adaptiveValleys

> middle-man firm who are creating the security and trying to unload it.

If the investment bank only facilitates the transaction, then the key incentive that could tilt the transaction toward having a sense of urgency, and as a result, indifference to the rating accuracy would be the personal gain of the individual/team attempting to process the transaction.

If that assumption holds, would tying in a performance based return to the banker who sells the security, balance it? That way they also have incentive to make sure the rating is as accurate as possible?

If so, then it seems that it would probably be resolved through legislation, because otherwise it appears to be an intractable coordination problem. Unless including a return for the seller based on the performance is something that occurs in the industry for other types of securities.

I think that's the intent, but it seems to only have incentivized discovering another proxy for race. For example, I recently watched an infosec talk 'hacking your credit score.'[0] Where the presenter mentioned that Fair Isaac (a reporting agency mentioned in the article) has a parameter in their algorithm called 'HMA' (High Minority Area), that he found in an internal presentation. I think a solution would be any parameter that remotely gives a correlate for race should be entirely eliminated from scoring systems.

Another startling insight from that talk was how normal services (i.e. home utilities, insurance, etc) will do credit inquiries and set a customer's rate based on their score. Which results in people with low credit scores pay more for services that are traditionally unrelated to borrowing. I'm worried that it could lead to a positive feedback loop that heavily affects those with poor credit scores in the long term. For this, it seems like a limitation on the kind of business relationships allowed to perform credit inquiries should be implemented.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gFDnQGr6WU

I agree. He interviews a lot of fascinating people with highly-specialized backgrounds. To research their work and understand it enough to have great conversational flow and remain highly insightful would take a lot of time.

But since this isn't his full-time job, I think trading-off asking very good questions for the flow of the dialogue is worth it.

The name was chosen very carefully for a specific purpose, nothing to do with proclaiming moral high-ground. Eric explains the various meanings in a video he uploaded to his channel [1].

I would argue Molyneux is not remotely part of the IDW. I haven't heard anyone within it say anything remotely positive about him or willing to associate with him. Eric's brother, Bret an evolutionary biologist, regularly mocks Molyneux and explains why his interpretation of evolutionary theory is wrong [2][3][4][5].

Also part of the IDW name originates from Eric's observation that mainstream academics unwilling to either publicly debate his findings or defend theirs. When those findings could potentially decrease the impact of their work or demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor [6]. He's noticed this in other fields too, like biology with Bret's theory on cultural evolution. Only just this year did he get a chance to debate Dawkins.

[1] 'Why the "Intellectual Dark Web" has such a crazy name': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr0OX6ai4Qw

[2] https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1070217128211443712

[3] https://twitter.com/bretweinstein/status/1070127960009564160

[4] https://twitter.com/bretweinstein/status/1103765054191656963

[5] https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1070150469895413760

[6] Eric's talk at Stanford from 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_brHQRMu9k

He doesn't consider himself a physicist either.[1]

[1] https://youtu.be/2wq9x2QcZN0?t=2025 At 33:45 of the podcast after he gives the kinetic-potential energy analogy to describe his distrust of Pinker's optimism.

I'm very much like you, and I think startups/small companies with a flat management structure (i.e. level obfuscation as another commenter phrased it) or where most managers have engineering backgrounds.

In my experience at large companies, on teams that were technical and heavily collaborated with engineering, but were not overseen by engineering managers. Middle management was entirely focused on optimizing for metrics that were either assigned to them, or would result in career progress; instead of what was best for the company. Regardless of whether the companies claimed to have a "nothing is someone else's problem" culture. As a result, any embodiment of that principle, was either punished or perceived as creating problems by non-technical managers. Even if direct praise was often received from engineers and their managers for those actions. In that workplace dynamic, it inherently carries a lot of risk and easily puts a target on your back.

Besides posts like this that give first-hand accounts from employees. It's quite hard to identify what would be an honest signal of true dedication to that principle. Especially in interviews where you're a very qualified candidate, it's difficult to tell if interviewer is trying to selling you the idea of working there.

There's a fascinating youtube channel called X-Pilot that does videos on flight incidents/disasters. The creator gathers a lot of really interesting info and does a brief step by step recreation of the incident in a simulator, and then explains what the regulatory bodies did as a result.

Often in-flight recordings are included. Some of which are quite frightening.

Here's the one on the Rudder issue mentioned in the post: https://youtu.be/ochby0LiGfM

True, which is why looking at so generally makes it seem paradoxical.

I can't recall where it read it, but I think it's the result of some phagocytic, either auto- (i.e. lysosomes, intracellular clean up) or macro- (i.e. macrophages, a type of white blood cell used from extracellular clean up).

Seems like there isn't a clear enough syntactical delineation between beneficial (exercise-linked) and harmful (disease/infection-linked) inflammation.

I'm sure they are, so they a pass those lovely negative externalities onto the customer because they know it's in demand and only they provide that service.

If only they had a competitor that could launch the same products a few months later but offered higher reliability off the bat, that could eventually force Amazon to improve their reliability or risk losing customers long term.

Being first to market doesn't ensure eventual market dominance. Sure, it could give you important feedback. But if your product is subpar, the feedback will have a ton of noise and possibly be useless. Plus it's not worth creating negative externalities and earning the reputation.

Agreed. I recently heard in a talk an example of NLP being used to help rank sellers by analyzing messages between buyers and sellers, before and after transactions.

Another example was how Taobao increased the number of useful reviews by allowing sellers to pay for reviews, and used NLP to determine if the review was useful. If it was, only then would the reviewer get paid. This would then dis-incentivize sellers expecting bad feedback from paying for reviews, and incentivize good sellers who were seeking honest, relevant feedback.

Seems like both examples can still be gamed, but it seems like a step in the right direction.

MIT & Harvard, NCBI says Research Support, US Gov't, P.H.S. (I believe that stands for public health services, based on googling US Gov't PHS). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/221933

Since I can't read the paper, I'm not sure. I hesitant to generalize, but if dementia can be broadly defined as global, regional, or nuclei-specific cell death. Then a good rule of thumb is anything that impacts the homeostatic equilibria of the CNS in a negative manner, will eventually lead to dementia. Which would account for why there seems to be a plethora of causes.

Very interesting. I was able to find the patent, but not the whole paper. Seems to suffice as a substitute.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4181128

The criteria for adaptive evolution, in the classical Darwinian sense, are:

1). Reproduction. 2). Variation between the products of reproduction. 3). Heritability between those variants. 4). Differential success among the variants.

Anything that has those four characteristics will experience adaptive evolution. Where it gets really fascinating is when you realize it applies to things that don't go through biological reproduction, for example the graphical user interface.