Posts
Comments
Just FYI, the link above (http://pwnee.com/Sequences/list.html) currently 404's.
Thanks for the tips! I've been playing with the Alchemy API for NLP (http://www.alchemyapi.com/) and an API called DayLife (http://developer.daylife.com/) for news sources, etc.
I'm trying to do my best to make it as un-spammy as possible, but how far I can get with that remains to be seen. I have a plan to take advantage of the inverted pyramid story structure so common in news reporting, along with entity extraction on the paragraph level, to get something out of it that's more or less readable. I'll post an example when my prototype works.
I've started working on a project to see if I can make a computer program which can generate a reasonably readable article on a given subject automatically. It's all a big mashup of various news and natural language processing APIs.
I've also discovered that there's a whole bunch of public domain motion graphics assets on the web designed for use in christian churches, so I've been making a series of "Inspiring Quotations" youtube videos out of them. Stuff like Nietzsche, Anton LaVey, horrifying bible verses, and so on. So far I've finished seven, and I have enough material for probably a dozen more.
Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/user/inspiringquotations
I agree with this point as well, and I think it bears emphasizing.
Awhile ago, I had a series of conversations with a friend who was having problems with people in her workplace. She would complain along the lines of, "I just can't believe that X would just shuffle a problem over to my desk. It was X's responsibility to solve the problem; X must be trying to get me in trouble with the boss."
Or similar formulations.
It gradually became clear that her go-to modality was to think that if other people aggravated her, it was because they were doing it on purpose.
I pointed out to her that practically nobody in the world enjoys maliciousness, meanness, etc. and that, given the choice of ascribing a person's actions to maliciousness, when it was just as plausible that the real motivation was thoughtlessness, misunderstanding, or ignorance, one should only opt for maliciousness if there's a number of REALLY GOOD REASONS to think the person would behave that way.
Ultimately, we all want to get along with those around us. Usually, when we don't, it's misunderstanding to blame.
Alas, I can't make it to this one. Hope everyone has a good time!
I couldn't agree more. I find it moderately offensive when someone says, "Bless you," when I sneeze. First, because of the religious implications, second, because they certainly haven't thought before speaking, and third, because it's never crossed their minds that I COULD be offended by unthinking, religious invocations.
This is an interesting thread.
Here's a difference between the British-salmon and Muslim-Mohammed scenarios.
In the British scenario, you've postulated that the British politely ask the rest of the world to refrain from waving photos of salmon in their faces.
In the Muslim scenario, the ultra-religious are DEMANDING that the rest of the world obey their edicts on what is appropriate to draw.
I personally feel a very visceral reaction when I'm told that I'm not allowed to draw/write about/think about something. "Who are you," I think, "to presume to tell me what I can and can't express? Just who do you think you are that you get to have that sort of control over my expressions?"
My gut instinct then, is to write/draw/think about/talk about that forbidden thing.
It's the difference between a suggestion and a command. Were the Muslim community to say something like, "Ok, do as you please, but for the sake of civility, we hope you'll refrain from exposing us to the images of Mohammed you might create," you know, I'd probably say sure, ok. That's civilized. But to say, "You may not, UNDER THREAT OF DEATH, make any images or jokes about X," that's just too dictatorial for me to accept, on any level.
I concur. In my opinion, men are best served by a proper barber, not by a "hair stylist" at a strip mall Fantastic Sam's.
A good barber knows not only what kind of haircuts look fashionable for men, but the also how to cut the hair so it's easy to maintain. You know you've found a decent barber when you get a hot lather and straight-razor shave for your neckline at the end of the cut.
Further, a good barber won't charge more than $20 for a haircut. $15 is average. I pay $18, but I really like the place.
This from a fellow who averaged one haircut a year for 15 years, and now keeps it cut rather short.
Regarding "whether WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange is a journalist, or can be prosecuted for espionage..."
Turns out there are different kinds of legal protections for journalists -- shield laws, for instance, which protect a journalist from having to reveal an anonymous source -- which don't apply to "non-journalists", whatever that might be in a world with twitter, blogs, etc. A private citizen emailing secret documents to someone without proper clearance can be prosecuted for it; a journalist publishing classified documents that were passed to her cannot be prosecuted.
So the question should be something more like, "Should Julian Assange be afforded the same legal protections as a journalist, or is he something other than that, to which such protections do not apply."
This meetup was a good time. It was nice to meet everyone, and I'll certainly make it to the next one.
-Ian
While the math is a little outside my current capabilities, I really appreciate this thread, because I've been working on the very beginning stages of a project that requires computational categorization algorithms, and you've given me a lot of good information, and perhaps more importantly, some new things to go and study.
Thanks!
