> The natural equilibrium for a perfect ad market is for the ad spend to be exactly equal to increase in revenue
Not quite, the equilibrium is when marginal ad spend results in no change to profit. The ad spend at equilibrium should result in increased profit compared to no ad spend.
System Settings > Touch ID & Password > Use Touch ID for autofilling passwords. Turn this off on Macs with Touch ID and Safari will autofill without requiring Touch ID.
The probability is exactly zero by definition. The maximum score on a test is a raw score of 100%. Tests are normalized to have the reported scores fit a normal distribution. An out-of-distribution score indicates an error in normalizing the test.
In other words, the highest IQ of every living person has a defined upper bound that is dependent on the number of living people and it is definitionally impossible to exceed this value. Reports of higher values are mistakes or informal exaggerations, similar to a school saying a student is one that you would only encounter in a million years. By definition it is not possible to have evidence to support such a statement.
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that democracy means deciding policy based on opinion polls. This is not how democracies work in practice, and opinion polls often show that most people don't want policy dictated solely by opinion polls.
Democracy is a governmental system where political power is vested in the people. It is characterized by competitive elections and the safeguarding of human rights[1].
It is by definition undemocratic for two wolves and a sheep to vote for who to eat for dinner. It is undemocratic to have gerrymandering. It is undemocratic to have uncompetitive primary elections. It is undemocratic for the police to quell protests. It is undemocratic to have state-backed propaganda, censorship, and misinformation.
Maintaining a democracy necessitates maintaining its institutions. An authoritarian one-party state does not magically become democratic just because it has an election or manufactures support for its project. Elections are an insufficient condition for democracy.
It's possible to do proportional representation with a ranked choice voting system where you vote for individuals rather than parties. Or you could allow voters to rank either parties or individual candidates based on their preference; an example of this is the Australian Senate election.
I don't think national elections need to have districts smaller than a state at all. If all of a state's seats in the House that are up for election were decided in a single state-wide election with multiple winners allocated with proportional representation, it is impossible to gerrymander. Many other countries have this kind of system.
I don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.
Protests don't need to change the minds of the public to work. For example, protests still work in non-democratic societies in which public opinion has no bearing on policy. They work by directly exerting pressure on people who make decisions.
For those who believe that billionaires are a policy failure, the answer is they should be taxed more to the point that there are no more billionaires.
If you want to know whether a drug is more effective than placebo, the answer to that question depends on both the data collected in a study and the initial study design. There’s a reason why it’s meaningless to say “that was unlikely” after somebody says they were born on January 1, or after getting a two-factor code that is the same number six times. There’s nothing special about those particular events except for the fact that we noticed them. Since we live in a single instance of the universe where they have already happened, they have probability 1. At the same time, on any given instance they have probability 1/365ish or 1/10000. The difference between these two interpretations of the probability is the same difference as having a good experimental design vs a flawed experimental design where you repeat the experiment until you get the results you want to see.
Unlikely in what probability space? We only see one version of reality so the probabilities that we assign to any outcome are based on a prior choice of probability space. That is why the researchers' intent matters.
You linked to an editorial about ethics. I'm not sure what to make of it, are you against conducting research and communicating it in an ethical way? Or do you disagree about something specific in that article? Either way I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection between what you're saying and the original article.
Note that as a plane burns fuel, its maximum sustainable altitude and its most fuel-efficient altitude both increase. This explains why the pilots did not climb to a higher flight level earlier.
> How about I authenticate with the payment provider instead of some random store clerk? I don’t want the merchant to even see my name at all.
Apple Pay and Google Pay don't show the merchant the cardholder name IIRC, and they authenticate you with biometrics, although the merchant may still use AVS and therefore ask you for your zip code.
A union B is defined as the set of things that are in A or in B; A intersect B is defined as the set of things that are in A and in B. So I don't really see it as an arbitrary choice.
You can interpret 0 and 1 as probabilities. 1 + 1 = 1 in this case makes sense because P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B). You can interpret "A or B" as a set union and "A and B" as a set intersection. Of course it's easy to draw a three-way correspondence between Boolean arithmetic, the events represented by the empty set and the whole space, and sets within some universe because all the objects are so simple, but these correspondences also generalize well to systems with more than two possible values. The ease of generalizing makes me think it's not just a matter of coincidence or convention that we have 0 <=> false.
The "disagree and commit" leadership principle is supposed to represent a situation where the manager is the one who disagrees with a subordinate but trusts the subordinate's judgement enough to commit to going along with their idea (this also works for a peer relationship). The relevant LP for the subordinate is "earn trust". Simply following orders is not an LP. Of course there is enough vagueness in the LPs that Jassy can twist the meaning a bit.