To add a bit of context: brokerages like Robinhood send buy/sell orders to national exchanges and to private trading firms e.g. high-frequency traders. Private firms provide price improvement: orders that execute at prices better than the national exchange. All brokerages have a duty of best execution, including a duty of price improvement. Brokerages can also receive payment for order flow from private firms, as long as it does not interfere with best execution. However, "Robinhood explicitly offered to accept less price improvement for its customers... in exchange for receiving a higher payment for order flow," which is illegal.
That’s only for the final model. To find it, they’d need to run 1,000 experiments, trying many high-level approaches, many architectures for each component, hyperparameter search, and multiple seeds. Large machine learning projects need $10M in capital.
People are perfectly capable of distinguishing between browsers and websites. For example, users have no problem logging into Facebook with Chrome.
Auto-signin only adds confusion. Many (most?) users have no reason to associate their browser with a Google account. This is something that Google is pushing unilaterally, just like Google+/YouTube integration. As an advertising company, they stand to benefit from more accurate user tracking.
Thanks for the explanation. It seems to assume that Gmail is the internet. If people sometimes use Facebook or forums or games instead of Gmail, then history will appear to sync to random places, no?
The world is very small, and privacy is a mainstream concern these days. The impact of one story or one action is limited, but in the end, users do get their say. Otherwise, we would still be using Internet Explorer.
But the tech-savvy community has influence. We set up computers for our friends and families. We write IT policies. We are web developers, tech reporters, and more.
At least for me, Google's behavior means that I can no longer recommend Chrome.
CamTin was saying that workers should be considered investors in a moral sense: they put time and effort into the company and deserve a share of the profits. Obviously, workers are not investors in the literal sense.
"Listening in" is inaccurate. "Ok Google" was opt-in only, and did not record users without consent. Chromium downloaded but didn't run the binary blob.
You're still making an ideological argument, though you might not realize it.
The question is whether workers should have some degree of ownership and control of their company. You point out that the workers voluntarily gave that up.
The broader question is whether free market outcomes must be fair/best. What you ignore is that in an unjust society with imbalances of power, markets will reflect and amplify those inequities.
For example, what do you make of the fact that most board members are white men? Will you argue that this is the fair outcome? Or is it possible that there other explanations and better outcomes?
> the students admitted before 1969 were more open to radical ideas
Perhaps this reflected a broader social trend, rather than a change in admissions preferences? The 1970s marked a growing desire for stability and conformity, as symbolized by the transition from Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) to Richard Nixon (Republican).
I recommend learning linear programming first. It's simple and useful, and makes it easier to understand quadratic programming, convex optimization, etc.
While that's true, it doesn't appear to have been a partisan or even controversial bill at the time, so I feel that it's disingenuous to blame Republicans.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38555629