1. The teacher forgot to include that the University wants 100 responses to the survey.
2. Missing answer C likely contains something like "Randomly select 14 more students to receive the survey"
That makes it an actual statistics question, you'd need to calculate the response rate from the original 120 and then compute the additional solicitations required to meet the response count goal of 100.
That still doesn't fix the problem with the question. Without knowing the goal of the survey (what it is trying to measure), you can't determine the (in)significance of the non-responses.
Each answer has a failing:
A - student didn't have much to say, answers tainted by student being annoyed and clicking through the survey to stop the spam
B - surveyor didn't like the answer they got, so they drew again. that's straightforward biased sampling
D - might not make for enough data, as you said
E - student body isn't stateless, and may have had time to talk about the survey. "Hey friends, let me know if any of you get asked to do that survey because I want to give them a piece of my mind"
Choosing between them is only possible by making some simplifying assumptions, which requires knowing what you're trying to find out.
It's the same dynamics, though, and "bank run" is the historical term used for these dynamics, i.e. institution takes depositors funds, institution loans out funds to other parties (the difference in the crypto case is that it appears this was done illegally, while in banking it's the underpinning for our financial system), and then there is a crisis of confidence where people run to take their money out, with the fear that you don't want to be last in line when the run starts.
ii) that's not how these exchanges work. if they are non-fraudulent, they'd have to hold cryptocurrency and cash on behalf of their clients. they'd never have a problem meeting withdrawal requests (the critical element of bank runs)
iii) crypto exchanges, if they are non-fraudulent, would be an equivalent to stock brokers, not banks
That absolutely is how banks work. Yes, there are fundamentally complexities under the covers, but banks take deposits and make loans - that is their fundamental purpose.
Your points about "that's not how these exchanges work" is just a rephrasing of the point I made where the assets were loaned out illegally.
Have you even had a look at the article that I linked? You are making a claim without providing any backup whatsoever for your position, after it's already been pointed out to you with a scholarly reference that your belief is wrong.
Suggestion: if you're trying to make a point, state it. Linking to 40 page article about the theory behind monetary creation in the modern world is not exactly a good way to make your argument against the statement that "banks take deposits and make loans".
I honestly don't know how one can argue against that, it is simply true to anyone who has used a bank. I did not make any larger statement about the mechanics of modern-day money creation.
It's in the abstract already: money creation is a result of bank's loan creation - the two are connected. Banks don't take deposits that they then lend out, they instead create those deposits ex nihilo when they make a loan.
The difference is still useless pedantry for the purposes of a discussion about bank runs.
If a bank makes a lot loans, and those loans go bad, and then depositors are fearful for their money and make a run on the bank, it is the depositors who are still shit out of luck unless their deposits are insured. You can argue all you want that the traditional model of fractional reserve banking isn't how today's money creation works, but at the end of the day there is a direct line between the quality of a bank's assets (its loans) and the ability for it to service its liabilities (its deposits).
Considering that FTX is a fraudulent exchange and the rate at which fraud has been perpetuated by crypto exchanges historically, I don't know that this is any more than theoretical pedantry.
For all practical purposes at this point in time, if you don't assume your exchange is lying about their reserves and at high risk of a run you're in for a massive loss.
I am heavily against crypto, but I will be the first to point out the decentralization purists were right: not your keys, not your coins. If you're going to play this game, putting complete trust in mostly unregulated entities who have conflicting self-interests from you...yikes.
> For all practical purposes at this point in time, if you don't assume your exchange is lying about their reserves and at high risk of a run you're in for a massive loss.
I'm a cryptocurrency advocate and I agree. This is why users should 1) never put more funds at risk in an exchange than they are willing to lose (at least, not at the same time), and 2) should demand Merkle-tree based proofs of crypto reserves, like the Kraken exchange has done out of their own initiative, or some other kind of proof of crypto reserves by cryptographic signature and 3) should demand periodic financial audits of their exchanges from reputable financial auditing firms (not the clown show that FTX's financial auditor was, which had offices... IN THE METAVERSE).
Points 2) and 3) are not infallible (especially because exchanges can get hacked) which is why point 1) is so important.
I also think that crypto exchanges should require new customers to pass a relatively strict test about crypto, investment and trading basics, before they could start operating with cryptocurrencies or with any other such trading products. Especially since crypto exchanges are the most common onboarding vector for new crypto users.
Because it's obvious that many crypto users do not know what they're getting into and all the risks that they are taking.
