstration comes with too many confounding variables and even the most simple questions in economics have not been answered "by science". Economics is derivation from the aforementioned models and principles and behavior.
Regarding the topics we've been discussing, what we almost certainly know to be true is that increases in profits incentivize firm entry, that firm entry increases supply, and that a supply increase reduces price. What we don't know is everything else*. We just try to be as consistent and coherent in our logical derivations from what we know to describe generalities about what we on average expect to see happen in markets.
*There are some less direct but relevant things we also know. Like how a price increase decreases quantity demanded (how much depends on elasticity), decreases demand for complements, and increases demand for substitutes.
Supply and demand models function very well under widely variable conditions. I say we "almost certainly know" the things that supply and demand models say ceteris paribus because they're still just models of reality instead of actual reality.
If that doesn't address your point, please clarify.
As I understand it, the most we can say, is that supply and demand curves are relatively stable when looked at over long time periods, and accounting for large-scale financial buffers and man-power to smooth out adjustment periods.
Supply and demand curves are hypothetical. They are not based on measurements, and when used, the plots don't have labeled axes. It's merely a qualitative description that makes sense, under certain assumptions (assumptions which you and I strongly disagree about, i.e. whether rational actors exist).
They are good descriptors in retrospect, when the "actual" pressures of supply and demand are known. However, they fail at any present-tense descriptive power, because they can only, at most, describe the current state of supply and demand. Those curves are not static over time. The lines move as market adjustments are made.
Next, they are better and better descriptors of economic situations the more abstract their subject matter is. Supply and demand can be a rather stable long-term predictor of highly amalgamated economic sectors, like looking at the entire food industry. Broadly, supply and demand curves can be rather stable predictors of how the food industry's supplies and demands will find equilibrium.
However, if we zoom in on a mom-and-pop shop and try to quantify the exact supply pressures and exact demand pressures at any given moment, we're dead in the water. That's before we ask what the curves will look like next week, or maybe in the morning vs. in the afternoon.
The model fails at specifics, which is why I think calling it "robust" is a mistake. It gives a warm, pleasant feeling of describing things when we abstract those things further and further away from human decisions, but the more we try to apply the model to guide our decisions, the more it fails.
This isn't even discussing whether or not those business owners are capable of acting in their best interest, which is the fundamental assumption behind supply and demand, and which I think any observation of human activity shows the folly of.
Your characterization of supply and demand is correct regarding how it is taught regarding goods/services markets and how elasticity of the curves can change, yet we see the framework in specific ways too. For example, the model fits how stock prices adjust.
Regarding the rational thing, I don't disagree with you. "Rational" is a very misleading word economists chose to use. Within the economics framework, even acting against your own "best interests" is rational. To an economist, an choice in itself is rational. List any choice that looks irrational to a normal person and an economist will call it rational. It's because the word means something different to economists than to us normal folk.
Yeah, so I still think your case is less than compelling. Theoretically things should be better-- but how long it takes for the industry to settle is not clear, and how damaging a temporary, unregulated ISP monopoly could be is unknown. Five years of this could set us back fifty years. So many points can be conceded to you, and it's still not a rosy picture.
Got offered a place on a maths teaching course.
I'm not making the case that it *would* be better to let an ISP to set prices however it wants. I am making the case that economic theory says allowing that is how things have a higher likelihood of getting better in the long term. Economic theory also says that if you want a monopoly to get better in the short term, regulate their prices. Keep in mind that every bit of "damage" the ISPs cause, the greater the incentive for producers to offer their services and for consumers to substitute. This "damage" is so to speak what we've been talking about the whole time. Economics is largely about asking "what's the effect of that, and the effect of that effect, and the effect of that effect of that effect?" One of the effects in the chain is that the more "damage" the ISPs cause (from increasing prices), the greater the incentive to subvert them. In a free-ish market economy (which is what we have), this is part of the Invisible Hand (the observation that started it all).
If it sounded like I was claiming that a price increase is good, I never intended that. I've been trying to discuss how the effects of that are different than thought outside the field of economics. The ability to set prices however you want is of the utmost importance to a functioning economy. What I've been trying to say isn't that it would be better for Comcast to raise its prices, but that if it does, it's not bad for the economy the way popular discussion would have us believe.
Good to hear you may be teaching multiple math courses. Hope it works out.
Well... not really, no.
It can say things like, stock prices are expected to [...], but it can't say, "GM stock will rise by 3 points today due to the combined pressures of supply and demand as they play out in the next 24 hours."
So we're back to this: Supply and Demand is a hypothetical model which seems to describe broad trends in a widely congealed market of many actors. It gains more and more power the further it is abstracted away from human decisions. It loses all power when it is used to describe any specific, human-decision based outcomes.
Partially, yes, but not the biggest reason, no.
The biggest reason is the abstraction argument. The model seems more and more useful the less pinned down by IRL facts it is. Its predictive power is not uniformly understood among credible economists, who will use the same model to formulate different predictions. This is because the abstraction isn't well-defined. The loose terminology of the model is understood differently by different economists, who are therefore not using the same model, despite using the same words.
If a model can explain an outcome and its antithesis outcome using the same inputs and mechanisms of the model, then the model is absurd.
