"zero-error policy" as described here is a remarkable euphemism. You might hope that the policy is not to make any errors. In fact the policy is not to acknowledge that errors can occur!
Yes, because it is rational. Maybe taking it this far isn’t when you consider personal impact, but questioning things is very rational, and there are more than enough legitimate examples (MKULTRA, Operation Northwoods, and countless other declassified operations that were regarded as conspiracies in their time) to justify not accepting things at face value.
There are declassified documents from the Warren Commission where they basically concede that parts of the CIA could have been involved. And there IS significant fishiness around 9/11 (the missing trillions, back when that was a lot, building 7, etc), it should be questioned. That doesn’t mean assuming US involvement, it just means not assuming that there wasn’t any. Because there it should be clear by now that most of government does not have the people as a priority.
The Epstein island was a “conspiracy theory” at least a decade before it was known, and it’s still considered “conspiracy thinking” to say it was an intelligence operation, when that’s the only rational explanation given all the details. And there was someone that had him suicided under the public eye, it’s not inconceivable to me that those same people would facilitate a domestic terror attack. Especially after reading declassified CIA documents proposing similar false flags.
He had a real gift for making theoretical topics interesting. I read his book The New Turing Omnibus (https://archive.org/details/newturingomnibus0000dewd_q3p6) as a teenager, and credit it with a decent part of getting me into computer science. Rest easy.
Another thankful note from me for The New Turing Omnibus. It’s recommended to students entering Cambridge University in the UK, and I read it as a young teenager. I was already familiar with a lot of the concepts contained, but it was a really good stitching together of a variety of disciplines. It gives just enough of a peek into each of them to spur curiosity about the things you might want to study more — and at least makes you aware of the things that you might be less interested in.
I spent an excessive amount of time playing with an animated version of Dewdney's wallpaper algorithm from The Turing Omnibus, first with 286 fixed point arithmetic and later with 486 FPU code.
Hah, I went through a similar cycle with Mandelbrot stuff - first with custom fixed point on a 6502, then I somehow got my hands on a prototype Apple ][ FPU card of some sort, then there was the 386/387 (sweet sweet 80 bit floats!), etc.
> "Apple APU. The Model 7811 B Arithmetic Processor Unit is intended to increase the execution speed of Applesoft II programs and the number of math functions available. The system employs an AMD9511 APU and plugs into one of the Apple expansion slots. The CCSoft interpreter is loaded from the diskette provided, and the system is ready to, go. The CCSoft interpreter is identical to Applesoft, except that CCSoft sends arithmetic functions to the APU for fast execution. Additional functions include AsiN(x), ACOS(X), LOGIO(X), SINIH(x), COSH(x), TANH(X), INVERSE(x) and PI. "
I didn't totally follow the issues with keeping the data in memory, and it sounds like it is solved now - but you could probably use a cardinality estimation algorithm to estimate the number of unique beacon IDs while only using constant space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count-distinct_problem
That’s a really good point. I’ve been meaning to go to a football game recently and bring it, to stress test it with the largest gathering I can quickly access. If it can easily scan a couple thousand without a sweat, I’d consider it pretty solid anyway. But a fixed-size estimating data structure would be really cool to research. I will surely look into it, thank you for the suggestion!
Side note: Definitely one of my favorite parts of this project, that I get to investigate more in-depth and interesting CS concepts without having to worry about doing the easiest solution. I’m scratching an itch, not developing a solution to deliver ASAP.
If the selection criteria for two groups of people is "anybody" and the rules imposed on them are, "do whatever comes naturally in the absence of institutions or accepted culture," the things you see the groups doing will be almost exactly the same.
I raised an eyebrow at "This was a group of idealists... all in pursuit of a higher mission." It's buying into the whole "SBF was just a crazy kid with big dreams who wasn't too great at counting the money" mythos.
I don't know any of them personally but "This was a group of scam artists in pursuit of a bigger payout." seems closer to the mark.
One lesson of the last ten years is the wealthy in the US are stunningly bad at spotting scam artists that appeal to their ideas of what an idealist should look like.
Arguably many people have this weakness and merely lack the resources to deploy when it is triggered.
There's an alternative explanation: if you're good enough at convincing me to invest with you, you'll do the same with others. As long as I'm in early, you will make me money, even if I know the house of cards will eventually crumble. By then, I won't be a bag holder. (Probably.)
I.e. greed and pride/hubris. The idealist image is just the current behavior that the investor expects will attract subsequent investors. This would explain bubbles much better than "rich people seem to be taking random walks."
You’re an optimist! I would argue the Sequoia writings about SBF and the farce with Theranos indicates these people actually did believe what they were being sold.
I guess one interpretation is Sequoia were the greater fool.
I used to put some amount of stock into the idea that he could've just been reckless. It's been pretty clear in the trial that at least all of the top leadership not only knew but were in on the scam, thinking they'd make and move enough money consistently to keep things going.
It's more curious to me how a bunch of people from Jane Street could believe anything like a Ponzi can keep going.
The other thing about the “crazy kid with big dreams” thing that really bugs me is that real altruism is putting others above one’s self.
Effective Altruism, on the other hand, is roughly the belief that you, personally, should be the savior of all mankind and should also get fabulously wealthy along the way. It’s just pure egotism with good PR.
I couldn't even read the entire article after that ... just skimmed it. Even if they had some kind of believe in crypto tech, in the end it was about getting rich via whatever that would take.
I will not be taking questions ;-)