Towards the end of the article, he reaches a conclusion about the importance of regional self-sufficiency which I don't understand at all. Firstly, because it has seemingly no connection to anything he was writing about. Secondly, because it contradicts basic economics of comparative advantage.
Regional self sufficiency is exactly what I was writing about; did you miss the part about disconnection from place?
And no, it doesn't contradict notions of comparative advantage. It puts a value on connection to place that the current system has valued at zero. By valuing connection to place you neutralize notions of competitive advantage achieved by absolute mobility.
This doesn't mean physical mobility is a bad thing, it just means that long term connection to a place should be valued. As such it acts as a tempering force against mobility. There's a reasonable middle ground and our system denies that.
I'm thinking about reading it. Some people don't like the editing, since it's self-published and doesn't have a lot of polish. It's also pretty heavy on the author's opinions (which might not be a bad thing).
Sure, but you could probably argue that calling someone a "fag" without evidence is also DH3. But I think the nuance is that down voting is not explicitly stating a contradiction, only stating that you disagree (albeit anonymously), which is slightly more like DH0.
OK, so they shot a smaller, faster moving target. The original point still stands.
It was an F-117. Yes, most "F" aircraft are air-to-air fighter aircraft. However F-117 is mostly used to attack ground targets, so it's "F" should be more like an "A" (If you want to nitpick that is ;-) )
Though no-one knows for sure, it's also been rumored that the fighter designation was done as a security measure to hide the true purpose of the aircraft, or that the F-117 designation existed in early planning documents and was simply never changed once the aircraft became a reality.
It's also not the first attack aircraft to carry a fighter designation; the F-111 long-range attack aircraft also carried that designation (though in that case it was because the aircraft was originally meant, in part, to fill an Naval air-defense fighter role).
Actually, they are both subsonic aircraft and have a very similar top speed. The F117, however, has a larger radar cross signature, which makes it appear as a larger aircraft than the B2 in a radar return.
It's been a decade since I read much about it, but this site states that the F-117 has a radar cross section of 30 square centimeters while the B-2 has an RCS of 14 square centimeters.
Even pg admits that Hacker News is a technology failure. HN is good because of the community, not the software. The software in fact seems to be a hacked together half-assed job.
No, that's not true. The software works quite well, especially considering how few lines of code it is. (To be able to say that was one of the goals for both app and language.)
What I said was that it's not user features that keep people here. But there is more to the software than user features. A good example is the code that protects against various kinds of abuse, like spam, trolls, and voting rings. By LOC that is a large percentage of the total, and HN as a community would be long since dead without it.
You are right. The Sabermetrics used in baseball by teams like the A's gave them an advantage over their competitors in 2000, but it would be crazy to think Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman haven't read Bill James.
However, I think your example is "cherry-picked" in iteself. The Rays finished only third this year, and in their whole 12 year history finished in dead last 9 times... mainly because they did not have the money to compete.
re: It would be crazy to think Theo and Cashman haven't read Bill James...
In fact, they hired him before Moneyball came out, privatized his research and are essentially the ONLY people that have been able to read him for much of the last decade.
I got to go to what seemed to be a rare Q&A with him last year, and it was pretty f-ing fascinating. He talked at length about trying to statistically evaluate leadership, chemistry, fights and catching defense contribution.
James works for the Red Sox as a consultant, and his principles are definitely behind decisions to trade players or let them leave via free agency once they hit a certain age (e.g. Garciaparra, Damon, et. al.).
As for the Yankees, there was an article recently that said something to the effect of "it's not just the size of the payroll, but their ability to spend it wisely which scares other teams".
Yes, that's true if by "consultant" you mean "they own his research." He pretty consistently checked in with a 'minder' in the auditorium to see what he could talk about. Fun stuff.
Having a low payroll does not in and of itself mean a team is trying to apply moneyball principles. It can also mean that the ownership is trying to keep costs down and doesn't care if the team is competitive as long as it's turning a profit.
The Rays were like that, until they got a new owner and dumped pretty much their entire front office right before 2006. Their best 2 seasons have been the last 2, with Andrew Friedman as head of baseball operations, and he's regularly lumped in with the moneyballers (his focus has been strong defense, something that hasn't historically been valued as highly as offense).
Theo Epstein was mentioned in the book as a believer in sabermetrics. It seems dishonest to ignore him, as the original article did.
Also I found that the article's point that the A's success was largely due to 3 20-game winning pitchers to be fallacious. Wins by pitchers aren't really a useful statistic.
The old guard will do anything they can to discredit sabremetrics so they can go back to the old ways of folklore.
