I'm very late to this post, so not sure if you're still around.
What are your thoughts on a poker tournament for bots? Do you think it could turn into a successful product? I've always wanted to build an online poker/chess game that was designed from the ground up for bots (everything being accessible through an API), but have always worried that someone with more computational resources or the best bot would win consistently. Is it an idea you've thought about?
Yes but also portable, low-cost GPS enabled internet connected devices are a game-changer. I don't see how Uber or Lyft could exist prior to the iPhone pushing adoption of GPS.
Did the iPhone so the most to push adoption? iPhone 1 didn't have GPS but the first Android device did. The killer app on mobile phones has always been Maps. I'd give Google the most credit here.
and only 2% of the population is using it monthly right now. I hope they gradually decrease the minimum age for riders. Children can finally regain some of the mobility they have lost in the modern world. Just reducing the age from 18 to 16, would probably double their monthly active users. They should atleast allow <18 year olds with drivers licenses to be riders...
Keep in mind these numbers are Uber's cut, which is probably around 20% in most markets. So the average far is probably around $10, which seems reasonable to me, considering there are some very low cost high volume markets it serves.
Your point is valid, but most Ivy Leagues are need-blind for U.S. citizens (Harvard is need-blind for internationals too) at the undergraduate level and are known for relatively generous financial aid policies [1].
I think these schools are a drop in the proverbial ocean of generating crippling student debt, even for kids graduating from humanities majors.
While, Harvard has some great financial aid policies, the concept of "need blind" applies to a decision to admit, not about the availability or generosity of financial aid (in general).
> I think these schools are a drop in the proverbial ocean of generating crippling student debt, even for kids graduating from humanities majors.
I may have been unclear, but I was talking about my experience in a graduate program, not undergrad.
Obviously the Ivy Leagues are not the only ones guilty here, but my original point was that I have no problem with their giant endowments provided they actually liberate undergraduate and post-graduate students from debt obligations. I think the Ivies could actually become a great model for the U.S. with a little more effort here.
Haha I came to post one I saw on your link - "Most people realize by their 30s that prestige is a sucker's game; it's a way of inducing people to do things that aren't much fun and they wouldn't really want to do on their own, by lauding them with accolades from people they don't really care about."
The part that I thought was most interesting was that he structures his fund as 190% passive long and 90% active short. This way, his short fund (which has average annualized returns of -0.7%) can still allow him to make a lot of money.
I like the idea that a short fund can make money if they can beat the negative of the passive index - so if the S&P returns 10%, and I can have a short fund that returns -5%, I can use his strategy to outperform the S&P.
You can only use his strategy if you do the work on the short side and come up with good ideas. That's what his actual edge is. He doesn't have to disclose short positions like he does long positions in 13-F filings, so you only know what he's short if he's willing to talk about it publicly.
Being a short seller is like playing a game on hard mode. The bias of most market participants, sell-side analysts, self-promoting CEOs, and frauds are to the long side. Being net long is the only way to stay in the game over decades like Chanos has.
Chanos has been short TSLA for 4 years, and that's only been possible because the fund is net long [1]. The only reason he probably hasn't shut the short-only fund is because clients who allocate to it are probably hedging other long exposure they have allocated to other managers.
I have Chanos' returns since inception in the 1980's. I have talked to Chanos a bunch. The guy is the biggest enduring fraud, figuratively speaking, in the investing world. His returns are dreadful. There is no money manager in the history of the world in which his own personal enrichment has diverged so much from his clients'. The worshipping of him is nothing short of shameful. I thought we despise the notion of getting rich at other peoples' expense?
Btw, losing less than the S&P is not a strategy but if you think it adds alpha I won't bother debating. Have fun spending alpha.
Ursus loses money in up markets. That is almost by design—it’s a catastrophic hedge inspired by 1987. His headline fund has been profitable for almost every vintage older than a few years.
The hedge fund? Wrong. I have those returns too. Ever wonder why neither he nor anyone talks about his returns? It’s not a conspiracy...
It is insane to me. We detest more than anything the notion of the high fee hedge fund manager who gets rich while his clients lose money, but the world gives Chanos the biggest pass of all time. This is a guy who has made something like $1 billion pre-tax and pre-divorce while his fund has just lost copious amounts of money over any relevant time frame.
> The hedge fund? Wrong. I have those returns too.
Chanos has multiple funds. Some of them are designed as catastrophic hedges, and work accordingly. His other funds are intercyclically up, doing better in the crisis and early recovery phases and less well in late recovery. If you’re seeing different numbers, you’re being fed garbage.
It is important to remember that what we are seeing is a v1 of the ICO model - it is likely that future versions will be able to implement more controls and governance mechanisms like the kind you described.
What are your thoughts on a poker tournament for bots? Do you think it could turn into a successful product? I've always wanted to build an online poker/chess game that was designed from the ground up for bots (everything being accessible through an API), but have always worried that someone with more computational resources or the best bot would win consistently. Is it an idea you've thought about?