The reason they add to over 100% is due to the 10% fee on profits which limits arbitrage. Specifically, all profits have a fee assessed but it doesn't account for money lost on associated contracts so if you buy Biden winning the election for $0.90 and buy Trump losing for $0.10 ---> if Biden wins, that contract resolves to $1 but you only receive $.99 due to the fee. Meanwhile you have lost $0.9 on your other contract. This effect is most noticeable in markets with multiple contracts (e.g., who will be named secretary of state).
This is a reason things will get slightly out of line but not to this degree. You can (and I did) buy all the NOs in the Predictit electoral college market and get a guaranteed immediate return.
If you can buy n NOs for less than (n-1-0.1) on predictit you'll make money net of fees.
The bigger issue is trader limits. I could only take $50 worth of arbitrage because I can only own $850 worth of shares in each bracket. They also limit markets to 5k traders (which most markets have hit at this point) so other arbitragers can't come in and correct the prices.
I don't have familiarity with speech-to-text but wouldn't it be possible to weight words based on their probability in this application to help resolve this. For example, suspect is probably a low frequency word in normal speech but very high in radio chatter.
Or used a weird model like this one which does some sort of Markov chaining to complete sentences that weren't even present in the original audio or transcription.
"foaming at the mouth" was never even close to being uttered on the radio. I'm guessing the (flawed) model inserted that part because of the proximity to the word "needle" and "assistance".
The quality is currently limited by Google's API. I am working on getting some pre-trained models implemented, but voice processing is not my speciality as a software engineer.
I do NOT want to spread misinformation nor do we want to unjustly slander anyone. Tonight I will be adding a disclaimer mentioning the limitations of our service and will make sure it is forefront on the website.
Hopefully we can create a model which can deliver better results.
That's slightly different to what OP was talking about, if I'm understanding correctly. You're talking about reassessing the probability of previous words based on future words. They're talking about weighting the prior probability of each word based on the context i.e. police conversation as opposed to normal phone conversation.
[my side project is using speech-to-text so this is amateur hour response]
Yes, but it takes a bit to build up that weighted list and it can be quite hefty to parse. So they may be building this behind the scenes currently. As another commenter pointed out, being able to correct a chunk and send it back to help the algorithm would be a nice feature here.
Side note: I'm dealing with this issue at the moment - if anyone has a good resource on reducing the workload I'd love a link!.
You could actually borrow some techniques from text mining to do this, e.g. probabilistic latent semantic analysis, to constantly re-train your speech recognition model by reinforcing translations that semantically "make sense."
Imo, text to speech that produces apparent garbage is better then one who produces probably stuff that is wrong. Someone, either cop or citizen, could easily end up accused of wrongdoing where not actual wrongdoing happened.
I concur it is about respect for time most of all. Though the technical portions are interesting, they could have been broken out into separate articles for people who want those additional details.
I may not be the target audience (novice coder) but I also feel the writing style would greatly benefit from greater focus.
A sentence that stands out in that regard is "Although my co-founders Thomas and Erin have done substantial work with securing real stock exchanges over their career, I have no particular background in finance." This sentence could be refined to "My co-founders Thomas and Erin have substantial experience securing real stock exchanges". This kind of editing would help the author avoid 8k word essays without a significant loss of content value.
You've reduced the word count with that edit, but you've also lost some texture. The voice and texture of Patrick's writing contribute greatly to its being so absorbing... there's no point in trying to turn a Melville into a Hemingway.
My advice to Patrick would not be to change his style, which is clearly very effective, but to also throw some shorter update emails into the mix so people can keep tabs with less of a time investment if they so choose.
I am going to a group discussion tomorrow about first-refusal rights in the NFL and happened to do a brief naive analysis of extra point vs 2 point conversions earlier today. In brief, the EV of a 2 point conversion was .91 while an extra point was .99. That said, for every 19 extra point attempts there was only one two point conversion attempt. Frankly, I am all for variance so I am rooting for the more ambitious two-point attempt.
W1ntermute is decrying the fact that the Ubuntu team is in a position where they feel it is necessary to rely on selling access to their userbase.
It seems the most valued contribution skilled peoples can make to Ubuntu is in code and time. Even non-technical users can contribute valuable assets to the project. If your company has spare hardware, that is also useful to the SPI.
However, if you lack those resources, donations are openly accepted by both Ubuntu[1] and Debian[2].
Taking fifteen minutes, considering the value added by Ubuntu and choosing an appropriate amount to donate is not "a high mental cost". Nor is writing a check or completing the electronic ClickPledge checkout form.
