sfrechtling

https://hypem.com/ - its a website that aggregates new music from music blogs.

I think an objective summary is going to be hard to come by.

The only thing I can add is that this view is common throughout history - think Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. The stereotype of Jewish people as being involved in the processes of finances and money lending may have been one seed for this.

Some countries like New Zealand and Australian have these - called Marine Reserves and limit commercial activities. They normally are in areas of great diversity (Milford Sounds) or international importance (great barrier reef).

Nope, very Australian, with another varient being "no f$&king wucks"

One of the last times this popped up, I printed it out and annotated it. I wanted to see if it was possible to take something so different to my working world (risk management) and apply it. Annotating it for my situation made it clear that this document should be seen as more far-reaching than just differentiating product managers. It really is pointing out the difference between good workers and bad workers in any organisation.

Every single point made has an element that can be applied to any organisation and career; Productive workers understand the context of business ("Good PMs take all important factors..."); successful workers solve the issue, not the symptom ("Good [PMs]...proper deeper into the [problem]"). Sometimes I look back at my annotated pages and score myself about whether I fall to "Bad" or to "Good". I'm still working at it.

I urge everybody to read, and apply this to their own careers. Don't pigeonhole this document just because it is defined as important to product managers. I see this as just as influential as Ray Dalio's Principles (http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...)

This article basically just outlines regulatory capital and (I think) avoids economic capital. In very very shorthand - regulatory capital is the capital needed to comply with local regulations (with guidance from BASEL and BIS), while economic capital is the more nuanced calculation used to calculate the risk of capital using the bank's own deduction and modelling. A great metaphor for the actual difference is "Regulatory Capital is to Economic Capital as Road Test Is to Driving" (http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/regulatory-capital-r...). Good banks use both, alongside other metrics to evaluate deals.

Economic capital takes into account the particulars of individual companies, while regulatory capital takes a broad brush approach. In reality, using reg capital leads to set ratings without taking into account the actual risk of the asset to the company. I would argue that the best approach would be economic capital as the main capital calculation with review and monitoring by regulators of the model and its assumptions.

I don't know if there is an engineer who is able to invent a new form of energy and a complete weapon while captured by the taliban, so no I do not think there is an exact analogue.

However, the film makers have claimed to use Elon Musk as inspiration for Tony Stark in the new Iron Man movies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10544247/Meet-tec...)

Link to journal article referenced: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/17/8/083023/

Oh that first answer is very interesting - my thoughts at the moment is when/if is this technology going to be included by governments alongside their currencies. Eg each currency being "digitised" alongside standard paper currency. Doing some background reading, this reads as the opposite of the goal of bitcoin/blockchains.

I feel as if a more achievable goal would be not to have a blockchain as a currency or reserve currency, but rather a settlement mechanism shared between banks and individuals (who don't have direct access to ACH etc). That means the coin would be the vehicle of transmission and record. Is this a common viewpoint?

Hi, thank you very much for your answers.

Part of my questions were piqued by this blog post (https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-b...) which defined a private blockchain as a "blockchain where write permissions are kept centralized to one organization". I think that it might be the case of people piggy backing on the buzzword and that people are using blockchain as a sort of computerized ledger.

So, generally speaking, a coin with a larger number of loyal miners will be more resilient than another with less loyal miners?

I think I made a mistake with the rising transaction costs - in USD they have risen with the price of BTC but have been rebased a few times.

Sorry, I agree with the OP. I interpreted the "Success Stories" page, especially when it is sub-titled "Our prior work speaks for itself" as referring to the work performed through Gigstar. There is a difference between allowing somebody to claim work they performed versus assigning that claim to the body that employs them after the fact. This example, just because of the lack of clarity, presents itself as the latter which is a little unfair in itself.

Hard to tell with the noise out the Eurozone. Together, the next week will be a bit of a bumpy ride.

Definitely agree with your first statement; maybe you should look towards Australia as an example country that over the past 5 years has been increasingly following Chinese financial markets (Commodities and now property).

Especially interesting in light of this, their analysis of traffic from the sec: http://sandhill.exchange/blog/sec-analysis

You have to keep in mind that to get to Europe, any Australasian has to stop over at least once. Dubai is the most convenient; so really this route is Australasia to Europe.

Yes, some NLP POS (part of speech) taggers do use context. I'm not entirely sure if they work in the way that you describe. I believe that they use the grammar of the sentence to derive what the tags over the sentence are. That is, they can tag the sentence on what they know and then iterate over the sentence until everything can fit into the grammar (or corpus) that it was trained on.

If you want more background - the nltk book, in particular chapter five is a good place to start: http://www.nltk.org/book/ch05.html

What library did you use? NLTK on Python 2.7 gave the following:

[('We', 'PRP'), ('will', 'MD'), ('project', 'VB'), ('our', 'PRP$'), ('earnings', 'NNS')]

I do. I feel as if this solves nothing important, but makes it easier for people to be lazy - if they have money.

While businesses have to be focused on the markets that have money, I feel like this has gone to far; how can this be used to solve the problems of people who are busy but do not have money?

The context is also highly political. The results can be misconstrued and used to fit a storyline. The author states it has a huge societal impact, which is true - but I feel like climate change models are more important to politians than the majority of citizens.

I would guess that it is part of Yahoo's strategy to keep everybody within the same "walled garden".