From the image: "There will be teams organized around business goals....and teams organized around what they do (like teaching, video, developer etc.)"
Sounds an awful lot like an executive group....(read: managers)
"... the major expansion in the use of gender followed its adoption by feminists to distinguish the social and cultural aspects of differences between men and women (gender) from
biological differences (sex). Since then, the use of gender has tended to expand to encompass the biological, and a sex/gender distinction is now only fitfully observed" [emphasis mine.]
"... gender has come to be adopted as a simple synonym, perhaps a euphemism, for sex by many writers who are unfamiliar with the term’s recent history."
The paper is charting how sex and gender have been used throughout academic literature in the past few decades. In the last few decades we have learned swathes more about the complexity of gender identity and diversity, not just in western culture but it many others. Biological sex on the other hand it pretty well understood, and is certainly correlated with gender identity, but is distinct. It makes a lot of sense that papers about gender have increased while paper talking about sex have decreased, it aligns with new knowledge.
And the paper makes the point that new writers to the field often use gender in place of sex because they don't understand the full complexity of the word.
Or you know....delete your comment:
"I would love for you to explain what it is that I failed to understand about the paper, since I do enjoy learning new things. I'm not holding my breath though."
It's unwise to presume you're talking to an idiot. I am well aware of the meaning of 'gender' within feminist literature. Obviously, that is not what I was objecting to. My irritation is with the current commonplace usage of the word as a simple synonym for sex.
You ascribe the conflation to writers who "..don't understand the full complexity of the word." I also attribute it to pretentiousness (gender sounds more "academic") and a good dose of prudishness (sex sounds dirty.)
Wow...I don't know how much more stereotypical sexist male you could get in one email..."girls", "pink lanyard", gender binaries...
The way to attract more women, stike, people to your conference is not through tokenizing them...it's by making the conference interesting (having some diversity in the organization group would be a start!)
If women in tech don't want people referring to them as "girls", perhaps they shouldn't create organizations like "Girl Develop It", "Girls Who Code", "Girls Teaching Girls to Code" and "Black Girls Code".
I have had an internet connection since I was 11, and a computer a few year prior to that. Int he beginning the only way my parents let me use the internet/computer was in a public room (in our case it was the study)...as I got older my parents bought me my own laptop and allowed me more privacy to browse...as long as I did my homework, and didn't spend all day on the computer all was well.
No automated parental controls at all...being realistic I was always better at using the computer than my parents, I would have got around them anyway.
These days I would go one step further and say make sure the browser they are using has a good ad blocker etc. Begin with a public setting so you can keep an eye on them, then as they get older, just leave them be.
That is a very long article based on flawed argument.
Given no other information, assuming someone gave you 2 envelopes and told you one has $40 vs $20, common sense dictates choose 1 randomly and walk away - with no other information it is illogical to reason any other way.
The chance you choose the lower value is 1/2.
Now, if you are allowed to look inside the envelope (which gets introduced further down) then it becomes a different game.
Get $20...well by swapping you may get $10 or $40...you should probably swap.
Get $2000...well by swapping you may get $1000 or $4000...you should probably swap.
I think this works all the way up...someone with a bit more background on game theory may be able to formalise it, but the realisation that swapping forever leads to $0 nullifies this "paradox"
Yes, it's not a paradox it's just seductive flawed reasoning.
Yes, at any point EV of picking an envelope at random is 3/4n (n being higher amount of money out of the two).
It is all there is to it. The "paradox" is introduced by silent assumption that distribution of amounts put in envelopes is uniform which is impossible (because you can't pick numbers from infite set uniformly even if there was infinite amount of money in "adversary" disposal). The assumption is then used for conditional probability calculations: "if we see 10$ there is 50% chance the other envelope contains 20$" - BEEP, ERROR, THINK AGAIN.
Perhaps good exercise in clear thinking but not really a paradox.
Good analogy is this:
"If we pick random building and climb to the roof of it there is 50% chance first building we see is higher than the one we just climbed". This is obviously true, now following "paradoxical" reasoning we get:
"If we climb a building randomly and see it's the Empire State Building there is still 50% chance first building we see will be higher".
This is exact analogy to reasoning about 2 envelopes problem which is supposed to lead to a paradox.
The underlying problem is basically that probability theory in non-finite spaces has some gotchas - one of which is that the expectation of a random variable does not always exist.
Interesting point and nice read. Still the problem is in assumption about underlying distribution of amounts in envelopes (in original case impossible uniform distribution). The reasoning is based on this assumption and leads to nonsense.
What you are saying (I think) is that assuming some other distribution (possible one, instead of impossible one) could still lead to nonsense or doesn't lead anywhere at all.
Not so much that it leads to nonsense as that naively applying expectations doesn't always work. This is a contrived example, but it's not uncommon in eg random walk theory to hit upon cases like this where the expectation does not exist at all.
People commonly think of mathematics as being purely about formal proof but the reality is an interplay between proof and intuition. Usually when a mathematician encounters a problem in a familiar area they immediately know the answer by intuition which then guides the production of a correct proof. When you first enter a new area of mathematics your intuitions are all completely wrong and you have no idea where to start with a proof. Good teachers will introduce edge cases like this problem to refine your intuition until it is useful enough to be a guide.
Except that in the Monty Hall problem something has changed after the initial choice: one of the previous options is proven to be a goat. No such change occurs with the two envelopes, no new information is made available, thus no basis for switching.
