Makeshift_Swahili posted:http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122965/can-billion-dollar-corporation-zappos-be-self-organized
I think if i had an office job and one day my boss told me they were now a "monkey" and i was their "ninja," I would go home and use a letter opener to blind myself and puncture my eardrums, then spend the rest of the week in bed attempting to call in sick via my smartphone, unable to determine which calls actually make it through to reception. It would be a bad week to work reception
tpaine posted:wow terry. thats random af
Thanks. I'm trying to take kind of a fresh Lewis Black kind of approach to comedy. It's quite interesting, and I think you'll find, quite funny. The trick is to add my colorful commentary, not using opinions or arguments, but with comically vulgar scenes of sado-masochism. In this way I am the cynical, over-educated Democrat meant to counter your fatass dumbass Larry Cable the Guy Republican persona, who always outing by crude quip the 100% homosexual population of these boards the whole time
also still waiting on my copy of Jason Moore's new book
kotkin seems like one of those weird conservative historians who is obsessed with the culture they study enough that they are able to knock down some of the cliches involved because he reads russian scholarship and such with an open mind. like he thinks trotsky is hugely overrated in the west and part of this new biography seems like it will just tear into trotsky's political skills in the early 1920s. he wrote some things years ago about how the leading revisionist sovietologists that focused on social history tended to borrow wholesale from trotskyist positions which portrayed stalinism as a conservative force that was paralyzing society. and kotkin was like it's much more about feverish messianism. like he says the attempts to hugely overachieve by true believers and such wasn't mostly cynical but rather almost religious. which he spins into a weird pet theory but it's a good point. like the 1930s in russia was closer to the great leap forward than it was to a sort of brutal bureaucratic imposition.
at the same time he thinks stalin was an enigma who sort of took huge risks which a lot of people thought were crazy but often paid off way more than anyone thought they could. apparently the new book (which goes to 1928) also talks a bit about how lenin's last testament has been muddled by trot stuff.
- a biography of the empress dowager cixi that tries to portray her as a wise and ambitious reformer (by the mao the unknown story lady)
- a biography of chiang kaishek (by a harvard researcher) which says chiang was basically a good guy who did his best
- a history of the cultural revolution (by harvard profs) which opens by describing how mao was insane and thought that if half of all of humanity died to build socialism that this would be fine
- a biography of deng xiaoping (praised by foreign policy glitterati) which basically says he was a strategic genius trying to save china from maoist poverty
getfiscal posted:i bought kotkin's new stalin biography which just came out in paperback. because of the success of that terrible mao biography they have been getting historians to write these massive biographies on world leaders.
kotkin seems like one of those weird conservative historians who is obsessed with the culture they study enough that they are able to knock down some of the cliches involved because he reads russian scholarship and such with an open mind. like he thinks trotsky is hugely overrated in the west and part of this new biography seems like it will just tear into trotsky's political skills in the early 1920s. he wrote some things years ago about how the leading revisionist sovietologists that focused on social history tended to borrow wholesale from trotskyist positions which portrayed stalinism as a conservative force that was paralyzing society. and kotkin was like it's much more about feverish messianism. like he says the attempts to hugely overachieve by true believers and such wasn't mostly cynical but rather almost religious. which he spins into a weird pet theory but it's a good point. like the 1930s in russia was closer to the great leap forward than it was to a sort of brutal bureaucratic imposition.
at the same time he thinks stalin was an enigma who sort of took huge risks which a lot of people thought were crazy but often paid off way more than anyone thought they could. apparently the new book (which goes to 1928) also talks a bit about how lenin's last testament has been muddled by trot stuff.
