But that happens all the time in bowling. The way these announcers were freaking out it seems more like both players hitting hole-in-ones. Or a royal flush over AAAA for the whole tourney.
9âs are rare, but they arenât anywhere near that rare
I donât know, they seem somewhat close
72 televised
34 televised
This is a pretty good comparison
So why are the announcers going insane, and everyone on twitter saying itâs the greatest moment in the history of sports?
Does televised 300 v 299âs really happen all the time? When was the last one?
1 Like
You can learn all you need to know about Lex by his guest list, but you canât learn much more by listening to him because his monotone delivery induces coma after 5 seconds of exposure.
1 Like
You can check the 34 televised 300 games and none of them were 300 vs 299. Winning a 9 dart finish while your opponent misses the double is pretty unique in darts and never happened before on television. Closest was two people on track for a nine dart finish but the first thrower making it so the second person didnât get to throw.
72 televised with a single person making perfect score.
This very nearly has two of them doing itâŚ
I think?
Taleb would be the first person to tell you he did no such thing. Heâs coasting on a some unique ways to understand probability and randomness as they relate to real world events, which he makes difficult to understand through bad writing. Then he undermines himself further by being a pompous blowhard.
Thereâs probably a couple essaysâ worth of Talebâs writing thatâs worth reading, but you have to slog through a lot of dreck to find it.
The last person who should be telling you to clean your room
Hes gone downhill over time. Anti-fragile was clearly a case of reaching the point he could tell editors to fuck off and write what he wanted⌠which was about 70% too long.
Footloose and fancy-free
Lexâs interview with John Carmack was pretty good. I watched about 3 minutes of the eight-hour slob-fest with Balaji and it was exactly what I expected and turned it off.
Outstanding interview between Matt Yglesias and one of the cofounders of GiveWell, if anyone wants to hear a lot more about charity evaluation. Paywalled though.
EDIT for a preview:
Matt: You mentioned the cash transfers, and I wanted to close here because cash transfers is something that Iâm interested in. I know I saw on your blog about your personal giving that that you give some money to GiveDirectly as a cash transfer program. My family does as well. Itâs something that I would say in some ways my path to GiveWell came through GiveDirectly, which is a direct cash transfers type program. And so Iâm curious how you think about that, even as you believe that youâve identified a number of programs here that are significantly more effective in their life saving capacity. What do you make of cash?
Elie: I think cash and GiveDirectly are outstanding programs in the scheme of things. GiveDirectly as an organization, Iâve spent a fair amount of time with them, both visiting them in Kenya years ago and speaking with the organization. So a very, very outstanding organization in terms of transparency, delivery, evaluation. Iâm pretty partial to the argument that itâs beneficial to help people choose for themselves what they want to support, and to some extent I think internally I have a fair bit of conflict about the extent to which I want to support GiveDirectly versus GiveWellâs other programs. Intellectually, I fully believe in what GiveWellâs doing, perhaps unsurprisingly, and so the vast majority of what I give goes to GiveWellâs all grants fund. That was about 80% of what I give this year.
But at the same time, notwithstanding the rigor, the quality of the work that we do, it is still⌠the results are a function of debatable judgment calls, and I think I both like the idea of supporting GiveDirectly because it is just a way to, not quite inarguably, but almost do a huge amount of good by just reallocating resources from someone like me whoâs very wealthy in a global sense to someone whoâs very poor, and enabling them to spend for themselves. And then also to some extent, I get a lot of value personally out of GiveDirectly because I often talk about GiveDirectly when Iâm trying to explain what GiveWell does to someone whoâs less familiar with it because itâs so simple to explain. I can talk personally about my visit just to try to get give people a concrete sense of what global poverty is, that a family of four might live in a room thatâs 10 by 12. They might have a thatched roof where when it rains at night, the water literally just comes in and they have to move out and their belongings get wet. They have a mud floor. These are things that we donât like, to your point from the beginning of our conversation. A lot of basic needs are met in the US. For many people in western Kenya, thatâs not the case, and people can use a thousand dollars to purchase very basic things. So even though I know that in some ways, Iâm lowering the overall impact of my giving by directing 20% to GiveDirectly, I feel really good about it because I think they do a great job. Itâs sort of a compromise between these two different arguments that are going on in my head.
1 Like
Matt doing his response to Prager U videos. I mean I donât imagine he thinks heâs going to change Pragerâs mind, but itâs useful to see a response to the kind of farm league arguments.
This Prager guyâs view of capitalism (and a healthy society in general) seems to be accepting whatever our rich capitalist overlords deem to give us and worshiping them in response, while asking for more benefits or compensation is SOCIALISM.
But all they really need is a relative of some distance to agree to have their dna shared to find their starting point. Being able to know a suspect is related to a specific person is a huge advantage.
The problem is your privacy relies on everyone you are related to you feeling the same.