This is great. I wanted to see it laid out more formally information-theoretically, but I'm with Moby.
The best part is that temperature is orthogonal to all the other useful every-day parts of the metric system so you can use Fahrenheit with meters and kilos and what have you.
The author talks about information density as if we always communicate the temperature by showing each other flashcards with numerals, but a lot of his verbal examples actually take longer to say. "It's thirty-six" is fewer syllables than "It's in the high nineties".
I agree that Fahrenheit lets 0-100 be a range closer to human experience, but I'm not sure that actually boots anyone much.
Rankine is probably the worst scale for temperature.
Saying that Celsius has too few numbers between "death from cold" and "death from hot" is true, but that doesn't mean that Fahrenheit is much better. The only thing about Fahrenheit is that temperatures tend to vary depending on where you are outside (sun is different from shade, especially) so knowing a general range like 'upper 70's' is more useful than '25ish'. And we could just use double-Celsius, where the boiling temperature of water is 200 or something.
I'm not saying that we couldn't come up with a better scale than Fahrenheit if we somehow went all Year 0 on things. But of the two possible choices in the actual world, Fahrenheit is clearly better for daily use.
We should switch to a purely verbal system. Numbers don't capture how it actually feels.
Is there anyone who grew up using Celsius who agrees? I've never heard of, e.g., a Brit in the US saying "Golly, once I adjusted to Fahrenheit, talking about temperature seemed much more intuitive."
3 gets it right. There's absolutely no reason to use Celsius in daily life. It doesn't make anything more convenient. And I say that as a scientist who uses Celsius as a default at work.
10: I'm thinking there isn't, and that's proof of how pervasive and effective metric brainwashing has been around the globe.
a lot of his verbal examples actually take longer to say
The verbal length isn't the issue, its the cognitive load that comes with interpreting it. Recognizing high 90's is far easier than mentally comparing 36 with 35 or 37 or 32, say.
10 - I sort of did, but moved when I was about 11 so the change happened when I was still generally getting used to things. Also the climates before and after were distinct enough that it would be hard to compare (hot desert vs temperate but very humid). I don't remember it being hard to switch over, or any harder to use fahrenheit than celsius once I acclimated to the new system. I also don't remember it being any easier though.
Brits of my age grew up using both, and because my parents always talked about temperatures in Fahrenheit I defaulted to that until l I moved to Japan at 25. For some reason I can still intuitively understand hot temperatures in both systems - high 90s and mid-30s both evoke the same idea of a hot summer day - but have no idea about cold ones. I have no idea what the freezing point is in Fahrenheit, or sense of what the temperature might be in Boston right now, though if you told me "It's minus 3ºC" I'd know right away what that feels like.
As an American I of course agree with the argument in the link.
I grew up with both. I much prefer Fahrenheit.
I have no idea what the freezing point is in Fahrenheit
Thirty-two, which is easy to remember because that's about the age where the half+seven rule starts excluding college students.
a lot of his verbal examples actually take longer to say.
The one that irritates me is that saying oh-bee-gee-why-en is the same as saying gynecologist or longer than obstetrician. Why is that spelled out? It isn't even an acronym.
I don't like seeing Celsius on climate change charts because it makes the change seem small to Fahrenheit users. Two degrees? That's nothing!
I'm a fan of the double it and add thirty rule.
I don't get the thing about being easier to remember the temperature of the human body. What's intrinsically more memorable about 98.6 than 36.9 unless you chance to be more familiar with one or the other? Now a scale on which the temperature of the (healthy, median) human body was 100 would be cool, but what would you put at zero?
Thirty-two, which is easy to remember because that's about the age where the half+seven rule starts excluding college students.
Are you saying that if we switch to measuring age in Celsius, can we start hooking up with college students again?
20. Which I learned as the "lose 30 and halve it" rule.
21: One of the girls, I'm guessing Selah, managed to change our electronic thermometer to centigrade and I've found it easier to learn to read it than find or google the instructions to change it back.