More proof that people find sympathetic understanding easier the more distance there is between the subject and themselves.
the professor's example was about efficient market theory stuff. some of the leading theorists / fund consultants of efficient market theory came up with an idea that you could use efficient market theory to predict the underlying values of assets in real time. so some firm paid them a fortune for exclusive rights to the algorithms. and the firm did a live test and none of it worked. like all the simulations produced wrong prices which would have lost them a lot of money. so they called the theorist guy and told him that. and he hung up and talked to his colleagues for a bit and then said the problem must be that the market prices are wrong.
the first few comments here explain why in a nutshell:
http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/malcolm-gladwell-article-on-nassim-taleb-(written-in-2002)/20/
solzhesnitchin posted:he's really bad and obviously empirically wrong about pretty much everything. if he were right, he would be a billionaire amd warren buffett would be broke. instead his funds have all tanked just like the emh guys' would have
the first few comments here explain why in a nutshell:
http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/malcolm-gladwell-article-on-nassim-taleb-(written-in-2002)/20/
cool. i have no preawareness of him other than quind saying he found taleb very useful for thinking about politics. those guys seem to think it is good as a critique of other stuff but not a guide for investing. is that true or is he just garbage all the way down.
like on SA they have had a lot of investing threads in the past where random people try to build their life decisions around weird little tricks and stuff. like they refuse to take on any debt at all or they just sit on money saying they want to wait for another housing collapse before they buy their family a house. and if you're certain about something be cautious but you're more likely to lose time and money by being too creative. like malkiel says you can get a higher return if you put money into aggressive funds and such, he doesn't deny stuff like that, he just says if you're like a teacher in your late 50s then you'll lose sleep and probably not a great idea. that all makes sense to me.
there's a book out "pound foolish" which is journalistic but looks interesting which basically just works through all the scams that banks/consultants etc run which is probably useful for a lot of people. which was the big point of "random walk" stuff, that managed funds have enormous fees over time. anyway i spent a few hours yesterday trying to figure out my bank account stuff now that i "care about getting up in the morning" so that's why i'm thinking about it lol.
as far as economics/finance/stats goes, he basically just constructs strawmen to call idiots. no one actually believes in the models to the extent that he alleges. the market already deviates from those models and overprices the risks he alleges are underpriced. warren buffett and other hugely capitalized institutions make a lot of money by insuring against black swans. its the same principle as how people perceive a greater risk of terrorist attacks or crashing in an airplane or "the grid" going down than dying in a car accident within a few blocks of their home. taleb argues the opposite, and i really can't see anything supporting him besides the problem of induction, which is so universal that it's basically irrelevant.
politically i'd say he's kind of like the equivilant of some liberal saying "the bush administration were so stupid for going to war thinking iraq had wmds. what a bunch of dumb dumbs!" when no one in the bush admin beleived that and only employed the theory cynically. he attributes the financial crisis to stupidity rather than evil, which i think is comforting to a certain demographic who buy his books
solzhesnitchin posted:it's been a long time since i read any of his stuff, but my impression was that he's a completely shameless fraud and i just generally hated his corny writing
as far as economics/finance/stats goes, he basically just constructs strawmen to call idiots. no one actually believes in the models to the extent that he alleges. the market already deviates from those models and overprices the risks he alleges are underpriced. warren buffett and other hugely capitalized institutions make a lot of money by insuring against black swans. its the same principle as how people perceive a greater risk of terrorist attacks or crashing in an airplane or "the grid" going down than dying in a car accident within a few blocks of their home. taleb argues the opposite, and i really can't see anything supporting him besides the problem of induction, which is so universal that it's basically irrelevant.
politically i'd say he's kind of like the equivilant of some liberal saying "the bush administration were so stupid for going to war thinking iraq had wmds. what a bunch of dumb dumbs!" when no one in the bush admin beleived that and only employed the theory cynically. he attributes the financial crisis to stupidity rather than evil, which i think is comforting to a certain demographic who buy his books
ok. cool stuff.
