It won't 'protect' you. They still track you and have a shadow account for you, and sell the data. FB is a cancer that won't go away until we/you do.
You can protect yourself by blocking all 'social media buttons' (as LI or Pinterest do the same), and for FB block every domain they use and their range of IPs. But there are so many trackers that will (eventually) get the 'job' done, so you either do 'more' (replace hosts file, add firewall on your Android and block ad broker, doubleclick, adjust, mopub, google analytics, etc. etc (loooooong list).
Surveillance capitalism is not going anywhere. Where money can be made, money will be made.
> It won't 'protect' you. They still track you and have a shadow account for you, and sell the data. FB is a cancer that won't go away until we/you do.
Firstly, this is just not true. Like basically all users who couldn't be mapped to a FB person were given userid=0, which I guess is a shadow account, but it's pretty crap as a method of tracking people. Source: worked at FB for half a decade.
I don’t understand the obsession of people with recursion. Sure it’s a cute math trick, it makes you feel smart, but it is an undebuggable mess with a ton of gotchas that lead to stack overflows.
Let the math to the math guys who never ship a product.
I use recursion a fair bit just because it's the easiest solution that requires the least thought. If I have a tree structure from e.g a JSON parser, or a directory tree, or an HTML node tree, what more debuggable options are there, realistically?
Re-writing recursive algorithms to be non-recursive typically requires less obvious code, where you make your own ad-hoc stack to keep track of where you are; essentially implementing the call stack manually.
In contexts where DoS or stack smashing is a concern because the input is attacker-controlled, it's often way easier to add a depth parameter and error at a certain depth than to rewrite the naturally recursive algorithm into iterative style. But tree structures are so naturally recursive that it's easy to end up with accidental unbounded recursion in complex real-world situations.
You can manage memory and compute budget so that your cute algo does not go rogue. On top of that very often you don’t have to explore the entire tree, and there is custom logic at each step to decide whether you want to proceed or not with exploration.
Programmers like recursion because some algorithms are much, much more pleasant to write this way. Others are easier to write iteratively. Both are easy to do wrong.
Example: depth-first tree walking algorithms. Implicit stack makes it trivial to express as recursion.
If your data structures are recursive, it makes sense your algorithms are too. It makes the code tidy and simpler to reason about. Plenty of times your code becomes "obviously correct".
I write a genealogy app (family history). Recursion is the foundation of the code, and permeates everywhere. The call stack can go 200 deep or more (~4,000 yrs). The code has been successfully running on millions of desktops for thirty years, and has never caused a crash or infinite loop because of recursion.
The secret is to check at every step that there is no "he's his own grandpa" loops in the user's tree, where (s)he inadvertently makes one of a person's descendants, also his ancestor. This happens sometimes because re-using the same names can cause confusion.
Recursions are super useful for dealing with certain data types, notably nested grammar parsing. Sure, it has gotcha, but that can be extremely readable.
I don't think we should ban recursions altogether, but remember that there exist associated risks, and consider them.
No that is not the sales pitch to enterprise customers. They are pitching that sys admins are stupid and that security nowadays is too complicated, hence cloud is the only safe solution.
Yet every month I see a story here about an huge data leak from an unrestricted bucket.
That explains why after Zuck started calling for return of masculinity to the workplace, the former accused exec immediately sided with him. It's all tit for tat.
The full interview is a bit more nuanced, he talked about how they need to keep rising up women in leadership and how they have been very important to FBs success which he wants to keep promoting but he had some concerns they got caught up and went a bit too far in some ways. The context was semi personal as he was being asked about his entry into MMA and how it has shaped his personal life.
No it is not. This is PR speak. Here is his exact quote: “I think that having a culture that celebrates the aggression has its merits”
He knew what he was talking about.
Also from that JRE podcast with the masculinity and workplace conversation, he's working the bow and arrow chit chat from that long form interview in a recent podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQZjrVEOpOk
It's a pretty common narrative for CEOs to get into fitness later in life, especially running. I'd imagine it's pretty hard to be successful at a demanding job after 40+ if you're not in decent physical shape. Easier to go hard in your 20s.
At this risk envelope I don’t see why nuclear / battery hybrids are not a serious contender. We can for example have them work on purely electric mode when close to ports and then enable the reactor in the open sea.
We do something similar with bunker fuel of different grades. They are forced to use the good stuff near the ports and once in the open sea they start burning the muddy Godzilla.
Or we need to break it up. The ai search team should not be afraid of killing the traditional search engine.