I'm in the Chicago area -- I'm a journalist, programmer, and media creator (video/audio, etc.) I'd be happy to volunteer/pass on those skills.
An experiment which would disprove my hypothesis regarding more bidding increments would be something like:
Run at least three auctions for the same or similar items with the same or similar bidders, one using normal estimates and bidding increments for a control, one where the low estimate was lowered to allow more increments, and one with the same estimates, but more granular increments. IF the price paid in each auction was roughly equivalent, THEN the hypothesis is disproven.
The problem with that is the nature of the property we auction -- there's only one of anything. Each auction lot is, in important ways, different from the others. There's only one of this painting; only one of this desk. Even when two objects are similar, there are still often condition differences and so forth.
I'll have to consult with some of the appraisers and see if there's ever an exception to this rule.
But ok, that brings up another interesting question. Is there a way of simulating auction behavior? Has someone written a computer program to do this sort of thing? What kinds of assumptions do they make about the behaviors of individual agents?
I wrote up a post yesterday, but I found I was unable to post it, except as a draft, since I lack the necessary karma. I thought it might be an interesting thing to discuss, however, since lots of folks here have deeper knowledge than I do about markets and game theory
I've been working recently for an auction house that deals in things like fine art, etc. I've noticed, by observing many auctions, that certain behaviors are pretty reliable, and I wonder if the system isn't "game-able" to produce more desirable outcomes for the different parties involved.
I think Less Wrong readers might have some interesting insights into the situation. Hopefully, at the least, it's an interesting thing to think about for a few minutes. Feel free to point out if this is well-worn territory; in fact, any feedback is welcome.
Structure of the game:
We have objects consigned with us. We have our experts evaluate the objects, and provide an estimate of their value, based on previous auction outcomes for similar objects and their own expertise. So, for instance, a piece of furniture may be estimated to bring a value of $400-$800, a particular painting might be estimated to bring $10,000-$20,000, and so forth. While not "arbitrary", they are to some degree simply good guesses.
We publish a catalog before the auction, listing the items up for sale along with their estimated values. A minimum bid is set, usually half of the low estimate.
The auction proceeds following bidding increments, which vary from one price bracket to another. So, for instance, between $100 and $200, the bidding increments are $10 -- so, $100, $110, $120, etc. Between, say, $10,000 and $20,000 however, the bidding increments are $1000 -- $10,000; $11,000; $12,000 and so forth.
Regardless of what bracket the prices fall into, there are several tendencies that happen frequently:
-- Bidders will readily bid on items they want which still have an asking price of below the low estimate. They feel like they're getting a bargain.
-- Bidding will slow between the low estimate and the high estimate. Here, they're really relying on the estimate for their idea of whether or not the deal is so good.
-- Bidders become much more reticent about continuing to bid once the price reaches or exceeds the high estimate.
-- "Bidding wars" are more likely to the degree to which bidders feel they still have room to get a "good deal"
It seems to me that it is advantageous (in terms of maximizing the final price paid for an item) to have MORE bidding increments between the low and high estimates than it is to have fewer. That is to say --
I would expect more bids on an item which has an estimate between $200-$400, where there are 20 bid increments between the low estimate and the high estimate, than I would expect on an item estimated to sell between $10,000 and $15,000, which only has five bidding increments between the low and the high.
Now, naturally, some of that has to do with the fact that the lower-priced item is affordable to more bidders. It's also worth noting that increasing the bid increments makes sure that the auction itself doesn't take forever to complete (the higher increments cause bidders to drop out faster, regardless of the number of increments.
So, all this in mind, it seems plausible to me that we could marginally improve the prices being paid for our larger value objects in one of two ways:
-- Increase the granularity of the bidding increments at higher values -- Provide low estimates that allow for a larger number of bidding increments (instead of saying, "the estimate is $15,000-$20,000" we could say, "the estimate is $10,000 - $20,000")
It seems tricky to figure out whether the strategy works, though. After all, each of these objects is unique; it's not like shares of stock or pork bellies or something, where you have a whole bunch of the same stuff and the market is setting a price.
My questions for you all then: -- Is my thinking on this subject sound? -- Do you think that the number of bidding increments available to bidders can affect their behavior in the way I've outlined (am I right?) -- Assume we implement one of the two strategies for maximizing the prices paid. Is there any reliable way to measure the outcome to see if it worked?
I would be interested in attending this gathering. Is there a loop I can be kept in?
Hello. Been lurking on OB and LW for ages. I actually end up forwarding quite a few posts along to a friend of mine that thinks everyone here are robots or soulless automatons because of the lack of respect for intuition. I keep telling her to come here and post her opinions herself, but alas, no bites.
This is me signalling that I'm smart: B.S. computer science, M.S. journalism, currently employed in the fine art auction world.