I venture a wild guess that the somewhat implausible "Yaroslav Murai" is a pseudonym, up there with Satoshi Nakamoto.

These are not mutually exclusive statements. Actually, this is how Ponzi schemes work ; -)

(Somehow I never connected Bayer et al. and Bayer & Diaconis. Wow!)

Do I trust the government to police opinions? No, especially when there's no accountability and appeals process.

Do I believe the overall benefits that harassment-free international travel brings to this country outweigh the costs of letting in some visitors whose views I disagree with? Yes.

I'm looking at the official statistics, and this is not what they say:

The government pension is the main source of income for 47% of retirees vs superannuation's 33%. Moreover, the proportion of those relying on the pension has increased between 2020 and 2022 by 3 pts.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unem...

For better or worse, anecdotes of the caviar delivered by the crates to the top party officials appear in many Russian sources. I don't know whether independent historians confirmed these stories but they are believed by many. For very good reasons, since this is what the party did all along - it's the brutal conditions outside the party HQ in Leningrad that make these anecdotes especially poignant.

> Also, once the soviets repelled the german attack on moscow, didn't the soviets liberate leningrad?

Not until more than two years later. (It was not for the lack of trying - in 1942 an unsuccessful operation led to a complete loss of two full armies.)

As a practical matter, since dealing in mutual funds' shares is settled after market, "front running" these transactions would be problematic. (Impossible, I'd say?)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42619652

Points: 557

# Comments: 97

The most powerful primitive that the dialect has is (mutual) recursion, which is effectively a mechanism for outputting a fixed-point of a query.

As its author noted, the paper has done fine ciation- and impact-wise.

I think the portfolio argument is an unnecessary detour though. There's a two-line proof by induction.

1. The payoff in the base case of (0,1) or (1,0) is 2.

2. If we are at (r,b), r >=b , have $X, and stake (r-b)/(r+b) on red, the payoff if we draw red and win is X * (1+(r-b)/(r+b)) * 2^(r+b-1) / (r+b-1 choose r-1) = X * 2^(r+b) * r / ((r+b) * (r+b-1 choose r-1)) = X * 2^(r+b) / (r+b choose r).

Similarly, if we draw black and lose, the payoff is X * (1-(r-b)/(r+b)) * 2^(r+b-1) / (r+b-1 choose r) = X * 2^(r+b) * b / ((r+b) * (r+b-1 choose r)) = X * 2^(r+b) / (r+b choose r). QED

Very good point. For every tectonic plates theory or heliocentric system or H. pylori causing ulcers there are thousands of claims that are plain wrong. Statistically speaking, knowledgeable critics acting in good faith (eg, not having strong conflict of interests) are correct with the overwhelming probability.