and that as the future benevolent communist dictator who saves us from extinction
i oughta have at least 5 wives, each deadlier and more revolutionary than the last
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tishyaraksha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_Padmavati
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karuvaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharani_Devi
stegosaurus posted:wher the FUCK is the rhizzone edited volume on investing strategy
<- has clamored about this for years
getfiscal posted:solzhesnitchin posted:he's really bad and obviously empirically wrong about pretty much everything. if he were right, he would be a billionaire amd warren buffett would be broke. instead his funds have all tanked just like the emh guys' would have
the first few comments here explain why in a nutshell:
http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/malcolm-gladwell-article-on-nassim-taleb-(written-in-2002)/20/cool. i have no preawareness of him other than quind saying he found taleb very useful for thinking about politics. those guys seem to think it is good as a critique of other stuff but not a guide for investing. is that true or is he just garbage all the way down.
even though this forum is dead and gay im glad the age of gimmick posters and psychopaths like quind is over
Gibbonstrength posted:Getfiscal I really enjoy your longer posts. When I see one come up in a thread I get pumped for socialism,even more than I a,ready am (very pumped!!!) have you considered writing articles about this stuff, these weirdo Marxist debates and theories? I'd never have the stomach to get into that stuff first hand but I like hearing about it, it seems instructive about praxis
that's kind to say but honestly the world wide web is saturated with that stuff anyway and i don't really understand half of it. i will write more for real in the future though.
littlegreenpills posted:donald lets get breakfast poutine again soon so i can control your reading choices in 2018
i might be able to come down near your work for lunch on this friday if you like. we could try to rope in alex too maybe?
getfiscal posted:Gibbonstrength posted:Getfiscal I really enjoy your longer posts. When I see one come up in a thread I get pumped for socialism,even more than I a,ready am (very pumped!!!) have you considered writing articles about this stuff, these weirdo Marxist debates and theories? I'd never have the stomach to get into that stuff first hand but I like hearing about it, it seems instructive about praxis
that's kind to say but honestly the world wide web is saturated with that stuff anyway and i don't really understand half of it. i will write more for real in the future though.
Speaking for myself, I can make bonkers high quality posts that they later go onto teach in posting university, day in and day out, but can only produce about 3 pages of long form content a year. Idk if getfiscal has the same attribute, I assume because xhe read books, its not such a difficulty for xher to follow an idea for more than 20s.
The other half of his book is an exercise in narcissism as he tries to expunge all his insecurities. It's full of anecdotes and insights like:
- One time some mathematician asked him some innocuous technical question about his definition of randomness, but for Taleb this man was a fool who missed the entire point of everything.
- A rant about gym-bros aren't really as strong as they seem.
- What if it's not swimming that gives you a "swimmer's body," but people that have swimmer's body's that are great swimmers?
- Stories about how his mentor, and only other great man, Mandelbrot was exiled by the french academy since they couldn't see his vision.
I mean, all of these are relatively innocuous on their own, and mostly point to him being a dweeb. However, he's clearly built up this narrative that he was an intellectual in exile--ousted and undermined at every turn by arrogant cretins. Anyways, this naturally leads him to implicitly believe what Solzhesnitchen was pointing out, that the flaws with finance are there just because it's staffed with myopic idiots.
chickeon posted:i hope breakfast poutine just means poutine for breakfast and not some kind of awful egg nightmare
it can mean many things but i think LGP's food was indeed an awful egg nightmare.
getfiscal posted:it always surprises me that like 30K+ of canadians went and enlisted to fight in the US. some of them were poor people but most of them seem to have been right-wingers and such. i wonder if canada would have entered the war directly if francophones hadn't sent slates of liberals during the period. the liberals were pro-US overall but they were strangely influenced by the huge national liberation movements at the time and were nice to cuba and such.
I used to work with a guy who was so enraged by 9/11 that he moved to America from Australia to join the marines and got deployed to Iraq. I think he imagines it being like that scene from American Sniper where the guy sees 9/11 on TV and starts singing my country tis of thee or whatever. Afterwards he joined a mercenary firm in Iraq (not Blackwater but basically the same deal) and then travelled back to Australia so he could tell me about how the bible foretells that the Iraqis need white rule.