domdip

If you look at this as a one-shot game, sure, but it's not. If everyone votes no the buyout would be rejected and the prospective buyers would have to offer a higher price to get it approved.

The tricky thing is that shareholder voters exhibit very weird and irrational behavior (due to proxies, lobbying, the T Rowe Price craziness, etc.), so I'm not sure game theory is terribly useful to begin with here.

This is unreadable.

Did you consider simply skipping estimated payments and paying the interest? It's only 3% above the federal funds rate. (Historical real return on equities is usually computed to be higher.)

Or a hybrid (pay a reasonable amount in estimated taxes but don't put any serious effort into getting it exact).

The stated reason for extending this to phones was so that they could reuse these models for inference purposes. I'm not sure what this post adds to that (the author seems to miss that point).

To be sure, all of science could reorient itself around your mystical drug experiences, but that could take a really long time. Wouldn't it be easier for you to ask those beings the two prime factors of a really big number? That would settle the question quickly enough.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the...

And most of them have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. (See payday loans, title loans, hard money loans, merchant cash advance, etc., etc.)

Earmarking is PR, it has little to no effect on actual education budgets (beyond setting an irrelevant floor). Money is fungible and budgets for education are never actually indexed to revenue from a particular tax.

You might start by following the "Independent contractor vs employee" guidelines. Of, say, California and the IRS.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...

How about opening an incognito window? (No charge.)

There's no hypocrisy there. He's probably had to personally be super-cautious about opening his mouth about things like this.

Maybe. More asset classes shouldn't hurt, although at some point they may not help much (new ones may be highly correlated to some combination of the previous ones) and lower fees are nice. For bigger portfolios WF's single-stock approach may add enough value to compensate for these. I'm sure both companies have simulations proving they're better...

Can't upvote enough.

The legit disagreement seems to be between WF's approach and the Bogleheads argument that you only need three funds. I lean toward the former but haven't been satisfied with any of the analysis around this honestly.

Because to some extent the asset classes are uncorrelated. This is the basis of Modern Portfolio Theory, and the reason you don't just dump everything into the highest-return class (e.g., stocks).

For a simplified model, check out Kelly gambling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Yeah "Google Play Music All Access Unlimited" is a truly horrible product name (not to mention un-Googleable if you mix up even one of the words).

Interestingly, he was Chief Product Officer of Color Labs, one of the more buzzy failures of the last few years.

Not knocking his other accomplishments. I'm just surprised I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the recent press he's been getting (even the tech press).

It's one of the 'curiosity gap' patterns. Hopefully we'll be immune to this sort of thing soon.

Krugman has a less dense explanation of some of these issues here:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/...

No, you're not right; everything here is totally correct.

You say Bayesian inference, I say bigotry.

Probably preferable to layoffs (cheaper, no bad press) if a major project is shutting down and they have nowhere to put them.

Also, could have been wrapped up in all sorts of other agreements about termination of contract. This was probably a major deal for both companies.

To address one of your points, the driver can't start the ride until you're in the car. So you're costing them money by making them wait a minute or two.

Was this always the case? Sure. But when ETAs were longer and drivers generally had more downtime, they were paid more per minute of actual driving. So this wasn't as painful.

If you want, you could try texting the driver saying "Hi, I'll be down in a minute, feel free to start the meter!" They might appreciate that, but it might also be against policy.

What a weird strawman article. Did the author really think Netflix produced television shows in the same way that Siri suggests gas stations? Any blockbuster-finding algorithm (or any other component of this decision) is going to have false positives and require human intervention.