We still consider it a dupe if it's about the same underlying topic, which it certainly is in this case.
Sometimes we'll update the URL to the canonical source (i.e., the study paper) if the submitted article is just a summary that adds no substance (aka blog spam). But if it's a report from a reputable publication that adds substance, we'll leave that as the URL and link to the study paper from the top text, which I've done now.
What a great reply this graph can make the next time we see VCs on X complaining how, "Everyone I talk to has so, so many engineering positions they just can't fill". By these measurements, the job market looks worse now than it did at the troughs of lockdown.
An excerpt from _How to Lie with Statistics_ by Darrell Huff (1954):
> Take this one: "27 percent of a large sample of eminent physicians smoke Throaties--more than any other brand." The figure itself may be phony, of course, in any of several ways, but that really doesn't make any difference. The only answer to a figure so irrelevant is "So what?" With all proper respect toward the medical profession, do doctors know any more about tobacco brands than you do? Do they have any inside information that permits them to choose the least harmful among cigarettes? Of course they don't, and your doctor would be the first to say so. Yet that "27 percent" somehow manages to sound as if it meant something.
That book specifies many other examples (from this time period in America) of misleading claims that sound statistically significant upon an uncritical, cursory reading.
Ironically, Huff was then hired by the tobacco industry to write a book undermining the evidence that smoking causes cancer. It was to be called How to Lie with Smoking Statistics, but never got published: https://www.refsmmat.com/files/papers/huff.pdf
I think you don't mean "statistically significant" here, but something like "relevant" instead. Something can be statistically significant and entirely irrelevant if the effect size is too small.
They could've, but tbh its just very hard to read the memoirs of a guy who is extremely privileged, uses his family's money to travel around Europe just as it is ready to fall apart completely, and he is just stuck in this cosmopolitan idealism.
I've found Mann to be absolutely insufferable for the exact same reason(although both are very good writers when one only considers literary skills and ignores the actual themes).
The position doesn't have to be "in the money" to be profitable. At present, the underlying (that is $CRWD, not the puts themselves) is trading around $305 per share, so these puts with the strike price all the way down to $185 are still far, far off from being ITM. But, options are largely a bet on volatility. While the extreme price drop between when this user opened the trade and this morning has already made this trade quite profitable, it could still lose money if the trader holds on to it; IANAFA, but selling and taking profits on this rare event would most likely be in their interests, even if they continue to believe the underlying security will go all the way down to $185 by November.
I love this response. The beauty of claiming one’s art with a confident but plain “I” and then following with a clear and concise answer.
How do you view your day job? As a necessary evil to pay the bills? As a good “real world” counterweight to the arts? I ask in good faith and genuine curiosity as I am likewise drawn to the arts but have over the years come to appreciate how my tech career keeps my feet planted on the ground.
I find myself grateful I can support my family financially, as it's statistically unlikely my art can ever permit me to quit my day job.
Not to imply that it's in any way a quality peculiar to those who write poetry in their free time (I know it isn't), but my need for creative expression regularly seeps into the coding standards to which I hold myself, insofar as I demand a certain beauty-- such as such a thing is ever even possible-- out of the libraries I write.