There is additional information in the Monty Hall problem: the host never opens the door with a car. In the two envelope's problem, the "host" merely restates the question no matter which envelope was chosen.
Folks, it's an analogy. An analogy compares two different things... trust me, I know they're different and I know in which ways.
All I was saying is common sense doesn't get you far in the Monty Hall problem. It really doesn't:
>[Vos Savant] received thousands of letters from her readers; 92% of the general public, 65% of universities, and many with PhDs, were against her answer.
Thus, it's kind of silly to say we're wasting time by going past a common sense analysis of something. It's also revisionist to say common sense does help you solve Monty Hall.
Suppose you restate it. You own a $100 stock. It has a 50% chance of doubling, and a 50% chance of going down 50%.
Should you sell it, or hold onto it? Expected value of holding is ($200 + $50)/2 = $125 . So it seems like you should hold on!
If you repeat that wager indefinitely, the standard deviation of the net wins (number of ups-downs) goes up according to a square root law.
And the value of your stock goes up exponentially as the number of net wins goes up.
So over time the EV goes to infinity like (2 ^ (n/2)). The EV of say the -1SD outcome goes to zero. The EV of the +1SD outcome goes to 1/that. So the average EV overall goes to infinity.
And yet the expected value of the growth rate is 0. For every 16x win there's a loss down to 1/16th. But the average of those 2 outcomes diverges to infinity.
All this to say, when you're looking at exponential returns (or other processes), you need to measure growth rates, not average outcomes. And it has nothing to do with log utility.
yeah. Now I wonder what happens when you have $10,000, and always put 1% of your portfolio in that stock? I think that turns it into a positive growth expectation. You do it 10 times and outcomes are 50/50, 5 times you made about $100, 5 times you lost about $50.
On the other hand, if you bet your whole stack each time, you doubled up 5 times and lost half your stack five times, you're even.
if you bet your whole portfolio every time, I think your long run growth rate is 0. if you bet a small amount each time, I think your growth rate is positive.
The Kelly Criterion or gambler's curse in action. In the first case you're taking a positive EV bet and turning into a long run no-growth situation by overbetting.
The first link concerns a small group protesting against increased automation...this has happened in practically every place that has had manufacturing...
The second concerns road safety acts, although they sound ludicrous by todays standards, served as an important step in the transition from horses to automobiles - in a country which had been relying on horses for transport for atleast 1000 years prior.
I started playing guitar when I was 11...did I suck then...yes...I could barley hold a full sized guitar...and over the years I have learned new techniques and practiced endlessly...and now people would say I am pretty good.
Writing and math are no different - to peg them as just "talent you are born with" deprives the subject of all the work they have done throughout their lives.
That only proves my point, from the video you can clearly see he was gifted with an artistic aptitude that he just honed over the years. I wouldn't be able to draw anything like the first drawings of that guy, not even after 10 years of practice. Practice can get you a long way, but if the seed isn't there, you just won't get that far.
The first couple of drawings are terrible, primary school level drawings - the perspective, shading etc. are all completely off.
If you honestly believe you couldn't pull something like that off given 30 minutes of dedicated drawing...well I don't believe you.
Some more examples of skills that are learned:
* Programming
* Public Speaking
* Estimation
* Throwing
* Juggling
Or are you going to start telling me that some babies are born with an innate ability to juggle? or programming?
I am not saying these skills are easy or trivial, they require thousands of hours of dedicated practice. It sounds to me you think most people are simply good at something and do that...when in fact people spend thousands of hours honing and perfecting skills.
You can't jump into the water and start swimming until you lean how to control your body through crawling, standing and lifting...with maths...you may be unable to grasp theorems because you lack basic training in propositional logic (something that is rarely taught before undergraduate unfortunately - it is so simple and provides a grounding that would make any additional mathematics teaching a whole lot easier) - what is your mathematical background? what books have you studied? what lectures/courses have you taken? Lets see if we can't fix this!
Obviously a modicum of training is always needed in most contexts, the here is that if you have an innate ability to, say, swim (which I don't by the way) you can pick it up after a few hours in the water (I've seen toddlers do it), and that's only because you have a web of neural pathways that makes you particularly apt to this specific task. Lacking that wiring you're left flailing in the water wondering why you had such a stupid idea as to get in the water in the first place.
Swimming is not innate...some people do pick it up easily, others take a couple of times, but I have never heard of anybody who is "unable to learn how to swim" and once they learn they can practice and get very good at it....there is sometimes a genetic advantage (Micheal Phelps springs to mind) - but he wasn't always nearly 7 foot swimming giant, he had to learn different techniques and practice for hour and hours a day to get as good as he is.
Actually you started off by saying you can't teach "talent", now you are saying you can teach it but it may be hard...
Do you honestly think your genetics is playing against you in your study of mathematics? Which bits are you struggling with? What have you tried to fix it? What courses have you taken? Have you tried private tutoring? khan academy? Have you tried anything for longer than a couple of a days? weeks? How many hours of deliberate practice do you think you have put into studying mathematics?
You might not be able to draw the first drawing right now, but if you as bad at drawing as the average person, I can't imagine it taking more than a few days or weeks (max) to get to that level, with a very modest time commitment. 10 years of practice dedicated to self-improvement? You'd be extremely technically proficient by then.
Concrete Mathematics should not be too hard to understand for someone who understands basic algebra. Most of the topics it covers use nothing more than arithmetic and simple logic.
That said it is not a good general mathematics book (it is designed as a Computer Science book).
Sounds an awful lot like an executive group....(read: managers)