It's important to distinguish between ceteris paribus and not. Economists don't disagree on the ceteris paribus effect. Disagreements come when extrapolating. You are correct that supply and demand doesn't tell us what will happen in the real world to GM stock due to a change in demand because what happens in the real world isn't ceteris paribus. An increase in demand for GM stock does push up its stock price (to the best of our knowledge), BUT a whole host of other stuff also happens, which can yield a lower price.
You're definitely right that we don't use S&D to tell us what a price/quantity will be, because S&D is ceteris paribus and the world is never ceteris paribus. Observations have been that over time the ceteris paribus effect holds directionally and on average.
Make a law that says that anybody named MadMojoMonkey who post on FTR must be paid $200/hour by any employer, and the S&D forecast would be a decline of quantity of MadMojoMonkeys employed. This forecast would be extremely effective in this new and unique situation, because (if I may use my crystal ball) employment of MadMojoMonkeys would quite reliably fall to around zero. Does this not show robustness of the supply and demand model?
Oh, and these finally exist. At least for one guy for now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI8E4cda_ww
Here's a better question. If you could address this I would be grateful.
A line from something I'm reading on robustness in economics regarding robust business finance models:
"traders analyze a security’s price data using technical analysis to forecast price movements that result from disparities in the security’s supply and demand of the moment."
Given that the robust technical analysis forecast depends on the consistency and effectiveness of the supply and demand model, does this not mean that supply and demand is a robust model? Or am I using the term wrongly? The law of supply and demand is a thing. Are laws not robust?
Clearly you're campaigning to ensure I am underpaid, and employers will jump at that opportunity.
Besides all the other MadMojoMonkey's who post on FTR's will surely have some non-0 chance to actually be worth over $200 an hour or at least to convince someone that they are.
[total detour]These stories kind of congregate in a college engineering dept, but it's common to know of a professor who got their doctorate, "worked" for one summer, then "retired" to teaching. It's amazing how out-of-date some industrial processes are, even in huge manufacturing industries. An engineer with a 50-year updated education can walk in to some places and say, "How often do you replace that $100k bearing on that city-sized machine? Every 2 months? I think I can make it so you only have to replace it twice a year." and deliver. That company is like, "You just saved us $400k a year. Have a bunch of money to you which is now a trivial expense to us."[/detour]
Seriously, though. We'd need a Bayesian analysis on that to determine how much of that was a coincidence and how much causality.
I mean, there's a non-0 chance I become unemployed whether or not this law passes. This law is directed at a group of 1 individual, so I'd argue that there's no real way to determine the effect of the law, due to the law not being ... what was it... clitoris pubis? something like that.
As I understand it, Fourier analysis is the backbone of these analysis programs. The Fourier analysis is simply a way of describing any event as additive combinations of repeating events on various time-scales. I.e. it's frequency analysis. It's not actually inputting any data about supply or demand, just looking at a wiggly line, and decomposing that wiggly line into sine waves and using those sine waves to extrapolate into the near future.
It's a purely mathematical process, that takes 0 human factors into account.
So, while it would be in the position of increased authority, being well abstracted away from actual humans, that's not what it does.
Even in the article you cite, they're not willing to equate this to the supply and demand model.
"In fact, technical analysis can be viewed as simply the study of supply and demand forces as reflected in the market price movements of a security."
They start out by saying, "in fact," and then immediately offer an opinion. This kind of bogus use of words is typical of a charlatan.
In fact, my butt can be viewed as a work of art. No one has yet to do so, but it's a fact that it could happen.
This is the article I was looking at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robust.asp
You'll not get an argument from me against the claim of charlatan-ness in the social sciences, humanities, or business. The shit bounds there.
Well, it's true.
Exactly.
And trying to strongarm said measures which will "help everyone" into place is mafia like. I have no interest in aiding the mafia.
If net neutrality is so harmful to you, why would you end an investigation into this exact thing? Afraid of the results, aren't we?
Why would you make it more difficult for poor people to get broadband subsidies?
And complaining about monopolies and their effects, and yet making it easier for large tv channels to merge? Monopolies, much?
You put in a decision to eliminate price caps into business broadband market by imposing a new standard that deems certain local markets competitive even when there's only one broadband provider. You know, because it's awesomely competitive when there is only one provider.
You open your proposal for "comments", and yet you know that it is bombarded with anti-net-neutrality bots. And you pay no mind to it. So the entire websites comment system is a farce. A joke. You know that, and love it like that
You got hit by a DDOS, know exactly who did the DDOS (ips ranges are a wonderful thing), yet claim ignorance and only say it happened "because John Oliver".
But more importantly, Title II hasn't hurt investments nor the ISPs themselves, according to the ISPs THEMSELVES.
These are all sourced and verified. It's not stuff I pulled out of my ass. It's also not based on some theory that "should work" because "my prof said so". This is the real world, and these shenanigans are real. This is as close to legalized mafia as I've ever seen, strongarming your benefit into existence by placing one unelected guy on your payroll in the one spot that he should be and fuck everything else. Burn, world, because profits.
I cannot fathom possibly defending such scummy behaviour ever
Your links are all about what the government has done.