Just because a managed fund outperformed a market doesn't mean it didn't happen by pure luck. There are lots of managed funds and most of them are not profitable. If each chooses portfolio randomly, some of them will outperform the market.
I highly doubt rustamm or anyone partaking in this discussion is remotely qualified to know whether the most successful hedge funds, including Renaissance Technologies, Citadel, or Bridgewater are successful simply due to luck.
You're so right about this. I'm surprised so many HN users just blindly accept any critical claim about facebook.
The article on Ars is pure click bait. Nowhere in the article 6yo kids are mentioned. The article doesn't even contain any news material, it just regurgitates things published a week ago.
Reliance on self reported studies, that doesn't even paint Facebook bad by itself. If you want to prove that Facebook is bad for mental health, show me at least an observational study that so that I can compare the baseline prevalence of mental health disorders with the mental health of FB users. I doubt it would be different for any other social network user. The key word here is comparison. Raw numbers rarely mean anything by themselves.
From the article... "Facebook was considering new products targeted at children as young as six years old, according to a new document handed over to Congress by whistleblower Frances Haugen."
I haven't been on HN for a long time (maybe a year counting my pre-account lurking stage) but I've noticed that quite a lot of comments here seem to just be knee-jerk reactions to what the submissions' title is.
Not saying that's a bad thing in its entirety (the titles here are usually great and can easily spark discussion on their own) but just something I hope I'm not alone in having noticed.
Hey, I read the doccloud PDF in the article, but I wasn’t going to pass on a good Big Lebowski reference opportunity.
I do think I see more people appearing to make substantial comments that are based on misunderstandings from the title alone, and that’s more worrisome to me.
Oops, the reference flew right above my head, nothing personal lol.
>I do think I see more people appearing to make substantial comments that are based on misunderstandings from the title alone, and that’s more worrisome to me.
"Facebook was considering new products targeted at children as young as six years old, according to a new document handed over to Congress by whistleblower Frances Haugen."
One important factor in vitamin studies is the prevalence of vitamin deficiency in a particular population. E.g. vitamin D in the US might not be as effective because it is already added into many food products, e.g. milk, which is not the case for other countries.
My understanding is that even the definition of what constitutes deficient isn't settled due to how it's measured. For example, many African Americans show deficient even though it's believed they aren't.
Vitamin D is added to milk and butter in Sweden, even obligatory for some kinds! But that's because of our sad lack of sunshine for many months on end of course, so I expect the other nordic countries does something similar.
Regarding DB backups, it would be useful to add that it is not enough to simply make backups, one should also test that the backups are actually restorable.
also the restore/recover process has to be laid out step by step and be as simple as possible. No one is doing a restore in a relaxed, easy going state of mind. Restores are done in full panic mode with the team thinking about how they're going to break the news to their families that they've lost their job.
What I don't understand is what is the point blaming other forces/countries for exploiting something that is so easily exploitable. If you have a wide-open security holes in your system they will be exploited by everyone who can potentially benefit from this.
Other than Russia/China/<Villain of the week> there are many other actors who have incentives to meddle in the society, e.g.
- The US government
- Large Businesses
Example from the article:
"Reopenmississippi.com was registered on April 16 to In Pursuit of LLC, an Arlington, Va.-based conservative group with a number of former employees who currently work at the White House or in cabinet agencies (link: https://projects.propublica.org/trump-town/organizations/in-...). A 2016 story from USA Today says In Pursuit Of LLC is a for-profit communications agency launched by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch."
- T-shirt sellers?
"A number of other sites — such as reopennc.com — seem to exist merely to sell t-shirts, decals and yard signs with such slogans as “Know Your Rights,” “Live Free or Die,” and “Facts not Fear.” WHOIS records show the same Florida resident who registered this North Carolina site also registered one for New York — reopenny.com — just a few minutes later."
At this point it is so easy to anonymously set up these websites and protest groups that a bored high-school student can do it.
Instead of putting blame on this or that country, efforts should be focused on creating some kind of a online reputation system so that any content posted would contain a signature that ties it to the author. If the signature is missing then you know the source is likely untrustworthy.
Pros: no need for censorship. anyone can still post anything online.
Cons: users need to be educated about this feature. It has to be supported by major browsers as a first-party component.
Otherwise we see more ridiculous initiatives like this from GitLab where they ban hiring engineers from Russia on certain positions: "WIP: Support Engineer Job family country-of-residence block" (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/5555).
> WHOIS records show the same Florida resident who registered this North Carolina site also registered one for New York — reopenny.com — just a few minutes later."
At this point it is so easy to anonymously set up these websites and protest groups that a bored high-school student can do it.
Instead of putting blame on this or that country, efforts should be focused on creating some kind of a online reputation system so that any content posted would contain a signature that ties it to the author.
The person selling shirts isn't doing it anonymously if whois records reflect that person's ownership of sites targeting different states.
I don't see how a reputation system helps much, if Florida man hits a chord with people, his site is going to have high reputation, regardless of any facts or not. Unless you're suggesting a centralized arbiter of truthiness, but that has myriad problems too.
Unfortunately, I don't think people are going to realize trusting random people until they experience the poor results for themselves. This is a slow process.
Phone numbers are awful for authentication. I stopped using my Russian phone number once I moved to the US and mobile carrier just reassigned that phone number to some other customer.
I found out when I saw myself in my Telegram contact list having other person's avatar and I assume people who had my old phone number in contacts also saw a new account in their Telegram contact lists under my name.
In Australia it's outright common to have recycled numbers. I've had a few. My work phone had to be given a new number 3 times in the first 6 months until I had a useable one, because I kept getting random calls at all hours of the day/night looking for people who weren't me. It's mostly for work phones for some reason (I assume they have a higher rotation of useage as employees come and go, and nearly all companies use the same provider, Telstra), but my brother got a number that was someone else's before him too so it does happen privately.
The idea of phone numbers being the prime authenticator is laughable. I'll actively avoid any service who ever does this.
