u/Flaky-Ambition5900

On August 13th, the Democratic Socialists of America published a statement commemorating Fidel Castro's centenary.

This statement was posted to the DSA subreddit, where users quickly split between support and criticism of Castro and the one party state he created in Cuba.

The full post: https://www.reddit.com/r/dsa/comments/1vnsfra/dsa_commemorates_the_centenary_of_fidel_castro/

The funniest comment chains:

“Damn we got a bunch of libs in here, spouting imperialist talking points about "totalitarianism". Its honestly incredibly sad to see such uneducated people be so confident in how wrong they are. "No investigation, no right to speak." -Mao.

I hope one day you will educate yourself and look back upon this comment with shame.

I’m sure your theory is from some weirdo with a blog, so I’ll pass

Hahaha western Marxist. The Cuban revolution was a great thing

Fedposting 🚨🚨🚨🚨

As review season for NeurIPS wraps up, I have now reviewed for 3 major conferences this year. And I'm noticing a worrying trend:

Out of the 12 papers I reviewed this year, only 1 provided full code (that runs the whole training pipeline from input dataset to output AUROC). 4 provided partial code with fragments of their method, but no ability to run the experiment end to end. And 7 provided no code.

This is really bad for ensuring quality and reproducibility. Of the 5 papers that provided at least some code, 3 of them contained obvious bugs that completely invalidated the results. ML is highly technical and small bugs can have huge impacts if they are in the wrong place. Who knows what was going on in the remaining 7 papers.

The fundamental issue here is of incentives: there is almost no cost to hiding code during the review process. Releasing code only increases odds of rejection due to reviewers finding bugs. The only way to fix this is to change the game by imposing real penalties on hiding code.

At this point Saylor only has 3 options for what to do with the failing STRC:

1. He can rescue it (bring it back to $100) by buying back STRC or increasing interest.
2. He can let it continue paying dividends and hope it recovers by itself.
3. He can run with the bag and shut down dividends forever, causing STRC to drop to near zero. Note that STRC in this case would only pay out when microstrategy declares bankruptcy, which might be never.

1 and 2 might seem superficially appealing, but I think 3 is the only rational choice.

The fundamental problem is that keeping STRC alive only has one purpose: to allow Saylor to raise more money to buy BTC. But saving STRC has a cost, it uses cash that could otherwise be used to buy BTC. Saving STRC only makes sense if Saylor thinks he can get more future investment in STRC to offset the cost of saving it.

But at this point, who would invest in STRC? Let's say Saylor spends $5 billion saving STRC tomorrow. Would that trigger > $5 billion in new investment. No, the reputation is already shot.