In these situations one can also ask about the "adaptivity gap", which is the difference in how many tests are required if one is allowed to be adaptive -- make a test, look at the result, then decide what to test next -- versus nonadaptive, i.e. decide in advance what all the tests will be and conduct them all at once.
I think there is a very interesting untold story in how the U.S. proactively and aggressively pursued this case.
If I recall Michael Lewis' book right:
- FTX (international) was a somewhat separate company from FTX US; SBF was convinced to fold them both into the bankruptcy proceedings.
- It was never clear that this would be under US jurisdiction at all; SBF was convinced to come to the US from the Bahamas.
- (my favorite part) After the Bahamas seized the passports of FTX employees, US officials smuggled in a new passport for at least one FTX employee in order to get them back to the US, presumably to give evidence against SBF. Who can pull those kinds of strings?
> SBF was convinced to come to the US from the Bahamas
Because he thought he could stay out of jail there.
> US officials smuggled in a new passport for at least one FTX employee in order to get them back to the US, presumably to give evidence against SBF. Who can pull those kinds of strings?
Source?
"Smuggled" implies it was done without the consent or knowledge of the Bahamas government. Otherwise, it's standard U.S. Marshals stuff.
Source: "Going Infinite" by Michael Lewis. Chapter 9.
> Gary never said when he would leave, or how he would leave—which was an
issue, as the Bahamas had taken his passport. On Sunday night, without a further word to
anyone, he just slipped, unnoticed, out of the Orchid penthouse. The lawyer who spirited
him off arranged with US authorities to supply him with a second passport, so that they
might smuggle him back to the United States before the government of the Bahamas
knew what had happened.
Lewis was where? With the Bahamas authorities and the lawyer who got the passport and the U.S. authorities who provided it to them? And the supposed fugitive while he left?
He makes a complex allegation that seems to have been strung together from observations, which I trust him to be relaying honestly, and suppositions given things he didn't see, e.g. that this wasn't coordinated with Nassau, which I'm sceptical of.
Who can pull those kinds of strings? Dog, the CIA is tremendously powerful, and the bahamas are as powerful as a mid-sized town in iowa. whatever america wants, it gets from countries subject to the monroe doctrine.
> whatever america wants, it gets from countries subject to the monroe doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine has to do with preventing powers outside the western hemisphere interfering in Latin America, not the US imposing legal jurisdiction over the region which it obviously doesn’t especially given that Ecuador, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela refuse to extradite despite having extradition treaties with the US. If you mean the US has outright hegemony in Latin America then that is easily falsified simply by pointing to the recent history of Cuba and Venezuela. Certainly the CIA has enormous reach and may have been involved but not necessarily, getting around passport confiscation could probably be handled by the State Department without too much hassle.
Sure, "the CIA" can do it, but my point is that some particular person actually had to coordinate a bunch of people and actions to make this happen, quite quickly after the collapse and before it was even clear whether SBF would be prosecuted at all, let alone in what jurisdiction or on what charges.
This is very well put. I think the next point of discussion is what fraction of "software developers" "need" to know how to code in the deep way you describe.
I agree, at least in theory (not sure if any existing blockchains could adequately solve the problem today). Someday, you could imagine essentially running gitlab on a blockchain. Actually, it's not a stretch to include access control such as public key management, "Issues", etc. It would be publicly readable, not censorable, no single point of failure, and unlike torrents, fully mutable. Obviously, today the cost would probably be prohibitive for most purposes.
Do you need to measure VO2 max specifically? If your form of exercise is jogging/running, you will easily be able to tell if you're improving by tracking distance and time of your runs. If you want to be precise, you can e.g. race a timed 5k once per month under the same conditions. But if you're a beginner, you won't need that to be able to tell you're improving, just the feel of difficulty to maintain a certain pace will change noticeably.
As someone else mentioned, a classic poor man's test of VO2 max is simply to time trial a set amount, such as seeing how far you can run in 10 minutes, and use a calculator. So the same thing with extra steps.
If the authors don't draw conclusions from that, I wouldn't either.
For example, suppose the main impact of exercise on cancer risk were simply the correlation with time spent outdoors in the sun. Then you would expect to see a chart like this. But a conclusion like 'limit running to 3 hours/week, while walking can be up to 12 hours/week' would be totally wrong.
They do draw that conclusion - "the lowest point estimate for all cause mortality was approximately 2000 MET min". What their analysis did not identify is what level of exercise beyond that results in a significant increase in mortality risk. If you look at the individual studies that have categories above 2200, (Slattery 1989, Arraiz 1992, Besson 2008, Kvaavik 2010, Paganini-Hill 2011, Brown 2012, Arem 2015, Huerta 2016, Klenk 2016, Celis-Morales 2017, Lear 2017, Zhou 2017, and Liu 2018), there is some variation - almost every study shows a U-shape, but the lowest point differs by gender, age, measurement method, BMI, and so on. And the effects of too much exercise are small compared to the effects of too little, so it is not surprising that their basic univariate analysis with Stata glst is unable to resolve it. But given the number of U-shape studies I think it is reasonable to conclude that some amount is too much - in the absence of reliable statistics I would say to trust one's body and if it feels like you are pushing yourself hard every week then cut back.
Yes, most of experienced runners' running is at a conversational pace, often literally (this is why running groups are popular).
To explain why harder isn't better: improvement in running comes only a little from muscular strength, so that mental model is bad.
Improvement is primarily based on aerobic development of the cardiovascular system. This is your body's ability to burn mostly-fat with oxygen, deliver the energy (ATP molecules) to muscles, and remove waste products. So you develop more capillaries, your heart gets literally stronger, and this fat-burning pathway gets more efficient.
Going too hard pushes into the anaerobic zone (burning sugar without oxygen). This is good training in some ways, but it can be counterproductive to aerobic development and, most important, it's too hard to do very much volume so the amount of stimulus is limited. By keeping it easy, you can do a higher volume of purely aerobic stimulus.
I have been exclusively an anaerobic athlete for the past two years and my aerobic fitness has dropped to a shockingly low level. But I am oddly comfortable at 180-190bpm
I am slowly building in more aerobic cardio into my training but man cardio is just such a chore for me. It's always the first to go so it takes constant maintenance and it's time consuming...
I’ve seen this happen. We call it having great cardiovascular fitness but not so great metabolic fitness. One of the reasons that zone 2 or maintaining aerobic fitness seems to have such an impact on longevity is that it requires and reinforces metabolic fitness.
reply