Many of the decisions companies make are to ensure the cow they are currently milking very efficiently does not die. This is bad for the rest of us, specially if they place barriers to innovation.
You couldn't break up the AI search engine and the traditional search engine. They're basically one and the same. The AI search engine relies on the index. The index uses AI in various places. The "traditional" side has long used AI for query understanding, ranking, and fact extraction.
Legislators don’t (and should not) care about your implementation. The old company will be banned from using ai for their search for x years the new company will get employees and assets including source code to startup the new entity.
My fear in such calculations is that we leave the big whales that do not move, outside. For example the CEO of Nvidia has 4% Nvidia that in today's value is 160B, but the basis is from the IPO, so more like $40M. So now our back-of-the envelope calculation is 160B off.
People with large holdings are required to file with the SEC and you can search those records online going back to the mid 1980s.
Someone could download a dump of the whole thing (the SEC has a link and updates it every night) and assemble all of the various documents in a way to get a decent estimate.
An example Form 4 (which will show cost basis of acquisitions):
In my humble opinion,It would be 0 as there is no transaction taking place. The original question is about stock buyers not stock holders which is often related but not always.
I don’t even directionally have an idea how much is it. Is it like 80% of the current total market value or 8%? My back of the envelope math plus very coarse assumptions lead me closer to 80%.
To be clear, you are talking about the aggregate for the current holders, understanding that actual cost basis will be different for every person with stock? Some people will have long invest duration with tiny cost basis, some will have cost basis over 100%.
My ballpark guess is less than 80%. Most of the stock market is owned by households, either directly through equities, or indirectly through mutual funds and pensions [2, p14]
Most individuals and pensions are long term positions, with buying and selling to increase or decrease a position, not buying or liquidating entire portfolios.
If I guess the average hold time is ~5 years, that would be a about a 60% basis.
US total stock market cap in feb 25' was 67 Trillion, Total market cap in feb 20' was 40 trillion. [1]
What conclusion are you trying to draw from it? From an individual perspective, I care more about my cost basis in my market account, than the cost basis for an individual stock. I might have a 95% cost basis my current holding, but a 5% cost basis for my entire account(what I put in the market)
I am trying to understand how much the stock market can drop before we destroy realized value (cash). Or how much money is not used in the economy, but rather it is tied to the stock market.
Leaving aside any drops, the entire market cant be sold/liquidated at once at it's current market cap / value. The current "value" / market cap of any given stock / the market is based on whatever tiny fraction of shares traded today.
Outside the ~ 5 Trillion USD that went to primary market (IPOs, secondary offerings and share issuances) since 1970 and flowed to the actual companies, there is a significant amount of cash that is tied in the secondary market speculating the value of the stocks instead of e.g. providing liquidity to the economy. I am trying to understand how much is that.
Hmm, not really. If you buy some shares from me for $1000, we settle and I give you the shares and you give me the $1000, and I can spend the $1000 on plane tickets or wine or put it in the bank or whatever, there is no $1000 that is "tied" to any shares.
Perhaps you value those shares at $1000 on your balance sheet as their "book value" or "cost basis" or whatever, but the $1000 doesn't exist (you gave it to me), all you have is shares.
I think the answer to that question is close zero. The US economy doesn't need more liquidity, and is essentially maxed out.
When you add large amounts of liquidity, you get proportional inflation/devaluation destroying the money you have added.
Covid Stimulus and related inflation showed how they economy cant even handle hundreds of billions more liquidity in the hands of consumers, let alone tens of trillions. The worker productive capacity doesn't exist to make and sell more stuff, so stocks and real-estate soak up as much liquidity as they can, and inflation takes the rest.
If the money in circulation doubled tomorrow, I would expect rent and eggs to double as well, because there isnt actually more stuff. In this way, excess liquidity and associated inflation heavily favors holders of debt, equity, capital, and real-estate.
As a well off American, I expect I would be the winner. My house dollar value of my house and 401k would double, while my mortgage would stay the same.
I would be cautious about using this assumption or analysis to answer those questions, and your phrasing.
Cash is different than realized value, as anyone who has watched their cash inflate away will tell you as they use it for kindling.
Similarly, money tied up in the stock market doesn't mean it could be used in the economy. In many ways, the economy is not money limited and adding more does nothing.
I’d hazard that average hold time is much shorter. What makes you say 5 years? My gut tells me that the majority of stocks are held by whales moving them in and out on a constant basis nowadays.
I stated most of my rationale in the post, but I don't think whales buy and sell most of their portfolio. I think they move a tiny portion over and over again.
reply