It's not trivial for the casino to track this against a determined adversary. If you're already thinking about "good opsec", you can get someone else to help cash out your winnings.
A buddy from out of town, or a losing regular, or a poker player who the casino doesn't care if they win. In Vegas some casinos' chips are negotiable, officially or unofficially, in other casinos.
It's an important distinction because it prevents the defence of "oh it's just an old law, there are lots of old laws on the books that everyone knows aren't relevant, they can't be tidied up for political reasons".
It was suspended for the last 15 years! Surely it was easier to leave it suspended and unsuspending it is a conscious choice.
Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1]
Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2].
If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your investment. Assuming you're saving for retirement in 30 years time, the fees will cost you 15% or more.
Maybe your fund manager finds a Spacex-level mispricing every two years. In that case, they're worth the fees. Some people will tell you nobody can beat the market. My employer among others believes very strongly in the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. What is certainly true is that not everyone does.
Does that article say that? I didn't see "4.5xm" mentioned anywhere. Also jow does QQQ do float adjusting? Will it do the same 5x that we're hearing nasdaq is going to do? (Which would make it what, <1%?). Or something else?
QQQ is the same as Nasdaq, for this meaning of Nasdaq.
The article isn't a great source, agreed. But it does give this calculation:
> Oddly enough, had SpaceX entered the Nasdaq-100 with a market capitalization of $1.75 trillion on Friday, March 27 [assuming the new rules (?)], it would have supplanted Tesla as the fifth-largest holding in the benchmark. The electric vehicle stock accounts for 3.8% of the Invesco ETFs.
So it would come in somewhere above 3.8%, by those calculations. And it depends on market prices from day to day. Not much changes about the argument above if you make it 3% or 6%, holding constant the assumption that it's 30% overvalued.
I was mostly confused because the article made 0 mention of the float adjustment or the changes to nasdaq float adjusting that is proposed (5x float, which would still put SpaceX at <20% of its market cap, or <1% of the index, no?)
It is just not addressed at all in the article, which makes it seem like they're assuming it's 100% of market cap.
They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck.
Someone can win at roulette and make more money than the average player over some measurement period, but nobody can be good at roulette (when properly implemented and stuff). Stocks are somewhat possible to be good at but results are mostly random and the fee you'd pay is usually way too much.
> They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck.
How would you know it is or is not luck?
> roulette
Has no winning strategy - it's very different.
The winning strategy with stocks is understanding the underlying businesses better than the average investor. Peter Lynch's Magellan fund did consistently better than others because Lynch had insights others didn't. When others figured it out, Magellan's returns retreated to market levels.
I.e. investors can do better than average if they have insight others don't have and stay below the radar.
It's hard to know in the moment, but almost every promising fund has subpar long term results. Whether they lost their touch or were lucky in the first place, it means that seeking out promising funds is a very bad way to find a place to put your money.
The number of funds with significant valuable insights is low, and the number where those insights are bigger than the fees is lower.
Anyway my point was just that a big spread of outcomes doesn't prove that significantly different skill levels exist.
Lots of powerful people are unpleasant, but Musk additionally got involved in politics in a very visible way at a very partisan, polarising time in American history. He didn't attract as much hate before 2024.
Maybe more people should listen to Musk's political message. The Biden Administration was playing nasty games, blocking progress on both SpaceX and AI generally.
It doesn't take extreme memory on your part to remember to avoid that opening after the first 9 losses, or indeed the first one. There are 5-10 other reasonable options for you on the first move alone.
It doesn't take extreme memory on your friend's part either if you keep falling for the same trick. It would take extreme memory for him to have something prepared against every plausible option you could choose.
Meh, I think the description is accurate. AlphaZero did pioneer neural networks for board evaluation, even if there was prior art on this. AlphaZero also showed a revolutionary new approach to search and training which Stockfish did not adopt, but that doesn't make the first part wrong.
Doesn't it also make sense in the context of modern networking assumptions?
I've never had to connect to PostGres in an adversarial environment. I've been at work or at home and I connected to PostGres instances owned by me or my employer. If I tried to connect to my work instance from a coffee shop, the first thing I'd do would be to log in to a VPN. That's your multiplexed protocol layer right there: the security happens at the network layer and your cancel happens at the application layer.
This is a different situation from websites. I connect to websites owned by third parties all the time, and I want my communication there to be encrypted at the application layer.
Zero trust security which is becoming increasingly common is based on removing the internal / external network dichotomy entirely. Everything should be assumed to be reachable from the open internet (so SSO, OIDC everywhere.)
It makes me think of ipsec, ipsec was originally intended to be used sort of the the same as we use tls today, but application independent. when making a connection to a random remote machine the os would see if it could spool up a ipsec sa. No changes to a user program would be needed. But while they were faffing about trying to overcomplicate ipsec ssl came along and stole it's lunch money.
This application of ipsec was never used and barely implemented. Today getting it to make ad-hoc connections is a tricky untested edge case and ipsec was regulated to dedicated tunnels. Where everyone hates it because it is too tricky to get the parameters aligned.
There is definitely a case to be made that it is right and proper that secure connections are handled in the application(tls), But sometimes I like to think of how it could have been. where all applications get a secure connection whether they want one or not.
As a useless dangling side thought, an additional piece would be needed for ad-hoc ipsec that as far as I know was never implemented, a way to notify the OS that this connection must be encrypted(a socket option? SO_ENC?). This is most of the case for encrypted connections being the duty of the application.
Who said anything about instantly teleporting? Uber could cut the cost in money to 0 but still operate cars which are bound by the laws of physics and the rules of the road.
Maybe returnInfinity already spends 12 hours a day in Ubers, or otherwise has them satisfy all his transportation needs, and couldn't usefully double his usage of them.
It's impossible for them to cut the cost to 0 (without using magic), but that doesn't make it impossible for us to talk about what the cost being 0 would involve. Travel time is one of the costs you pay for Uber's service. That you don't pay it to Uber doesn't matter. If Uber reduced that cost to 0, you would use Uber a lot more.
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that it's possible to get adequate training on a real ship, and using the fact that you managed to do it as an example?
Of course it's possible to train on a real ship. But the sailors who trained on models have certain specific experience that you will hope never to get. As for the things you experienced and they didn't, they can catch up with those during their first year on a real ship.
These small models won’t train you in maneuvering skills directly, but rather in how to think about maneuvering and the mindset you need in traffic. A sim or a real ship gives you actual maneuvering skills in addition to that experience. You could sit in a classroom with models of ships of a desk and get the same experience as this place, in my opinion as someone who did this work. Obviously you don’t want to crash a real ship, but you don’t want to be crashing sims either.
In this incarnation, the only one who "wants" red to win is the first column. Every other column will choose whatever color it wants to win, subject to the rules of the game.
It's a 2 step process:
1. Prepare - Collect a majority of rows such that each of them promises not to accept any color sent by columns to the left of the proposing column. Any colors which were already accepted are sent in reply, along with the column they were accepted in (if different colors were accepted, only the rightmost column for a given row matters). The color to be propagated by the proposer is that with the rightmost column number (or if none were accepted by that particular majority, anything may be selected)
2. Accept - for every row, set the color to the one chosen in step one for the proposing column, subject to the promises made in step 1.
In this case, it's not shown well in the diagram, but by having a majority of rows promise for column 2, column 1 would already have a broken majority. Even if column 4 wanted red, since it received some already accepted colors, it has to choose from one of them based on the rightmost column (blue in this case)
A buddy from out of town, or a losing regular, or a poker player who the casino doesn't care if they win. In Vegas some casinos' chips are negotiable, officially or unofficially, in other casinos.
reply