I was at a conference in Sept (actually YC startupschool:P) and there was a comprehensive speech by Rigetti about quantum computers and how much more powerful they are and how much less energy they need. In the article above it's not clear what technology they are planning to use.
4 years ago, when I was working in Deloitte, it was impossibile to think about using Apple products, half of the software wouldnt work! Good to see some change, are visio and project compatibile now?
No, I was just pointing out that 80% is not very likely and is probably some sort of bias or mis-representation. In fact it would be a great compliment for them because they would be getting consistently the opposite of the market (If they overall lose money it must be that at least on the weighted average of their bets they get it wrong, maybe one big wrong and many little right ones, or mostly all moderately wrong, etc..).
"80%" it's very unlikely, say it is true, you just do the opposite and you have free money. I suspect the correct overall percentage should be much closer to 50%. Finding a profitable strategy should be much more difficult than "do the opposite of day traders", right?
"It’s one more reason why NSA may prove to be one of Washington’s greatest liabilities rather than assets." WOW, never though I'd read that on something like Reuters, he put his foot down.. :s
In some country that kind of auction is considered gamble indeed and it's against the law (most EU as far as I know). From a Mechanism Design point of view, they are maximizing their own profit and they also expect their players to be not very rational entities and so they don't nee to use a truthful auction.
I totally agree about "[attackers] prefer to use system weaknesses over software exploits" for the reason mentioned (if you use someone password chances are no alarm will ring, if you scan every port on every possible network.. meh, you may get noticed).
I've seen a growing number of systems tracking the fingerprint of the user not only the password (e.g. salesforce), I think that is the way to go because it is very difficult to train users against every possible social exploitation.
I think the interesting observation is: if you are using ML chances are 80% of your algorithms are already published somewhere and available to all, so one should tune in that 20% of his/her own field, some field which is not a common research topic.
I also think that a huge difference, once you have the same algorithmic machine, is the quality of data you collect. That is also quite differentiating, I mean, respect to your own business problem, gathering data a way or the other may really destroy or boost your ML performances.
It looks like they are not interested in maximum profit indeed. Maybe they'd like to be very sure about where they are going? Or maybe it is some legal constraint, like a country cannot subscribe to a consumer exchange?
This scenario is also quite interesting for cryptocurrencies, say at the moment you don't have the cash in the local currency, you may want to distribute a token. As of now in fact paper vouchers are also used in that scenario.
I relate with most of the points, also from my experience with due diligence (bought by the vc from an external consulting company) they cannot say all is good, since if it fails then they could be blamed, they cannot say all is bad otherwise you'd just need to sell once and you prove them wrong, so pretty much the outcome is always in between. That due diligence was really not worth the money spent.
Interesting, thanks for sharing! I think it still applies in some ways, if I get it right that is probably used to lower the licenses fee. Raise the price or lower the costs, I think they need to show margin somehow.
It's unlikely that they made such decisions "lightly".
Most of the time the correct pricing decision is: make higher pricing (especially for a "startup" which had aggressive pricing to conquer the market). To raise the price of your ads, you need to make them more sticky/entangling, the outcome is straightforward!