> I am heavily against crypto, but I will be the first to point out the decentralization purists were right: not your keys, not your coins. If you're going to play this game, putting complete trust in mostly unregulated entities who have conflicting self-interests from you...yikes.
Agreed, although I would nitpick in that by itself, regulation is hardly a guarantee that the risks have been eliminated. In fact, many bank failures and financial crisis, for example, have happened despite massive regulations. Also, many regulations are pointless burocracies or even have massively detrimental and/or have unintended consequences in many ways, such as limiting competition unnecessarily, promoting inequality and unfairness by preventing savvy investors (with non-massive amounts of funds) from being able to invest, etc, etc, etc.
But yes, in general I agree with you and I think more transparency for crypto exchanges is definitely needed and maybe should even be required by regulation, given that most exchanges are not doing it themselves out of their own initiative (even though it would be in their collective best interests in the long term).
These aren't anything though, they're made up by the founders. They don't behave like any typical financial institution. These things are just implementations of functionality, the fact that they are trusted with large amounts of money by random people on the internet is really good marketing and promises of riches.
Well maybe we should find a new term, because atleast in the US, bank runs on actual banks aren't possible anymore due to the fed mandated reserve requirement being 0% and banks being able to print new $
These events are the closest we can get to bank runs today
I wish people would stop saying this. Hooks aren’t functional or stateless.
Literally, calling ‘useMemo’ twice returns two different objects, because the function keeps track in internal state of how many times it has been called.
Hooks are very deeply imperative.
They are a way of obtaining some benefits that are easily obtained in functional programming via higher-order functions, but expressed in a way that makes them easily consumed in an imperative code body.
Hooks are obviously not stateless - I'm saying they were an inevitable consequence of the push towards functional components and that they represent an inferior development experience. No one needed to write 2000 words on how to use setState.
Couldn't disagree more. Do you remember all the nonsense you had to read about componentWillUpdate, componentDidUpdate, getDerivedStateFromProps, componentWillMount, componentWillUnmount? What a mess. Hooks clean up so much of that complexity.
Maybe this has more to do with how people look at these paradigms. I find the class based lifecycle methods much easier to wrap my head around than hooks. I think hooks are more of an answer to higher order components. They make sense to me when I look at them that way, but as a replacement for classes, function components seem inferior from a maintainability perspective.
Class based components are garbage. There's a reason hooks were introduced. It is analogous to OOP vs functional programming, inheritance vs composition (not exactly the same because hooks are not pure functions).
The perquisite to successful DAO's is actually a strong centralized universal identity system (which is ironically counter to cryto-bro anarcho-capitalists philosophies).
From there it's pretty easy to associate real political capital with digital decisions.
E.g. Automatic n+1 "ban proposing user" option added to all proposals. If after n votes (where n is large) the sum(ban proposing user) > 0.25*sum(all other options), proposal is removed and user is banned until a proposal to unban is passed.
"Since last June, Google has approved nearly 14,000 employees globally to transfer to a new location or go fully remote, Casey said. About 15% of applications have been denied, he added."
"Employees not prepared to return April 4 also can seek a remote-work extension, Google said."
I'm not aware of any engineering org that bans it, except smaller groups within orgs that are working on hardware. Where is your 20% number coming from?
Those aren’t temporary exceptions. Fully remote in this context means you don’t have an assigned desk in any Google office and thus aren’t subject to any mandate about returning to offices when a particular office opens back up
Made my move to permanent remote last Fall, when it was becoming pretty clear that return to office was on the horizon. Sure enough, we're going back company wide starting this week. Really glad I did it while I could. I will never go back to a 9-5 daily commute ever again.
I would hesitate to make such sweeping statements. As work returns to the office my prediction is that you'll end up with pockets of high functioning teams that are physically colocated and distributed teams will inevitably be at a disadvantage which will lead to them being relegated to "tolerate" despite the talent on those teams.
It's not to say that distributed teams can't be high funtioning it just takes 3x the effort from a management perspective. Good management is in even higher demand than SWE skills. A good manager will gravitate towards teams that are colocated because they know they can be more effective for less effort.
To level the playing field it has to be all colocated or all remote. Talent currently holds the cards because of demand but talent+colocation will always win in a contest.
I think you are overstating the importance of 'management'. In the modern world (i.e. not a factory or otherwise rote work) real business (and indeed societal) value is created due to the web of relationships between people who have at least some idea of what they are doing.
>To level the playing field it has to be all colocated or all remote.