Further, the argument that if Ubuntu had more money it would undermine their organization's mission and cause endless infighting is baseless. Would you make the same argument about the Wikimedia foundation or EFF?
First off, the argument I was trying to make with regards to donations being "hard" is that it turns off a lot of people. I, personally, have made numerous donations to different organizations for the things they provide me.
I have donated to non-profit organizations like the EFF and contributed money to everything from conferences to individuals who are simply "making a giant dent in an important problem but are sadly too busy to dedicate all of their time to it".
However, I am fairly confident that I am rare. I thereby understand that me giving $10,000 to Ubuntu, in the grand scheme of things, is meaningless in comparison to a reality where every serious user of Ubuntu was paying them $200.
I thereby contend that having a system of open-ended donations that requires physical mail with checks or money orders is a problem. You can tell me I'm not contributing enough, but that is both insulting to me and completely misses the point.
Note: at this point, you could simply have said "you misread that page, the Click & Pledge system lower down actually allows you to donate without physical anything", but you didn't quite; my response would have been: "I seriously did not notice that, and I'm sorry".
That said, I am not certain how much that changes the overall point: that entire page seems accidentally designed to make people consider donating to Debian both difficult and even "scary": as someone who has to do a lot of writing for random people who may not speak English very well to read, a lot of people are going to think that paragraph about identity theft applies to their online transaction, and not to the Debian Foundation posting accounts to wire.
Secondly, I did not make the argument at the end: I accepted that I could appreciate other people making that argument. Instead, I made the longer argument through the previous set of paragraphs that Ubuntu should actively charge for things.
Your last paragraph and its closing question is thereby highly confusing, and makes me question both whether you read my comment, and whether I should bother responding to yours. That said, I will now put on the hat of the people I overall disagree with and attempt to answer your question.
I, personally, am involved in what I, as well as many, consider more of a "movement" than a product: a specific form of hacking known as "jailbreaking" mobile devices, and in particular the iPhone (although I also do Android work).
In this capacity, I have seen many different people who have myriad opinions on what happens when you inject the concerns of managing money into a decentralized system, and I have seen first hand what happens "on the inside".
For one, you immediately get concerns about who is contributing what to the project, and thereby how the money should be allocated. As the contributions are decentralized, it is not clear that any one person or even one group of people should "own allocation".
In the case of Ubuntu, I imagine that even getting donations is tense. It is my understanding that many of the people working on Debian or with past ties to Debian feel that the Ubuntu project's primary purpose is to leach off their effort.
Meanwhile, I contend that things can get even worse if you start charging. Of course, as I believe that charging is the right course of action, I actually do charge for things personally, so I can talk about how people react to these kinds of charges.
The result is that a lot of people now believe you are "rolling in the money", when in fact you are a community project that is reinvesting the money you receive in improved output by hiring people and donating the rest.
This is difficult for end users to contemplate, however, as all they see is that they are having to pay $200 for an operating system distributed via a medium with a near-$0 marginal production cost (downloadable/copyable files).
However, again, I think that this entire diversion is weird, because I spent an entire post attempting to argue that Ubuntu should charge for things, linking to an argument made by other people, and attempting to state that donations might not be enough.
Thereby, my arguments for why Ubuntu should not accept or even demand money might not be very good: if you are seriously attempting to ask that question, you should ask it to someone who is actually on that side of the argument.
I speculate that it may be an attempt to stem movement to the significant number of private trackers that dependably provide higher quality torrents earlier than public sites. Allowing TPB to stay up means that people must sort through muck and viruses to locate the content they want. For many, that is enough and they don't bother looking a little deeper.
"Growth hacker" is the in vogue jargon for "marketer". I have read arguments promoting the title on the basis that there is an increased reliance on quantitative analysis but the bottom line is they are just marketers naturally applying their craft to their own job titles.
For those that would disagree, please tell me what would differ on a growth hacker's resume vs. a marketing professional's resume. A big clue that they are the same role is that both jobs would list user acquisition numbers as a key metric of their work efficacy.
The difference is quite makred. A conventional marketer focuses on using, well, conventional methods. They use already made marketing tools to get their messages across. Seldom do they dare innovate in any regard. They basically apply the same thing to every idea.
A growth hacker:
builds his/her own tools (including software)
is always developing new marketing tools
works to combine conventional with new
Its not a new term, but has been getting some attention in the past years.
As an aside, I find some irony in the fact that a growth hacker uses blogspot. All Blogspot blogs are blocked in China without the use of a vpn. Thus, a sizeable chunk of potential readers is excluded.
