I recall reading that the same kind of thing used to happen with standing field armies, (think Napoleon sized blocks) where you could almost instantly assess an opponents forces based on simply recognizing divisions, regiments, etc.
My guess is Napoleon-era field marshals did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that managing their forces simplistically (i.e. no irregular sized units) outweighed whatever inconvenience enemy intelligence posed.
Relating this to the OP my guess is the Germans made a mistake and overlooked the serial numbers, rather than simply not caring.
Your work looks great, I'd love to have you help me out. I don't mind seeing these types of posts on HN, as long as they have the skill to back them up.
I am going to go on a hiring spree for all of my ideas. It'll be a knock-down drag-out round robin tournament of start-ups. At the end of each week (month?) we have elimination.
If you love sports in general you might be out of luck. I love baseball in particular hand have no problem paying the 100 bucks for MLB.tv to watch any (and every) game that I choose, often in high-def, on whatever device I want.
I'm not certain about the other sports, but for baseball there is no real reason to be tied to cable.
While the social side has commercial applications I am more interested in creating a ground level validated voting system that can link community involvement on a local, national , global level. If the registration of users is secure similar to domestic financial transaction level it can become a valid tool for relevant comments on a vast number of issues. I don't have sufficient resources to build it myself however.
This strikes me as something that could be revolutionary. Specifically, it stirs up memories of sci-fi novels and movies where advanced races have given up sex and sexual reproduction because it's "Too messy."
If you look at a lot of value investors / contrarians, you will see that a good number of them were exposed early on to the kinds of irrational thinking that can occur with crowds. I think these experiences make it much easier to take the approach where you go buy something that everyone else hates.
Buffett grew up when the Great Depression was still fresh in people's minds. Carl Icahn experienced prejudice for being jewish. George Soros had to hide from Nazis as a child.
Sorry for the offtopic, but jakarta, would you mind if I ask for your email? I had a few questions regarding analyst work. (My contact is in my profile). I'd appreciate your feedback if you have some time.
I hardly blame him for having to hide, but did he have to go out and help confiscate the property of his fellow jews? Couldn't he have stayed home? Not to mention that he's been convicted of insider trading.
KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) ... by -- by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and -- and anticipate events and when -- when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a -- a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's -- that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no -- no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
I have never bought the grassroots explanation of history, on the good or bad side. bad people bend good people and good systems to their purposes because they can. I'm wary about assigning excess blame to people responding to the incentives placed in front of them, even under ideal conditions. there are good reasons why intent plays such a large role in our conception of justice.
> there are good reasons why intent plays such a large role in our conception of justice.
Actually, the reason that we consider intent is that we think that intent has some bearing on outcome. The argument is "but for {unexpected}, the outcome would have been good".
However, if {unexpected} is not actually unexpected, that argument does not apply.
> I'm wary about assigning excess blame to people responding to the incentives placed in front of them, even under ideal conditions.
In what universe is it "excess" to blame someone for the expected outcome of their actions?
They got some benefit for cooperating with evil - why is it wrong to blame them for that?
I actually liked the personal life stuff a lot - I can describe myself as someone "happy in my own head" and with few friends too (but with far less money :P ).
I find it fascinating that he married twice, too. Maybe I should move to the US :) .
Of course the personal stuff has been novelized and simplified a bit, but that's to be expected :)
I agree. I had trouble identifying with the guy so I ended up skipping the personal life stuff. The part about the market and his hedge fund was fascinating though.
I agreed with you at first, but as the article progressed I think the personal life was an extremely important aspect for connecting with him. Personally I really enjoyed it.
