currere's comments

Unchecking all these boxes is a thankless task.

You can't just add up future value and current value of things. The future value is in future dollars, they are different from current dollars. You owe depositors their current dollars.

I can imagine some unintended consequences from this. If I'm a hard-going reviewer, people might choose to avoid me, and I'll be compensated less. Conversely, if I'm easy-going, people might find ways to get their papers to me.

I suppose there can be some other layer of reviewer meta-review to account for this, much like the role 'acceptance rate' has come to have for journals and conferences. But, following Goodhart's law, even that has come to be gamed now that a meaning - a proxy for journal prestige or quality - has been placed on it.

I am curious. If it's not too personal - you seem to be someone who reads a lot and synthesises it together into interesting output. You appear to have some control and resistance to the attention stealing machine, and haven't succumbed to the traps we're bemoaning elsewhere in the thread - tiktok, instagram. What use you make of hackernews and reddit appears to be controlled and productive. Is that a fair assessment? Was it ever a struggle? How did you do this?

Surely it's sufficient that someone else forgot the $100 in the book.

How do you like Umberto Eco's attempt to characterize ur-fascism?

Thank you, I enjoyed your illuminating comments, and for the search phrase "semantic shift". I should have been more cognizant of metaphorical extension, having recently read [0] which claims "tall" went from "swift" to "vertically large" via "skillful" ("tall of hand") then "exaggerated" ("tall story").

[0] http://theconversation.com/five-words-that-dont-mean-what-yo...

Curious that you have a negative view of that. When I come across a word I don't know I am usually too lazy to look it up, and so I infer its meaning. But I don't know if I infer it correctly! I'm convinced this is how we end up with word meaning mutations; the traces of which, of course, are the object of etymology.

Coordinating a mapping from reality to our internal world of ideas is hard enough without basic disagreements on the meanings of words. I find it hard to take joy, as some descriptivists do, in words that also mean their opposite!

I like the idea of writing a word and its page number inside the back cover of a book for looking up later but I never seem to have a pen to hand either.

Ironically (perhaps deliberately?) your quote may be misattributed:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

And please consider auctioning a few without buy-it-now - there's a lot of goodwill here on HN for your project and the charitable cause.

Though it looks like these puzzles are far from randomly generated - they're quite artfully put together.

Since some people are complaining about the difficulty curve, you could randomly generate puzzles and rate them, and players, with Bayeselo (or similar; like chesstempo does). Then you have to use this ratings data to somehow discover how quickly to increase the difficulty of puzzles presented to the player (for example, perhaps select one with a 0.8 prob of success every time).

Actually, thinking about it some more, a player's rating should increase over time as they learn, while a puzzle's (true, latent) rating should be fixed, so you should allow for that.

Edit: love the game though, nice one!

According to [1] you can have float-adjusted or market-cap weighted indices.

> An example of a company in which float-adjustment comes into play is Amazon (AMZN). The online retail giant's overall market cap is estimated at around $130 billion. However, only about two thirds of its shares are publicly traded. The non-publicly traded shares, controlled by insiders such as founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, would not be included when determining a company's weight in a float-adjusted index. Incidentally, a company's full market cap, including both its float and non-float shares, is used to determine whether it belongs in the index.

So it depends on the index.

[1] https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/124023/understanding-p...

Better yet, they can just publish something encrypted with every compromised public key. Only people with the corresponding private keys can ascertain if they're compromised.

Couldn't the service allow you to check your private keys, rather than check a public key, without transmitting the actual key.

You know (pub,priv). They know either (pub,priv) or (pub).

Essentially, make use of your unique (probably!) ability to sign something with your private key.

There's the issue of traffic analysis which needs to be solved - they have to reveal to you whether the key is compromised, and there's only two possible answers, so they have to be careful not to reveal it to in the traffic metadata.

How awful, I just saw [ja27 17 hours ago]. I've even managed to describe it in almost exactly the same way..

Another ingenious approach is taken by chesstempo.com, a chess training site. Just as in chess itself the ratings of players are determined by pairwise comparisons (games between players), they pair players up against problems. If they solve the problem, the rating of the problem goes down, the rating of the player goes up. Players are given problems close to their ratings, which keeps everyone happy. I believe they use Glicko to track uncertainty in the rating.

Chapter 22 of David Barber's "Bayesian Reasoning and Machine Learning" (he makes it available online) does a nice (perhaps brief) job of explaining the progression through the Rasch model, the Bradley-Terry-Luce model and Elo.

As an aside, the way they chesstempo generate the exercises is also cute. The tactical chess problems are positions taken from high level (human) games fed into a chess engine which identifies blunderous moves where there is a single distinctly best way to respond. The challenge is to find that best move. Because they are taken from real games, they have the appearance and feel of real positions, which is important; many people believe pattern recognition is an important part of chess mastery. Apparently they've built up nearly 40000 such tactical exercises.

What I like about this is that by writing it the wrong way round you have collected plenty of evidence that your intended meaning is indeed well known!