Completely agreed. The way I see my situation playing out is that all of the employees who went remote during COVID will be tolerated, but that the company culture will revert to in-office first. That will eventually lead to the remote cohort slowly being relegated to irrelevance and passed for promotion until they disappear (including myself) through attrition. When that happens I will start looking for 100% remote companies. But for now I really don't care though, as long as they are paying me a Bay Area salary to live in the midwest.
My company was all in office culture until they could no longer hire or only hire really fresh/average workers in the local market. Ive been remotely for 4yrs (precovid), and promoted 3 times in that period. But im a SWE not a csuite or in hr or marketing.
Your job is what you make of it. I personally see WFH as the progression brought about by the internet; not covid. Covid just sped up the transition that was already happening. Covid brought about collective PSTD which forced peoples hand like any other trauma in ones life. It was the reason people stopped putting off there happiness, for the dream of success.
I would like to point out that you also appear to be making sweeping statements.
I don’t agree with you that colocated teams have an inherent advantage, or that they require more management to be productive than a remote team on average.
And as far as Google is concerned, that's always been true.
I knew someone who worked and lived in a houseboat. She showed up to the office for meetings, but her job was sales so she didn't have much use for a desk anyway.
My job location literally says US-REMOTE-MY_STATE. I signed a new contract and everything. Yes, this could change if the CEO decides to ban remote work but there is no evidence that this would happen any time soon. "Big mean Google does mean thing" is an attractive headline for media outlets.
From my experience most of your assertions have a hidden assumption that the software requirements are complete and they are good. Computing something 10000 times faster is useless if it turns out to be the wrong computation. Furthermore, things that run 10000 times faster than other things tend to be harder to adapt and change.
Requirements that are good enough to warrant a 5 second page load time being "unacceptable" must have, at some point, been prototyped with real use cases, real data, and in real environments.
Getting to that point - where the business case is connected with such a strong through-line to the user experience can literally take years. Early in a project lifecycle it's more important to design software that is easy to change than software that is fast.
Language choice does not matter, performance does not matter; the design philosophy of the developer(s) when building something new is everything. That philosophy should be "I'll likely have to change this" not "I need to make sure this runs quickly". Any high level design decisions should be made with the former in mind, not the latter.
Once you've earned that product wisdom, sure - carve out the slow thing and write it in CUDA or something. If things are easy to change, that's not a scary proposition; it's just part of the natural project lifecycle and Knuth lives to die another day.
What I'm advocating here is not for optimized code. Only for non-pessimized by default code.
This kind of code does not tend to be rigid as you might imagine. Quite the opposite. Since it doesn't introduce a ton of premature abstractions and stays straight to the point, it tends to be flexible and easy to change/adapt.
You are still thinking in terms of a false dichotomy:
- Flexible but slow
- Fast but rigid
But it's a false dichotomy.
You don't need optimizations to get high performance software. Computers are very fast. You just need non-pessimized code.
It's funny. People use "computer are very fast" to dismiss all performance concerns. But this is not how we should think about it.
"Computer are very fast" means we don't need to optimize (as in micro-optimize on the instruction level) code to get high performance. We just need to get the clowns out of the car.
I think we're largely in agreement here e.g. I agree 100% that premature abstractions hold a lot of inertia. I'm just advocating for making decisions that optimize for "the right thing" over speed alone. In my experience the right thing tends to be adaptation, but that's because I do a lot of R&D work.
Sometimes yes, you can eat your cake and have it too w/r/t performance and flexibility; but the choice of programming language cannot be categorically relegated to "always pick the fastest one". There are no silver bullets, there will always be tradeoffs.
Flexibility matters, ecosystem matters, developer experience matters, third party libraries matter, good requirements (or lack thereof) matter, budget matters, timeline matters, security matters, and yes, performance also matters - it's just not the only consideration.
High level design decisions, language included, are not "pessimized by default" because they deem some of those other considerations more important than speed.
What if we implemented a system where explanations of things were consistently judged against each other so as to develop a set of the best explanations representing the most complete real time description of reality? Maybe we can call it science?
What if that system had only touched on an infinitesimally small amount of data in an infinite universe over hundreds of years and that system changed constantly to adjust to new discoveries so said system, wasn't totally reliable as a source of truth unless one didn't really understand how that system worked and hubristically treated it as a big daddy who has the answers to the universe, when it really doesn't, instead of a process of constantly evolving understanding?
Subsidies are keeping cow COGS artificially low. Removing them would increase the cost to raise a cow; selling it for more money does not necessarily lead to more profit. This is the difference between gross profit and net profit... and we're not even taking into account what the market is willing to pay for a burger in the first place.
