> Ungar destroyed anyone who challenged him in a gin match, including a professional widely regarded as the best gin player of Ungar's generation, Harry "Yonkie" Stein. Ungar beat Stein 86 games to none in a high-stakes game of Hollywood Gin, after which Stein dropped out of sight in gin circles and eventually stopped playing professionally.[0]
86 wins in a row against one of the best opponents at the time has to indicate that skill can overcome much of the luck involved.
Commenters excoriate the methadology. First thing I checked was for comparisons with Aleksandr Suvarov, who "never lost a single battle he commanded."¹ Glaringly absent from the exposition.
The darkest Sesame Street skit I ever saw had a muppet jumping up and down on a manhole cover, gleefully repeating "99! 99! 99! ...". A second muppet shows up wondering what it's all about, and the first muppet concedes his spot. The second jumps up once, saying "Ninety---", the manhole cover slips out of place, and the muppet falls to its doom. The first resumes his jumping: "100! 100! 100!"
Does anyone know the meaning of "all finally settled claims" in point III?
> III. Blanket indemnities. I'm not wealthy, and my insurer won't cover claims that you settle without their consent. Asking me to indemnify you against "all claims" exposes me to the risk of bankruptcy – and still doesn't protect you. I change this to "all finally settled claims."
A claim not finally settled leaves nothing to indemnify against. I'm missing something here.
Edit: Maybe "I indemnify Publisher against all claims which at the time of contract signing are finally settled"?
> finally settled means that all parties to the litigation shall have entered into a settlement agreement, that all relevant courts shall have approved the settlement, and that the terms of the settlement shall no longer be subject to appeal, or that such litigation shall have been dismissed with prejudice by a court of competent jurisdiction and such dismissal shall not be subject to appeal.
Right! Didn't think to look it up as a term of art.
That means the missing information is temporal: the subsitution in point III narrows indemnity to only those claims which satisfy finally settled at the moment the contract binds.
> Denying people information ... on-brand for Dan Luu.
Just to be clear, he does not deny the information. Chronology matters a lot, danluu knows this, and he does make it available. He also made finding it a personal journey for any first-time visitor looking for a date, costing about 60s per user lifetime.
He's unduly sensitive to bad criticism by ignorant people and admits as much. Reducing his exposure to them helps get him through the day, and so all the power to him.
As for the arrogance, I love this site and would keep coming here even if danluu were Pol Pot himself. Users and moderation make the site.
You mount the remote file system as a volume and traverse it as part of the local file system. Super convenient for comparing contents of a local folder to a remote in the command line, using local tools on the remote FS, batch copying both ways, all that good stuff.
The hung file systems can be a buttpain, enough that I wrote a Bash script that calls `mount` to get the hung FS IDs and `umount` them with the results. After that easy peasy.
Holy crap I had no idea this was Galbraith's insight. I've heard William K. Black talk about Gresham's dynamics a few times, but always wondered why his use of the term didn't comport with Wikipedia's article on it. It's because he's using it in Galbraith's sense. I'll be checking out the book for sure. Thank you.
Do read the book, it's excellent. I'd finally done so myself only after the 2007-8 meltdown and found it hugely useful.
The passage I reference is toward the end of Chapter VI:
Never was there a time when more people wanted more money more urgently than in those days. The word that a man had "got caught" by the market was the signal for his creditors to descend on him like locusts. Many who were having trouble meeting their margin calls wanted to sell some stocks so they could hold the rest and thus salvage something from their misfortunes. But such people now found that their investment trust securities could not be sold for any appreciable sum and perhaps not at all. They were forced, as a result, to realize on their good securityies. Standard stocks like Steel, General Motors, Tel and Tel, were thus dumped on the market in abnormal volume, with the effect on prices that had already been fully revealed. The great investment trust boom had ended in a unique manifestation of Gresham's Law in which the bad stock were driving out the good.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash: 1929, chapter VI
NB: In re-typing the above passage, I managed to render "hold" as "hodl". I've fixed that, but note the fact here...
I've got another one: famous hold 'em poker player Stu Ungar never lost a game of gin rummy. Utterly dominant.