Junk bonds are bonds with high credit risk, what’s wrong with selling them to customers who are after high yields?
It's not like junk was a part of the name right?
Readit Newsyarky commented on A software change allowed FTX to use client money reuters.com/technology/ho... · Posted by u/jc_811
yarky commented on Ask HN: How is the job search coming along for people who got laid off? · Posted by u/taauji
Bunch of companies migrate their stack to Kubernetes or other orchestrators (side effect of moving to microservices even when not needed) so you are safe and in demand for long.
> even when not needed
Examples? Every time I see kubernetes pop up it's because of better performance or lesser costs.
yarky commented on Apple to move 40-45% iPhone production to India wsj.com/articles/apple-ch... · Posted by u/akmittal
yarky commented on Apple to move 40-45% iPhone production to India wsj.com/articles/apple-ch... · Posted by u/akmittal
The point that “those jobs are the only (even the best) way out for most people to get out of poverty" stands. But the point that China has strict labor laws is laughable. The laws are indeed strict but seldom enforced.
> The laws are indeed strict but seldom enforced.
This is true of most strict rules elsewhere: they're there but seldom enforced. Take speed limits, they're strict, but good luck enforcing them. All we do is we monitor from time to time and give tickets. Yet we could enforce this to the manufacturers, right? Why can a car go beyond the speed limit if it's strictly prohibited?
We cannot compare working conditions as is, but they're easy to compare when you take time into account: how where our labor laws a couple of generations ago? Not that different than poor countries today.
yarky commented on Apple to move 40-45% iPhone production to India wsj.com/articles/apple-ch... · Posted by u/akmittal
Born and raised in China, I stopped reading this after the first paragraph.
Laws are meaningless if they are never enforced or are simply ignored. Which happens all the time in China.
It is not easy to fire people. Sure, in normal situations. But when appropriate, government is going to ignore all these and do whatever necessary, and maybe even threaten to put you or your family in jail. Want to go to court? Good luck, the judges are going to stand with the government.
Another example: the constitution says that Chinese people have the freedom to speak, publish and demonstrate etc. Tell me how that has worked out.
> Born and raised in China.
The OP made a good point that applies to all poor countries I've lived in: those jobs are the only (even the best) way out for most people to get out of poverty, which they do to help their families/children/themselves.
Maybe you were raised in a family that did not need to go through such hard labor, but that doesn't mean your right in your view of your own world ;)
P.S. I was also born and raised in a poor country.
With exploring, the starting state should only affect which local-maximum you end up in. Therefore you need to make an argument that a random starting state is likely to end up in a higher local-maximum than a non-random starting state.
There is always a starting state; using a random one only means you don't know what it is.
Exactly, but why do so many people seem to have a problem with this? Sounds like a political problem to me instead of a scientific one.
It's predicated on the assumption that a random discovery from a zero-comprehension state is more likely to get you to a goal than an evolution from a state that has at least some correctness.
More generally, it disingenuously disregards the fact that the definition of the problem brings with it an enormous set of preconceptions. Reductio ad absurdum, you should just start training a model on completely random data in search of some unexpected but useful outcome.
Obviously we don't do this; by setting a goal and a context we have already applied constraints, and so this really just devolves into a quantitative argument about the set of initial conditions.
(This is the entire point of the Minsky / Sussman koan.)
> from a zero-comprehension state is more likely to get you to a goal than an evolution from a state that has at least some correctness.
I get that starting from a point with "some correctness" makes sense if you want to use such information (e.g. a standard starting point). However, such information is a preconceived solution to the problem, which might not be that useful after all. The fact is that you indeed might not at all need such information to find an optimal solution to a given problem.
> by setting a goal and a context we have already applied constraints.
I might be missing your point here since the goal and constraints must come from the real world problem to solve which is independent from the method to solve the problem. Unless you're describing p-value hacking your wait out, which is a broader problem.
An old story:
“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.
“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied.
“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.
“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
“Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.
“So that the room will be empty.”
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
The problem with preconceptions about your parameters is that you might be missing some crazy cool path to your goal, which you might find by randomly exploring your sample space. I remember seeing this same principle in mcmc samplers using uniform priors. Why is this so crazy?
yarky commented on Basics of Concrete Barriers (2000) highways.dot.gov/public-r... · Posted by u/quotha
> Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else).
To me this sounds like the equivalent of permanently shutting down a public park because it's infested with disease carrying rats rather than trying to get rid of the rats.
> would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else).
Wasn't this the same kind of argument we used in the past to justify slavery?
yarky commented on I’m the nurse who called 911 for help with staffing nurse.org/articles/nurse-... · Posted by u/ystad
If that question was in good faith, I think your response might be the right one. But I very much doubt that question was in good faith - it sounds more to me like "suck it up or get out, princess".
> more to me like "suck it up or get out, princess".
Different wording, but same message though. It sounds like the two options are fundamentally the same, regardless of the wording.