https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/674210245640458240
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/673955211153563648
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/673815136226807808
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/673647050265882624
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/673522161684865024
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/673398062048526336
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/673160000282476544
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672886912110174208
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672843852575731712
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672786276362358785
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672762968384385025
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672753265659019264
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672746711685668864
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672205955703169024
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672177625310355456
FRIDAY SYMPOSIUM (Facebook)
Two young (motivated) friends have started a project to Uberize medicine and medical information, removing noise from medical search. I am running with them a (sort of) symposium here on the idea.
Please comment. Be tough, unrelentlessly inquisitive.
The project is very important *if* it allows the right transparency without interference from the big corporations. As you recall from the New York Times files, we have evidence that Monsanto discussed with a shill (Folta) the manipulation of entries on WebMD. Will access to multiple sources protect us?
So please ask them such questions as 1) how this system ensures independence, 2) whether they have the right filters, 3) what you like or don’t like about it, etc.
Anything that bypasses the middleman is good for us, if done properly.
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672077873721798656
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672042489629581312
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/672030527197741058
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/671820686588051456
Here my paper with @nntaleb on operational risk.https://t.co/MEIIp0MGcW
— Pasquale Cirillo (@DrCirillo) December 1, 2015
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/671759596403482624
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/671473971997622272
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/671315852390744064
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/671301574463987712
REMOVE SKIN IN THE GAME. (Facebook)
Recall from Antifragile and earlier discussions here that a doctor’s answer would be different if you put (emotionally speaking) his skin in the game by asking him “what would you do?” instead of “what should I do?”
The opposite works equally well. A trick I did use as a trader: under pressure, to remove the emotional burden and the loss of mental clarity, you imagine that you are someone else in the situation. That someone else should be some precise person, in flesh and blood, say X. What should X do now? buy more? liquidate, etc. It applies to any decision, say “should X buy this house?”
You can use the strategy in a lot of dilemmas. Replace yourself with X, and ask: “should X resign because of ethics?”
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670939041576173568
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670744060991283201
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670673710550876160
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670563419557339137
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670404208189964288
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670336579358081024
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670243263912259584
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670237336421179396
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/670215008417144832
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/669951175534448640
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/669941431423918082
A SUPPLEMENT TO OUR PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND THE GMO PROBLEM: P v/s NP approach (Facebook)
Now our examination of GMO problem is taking us in an interesting territory. The initial work was essentially probabilistic — since few people understand both probability and fat tails, it was counterintuitive to many “scientists” (most scientists can’t even get P-values correctly to understand fat tails).
Luckily there is a huge crowd of computer scientists and mathematicians involved or familiar with the so-called P/NP problem and algorithmic complexity in general. They immediately get that:
1) selective breeding is different from insertion of remote genes from a combinatorial standpoint and how nature has to tinker in close, not remote space (genes from vicinity without going very far) to ensure stability
2) understanding the impact on a high dimensional environment of trangenics/GMOs is not possible
also not covered here, that genetics are neat to impress people with science but we will have a hard time understanding how things interact, and so long as P !=NP we will NEVER get things through genetics that we can check via experience and long term testing.