London voted overwhelmingly against Brexit, but will this change as Brexit continues.
Quite a lot about how it feels different, about how London is a multicultural hub, about how migrants are thinking about leaving, about how London will change.
It's a mood piece, but a fairly accurate one from my point of view (lived in London for 20 yrs)
What about the brains who never moved now moving away?
I am British and have lived here for nearly 40 years. I'm currently looking at an Irish passport (Irish wife) or maybe France. My taxes and know how will be better put to use somewhere our values (openness, tolerance, mutual respect) agree.
The Peter Dinklage bit annoys me, as this is precisely the issue - survivorship bias.
I happen to have a few actor friends. All talented, harder working than me, and dedicated to their craft. And no-one is interviewing them because they haven't made it.The talent and hard work pays off because you also get the lucky break.
There's a more specific example of this - in the Netherlands for years before 1939 they had a wide ranging census and an excellent civil service. On that census was an option for religion.
The Nazi's took the census records and then used the excellent civil service to deport the overwhelming majority of Jews to the camps. The Netherlands had some of the lowest rates of survival of Jews amongst occupied territories. The Nazi's knew who they were, and where to find them.
Who knows what piece of information could be used to hound you to your death, years after you divulge it?
I remember the auction - it delayed the intro of 4G as the big players had spent so much money on the auction that they had to sweat their 3G assets to try to recoup their costs.
It worked for the govt - it certainly didn't for the customers...
The classic hedge fund used to be able to find niches in the market where they could make money - and the good ones used to be able to do it well.
They could do things other money managers couldn't - short stocks (i.e. hedging against a fall, hence their names), better analysts, investments in more diversified instruments, early HFT.
They would often take a fee of two and twenty - that is to say 2% of the money you lent them (every year), plus 20% of the profit they made from that money.
If you gave them $10 million, they'd take $200k as a fee every year, then 20% of the profit they made. So let's say they made you $1 mill a year, they'd be paid in the first year $200k fees and $200k performance fees.
However nowadays there's millions of them, and almost all of them lose money as there weren't that many profitable niches to begin with, and a lot of them were lucky anyway (survivorship bias).
There was a recent This American Life episodes about this. Apparently the best way to raise poor black children's scores is to remove segregation, but white communities don't want it:
It's possibly because your original downvoted comment was a vague hit out at 'the man' castigating the establishment and placing this trader in the same bracket as Madoff.
It had no facts, no real argument, was unspecific, ad hominem and didn't advance the debate in any particular direction that was useful or informative.
Much like your second comment.
You could have pointed, for example, to the rise of HFT, and perhaps asked why this particular trader was being penalised unlike several larger HFT operations when he was front-running or pulling trades before they could be completed. (See Flash Boys by Michael Lewis). Then, chances are you might have been upvoted.
We can take dissonance. We just prefer it to be informative.
I've tried to talk friends out of getting problem breeds such as bulldogs, considering so many dogs are left in shelters, but to no avail. To breed an animal to extinction for fashion is an extremely odd thing to do, when you think about it...
It doesn't say it'll fall into the sea. It wonders how such a city might change, most likely in directions opposed to its current identity.