Lmao what? That’s literally how spot vs contract pricing works, one is on a lag

In person, she is incredibly magnetic and charismatic. So you’ve got no chance.

HOLY SHIT CAT IS FINALLY HAPPENING?!?!?!

Guys this is really really REALLY GOOD for us, and really really really bad for citadel.

Edit: I seriously cannot believe finra ever allowed this to get finished hahahahahah

Edit 2: the point of CAT is to allow the SEC to reproduce and analyze market conditions after the fact. When the flash crash happened they realized the data to actually understand what actually went down did not exist in enough fidelity.

Edit 3: it also is required to even begin to hold really sophisticated firms available for doing shady things with order flow.

Everybody making fun of the underwater basket weavers, but kids graduating this year with CS degrees are about to be totally fucked.

Context matters. I’m not advocating sticking your head into a conversation on the subway; I am advocating calling your friend out if they make an argument you’re pretty sure is wrong on a topic neither of you know a lot about.

I am ESPECIALLY advocating that in a setting like at work, you don’t allow your own humility to prevent you from being a voice at the table.

In the context of an expert though, where do you draw the line on confidence?

I agree that, in the courtroom case, it is obviously too far (and generally have no patience for doctors with absolutely NO grasp of statistics). But I do see how we get here: a doctor has to guide her patients through decisions. If she has to give advice that she is only 99% certain of (say, telling a patient they likely have 6 weeks vs 6 months to live), at some point they have to make the call themselves and not consult a statistician.

So basically, I think that the position of expert encourages this, as they will become more and more confident in their non-expert area over time.

Good article. The POV espoused here is not a common one, and I think it’s important, even if I don’t think you should take it too far.

There’s two simple ways I think you can take it too far: muzzling yourself completely, and not intervening in the epistemic trespasses of others.

If you’re very aware of this issue, it becomes very easy to — very quickly — believe that you have little right to talk about anything except whichever narrow areas you might claim expertise in; even then, with enough humility, you might feel you have no expertise to claim at all. This completely destroys your self-confidence (in my experience), and inhibits personal growth. Instead, moderation is a better approach.

The other issue is that if you’re keenly aware of this issue, you will often be the best equipped person in the room to call others out for this or to spot issues in their novice arguments. An abject refusal to weigh in on issues you are not an expert in may become an abdication of responsibility.

I studied logic and my mentor was a logician. He had a lecture in his back pocket for this.

In short, no, paradoxes are a first-class entity in metamathematics/model theory. A “real” mathematical paradox is a statement that is provably neither provable nor disprovable. Such paradoxes include the continuum hypothesis.