Fahrenheit or electron volts. Nothing else makes sense.
10 - no of course not. Except Jane apparently, which is just evidence of Canadian craziness, surely.
13 is just bollocks.
10 - no of course not. Except Jane apparently, which is just evidence of Canadian craziness, surely.
13 is just bollocks.
26. Reciprocal temperature makes negative absolute temperature situations much more logical.
Aha! Here's why, from Wikipedia.
Although the Met Office first started using the Celsius temperature scale for weather forecasts in 1962[75] the press adopted a convention of using degrees Celsius in headlines relating to low temperatures and Fahrenheit for high temperatures. In an article in The Times published in February 2006, the writer suggested that the rationale was one of emphasis: "-6 °C" sounds colder than "21 °F" and "94 °F" sounds more impressive than "34 °C".
The one that irritates me is that saying oh-bee-gee-why-en is the same as saying gynecologist or longer than obstetrician. Why is that spelled out? It isn't even an acronym.
Perhaps everyone should pronounce it "Ob-Gyn", like I assumed it was pronounced for 10 or 15 years.
It's weird; I spent some time in England for a while, so 13, 14 and 15 degrees Celsius have some meaning for me, but other temperatures do not.
I vastly prefer Fahrenheit. I know that 0 means really damn cold, where that's harder for me to gauge on a Celsius scale. (-17.8 apparently) and anything below -35 is going to feel the same in either scale. -40F is exactly the same as -40C.
Like large glasses of free water, this is one of the things that America has right. Unlike large glasses of free water, it wouldn't really bug me too much if we decided to sync up with the rest of the world. Fahrenheit is better than Celsius, but it's not enough better to be a problem for people who grow up with Celsius.
One can make the same argument in favor of Kilometers per hour over mph. (Though in that case there's a counterargument that miles per minute is really nice, and Kilometers per hour really should be used in conjunction with a new unit of 1/100th of an hour.)
And the water has ice. Which is great for when it's 12C outside. Or not, I get confused.
Kilometers would be fine, and I like having a digital spedometer, because I can switch it to kilometers when I go to Canada.
I love Imperial weights in an irrational way. It would be better to buy things in grams, but somehow that seems soulless.
And yet, I buy soda in liters all the time, and that's fine.
Coke just doesn't taste as good now in 2-liter bottles.
Thankfully, milk still comes in gallon and 1/2 gallon jugs as God and the cows intended.
I remember Stephen Fry observing on QI that there are people who use Fahrenheit for hot days and Celsius for cold days.
When we go metric (come the revolution), we can call 500 grams a pound, like the Germans did.
I don't know how calling something a "pfund" will make things easier, but I like the idea.
13: That's because 2 C degrees doesn't mean much (but it means more than 2 F degrees).
My parents also speak F, my siblings and I speak C (generally this holds true for all measurements except person-height and -weight. I can do apples in kg but I have no idea of my weight in kg) (oh, also baking/cooking temps). Since I've moved to the US, I understand F better but I still refer to the freezing point a lot. It seems like a natural point of reference so you can say 'Oh! It's getting above freezing this week!' (hahaha, nope) or 'Ah, I see we're back down below freezing again'.
Finally the 0-100F scale as 'comfortable for humans' is bullshit. The low end is too cold and the top end is too hot.
I still refer to the freezing point a lot.
Native speakers of F do that too. It's a reference point, just not a round number.
Celsius is way way more useful for cooking and baking though, because the direct intuitive relation to the booing and freezing points of water makes it much easier to glance at a temperature and figure out what's going on.
Talking about the weather is possibly (a) the most trivial use of scales possible and (b) clearly better accomplished in celsius, in support of which assertion I would like to put forward the English.
It's not the comfortable range. It's just the range in which we mostly exist.
"-40F is exactly the same as -40C"
I used this joke the other day with a group of people when one said the wind chill was -40 and I asked F or C? One guy got it and laughed, the other didn't get it and said that when it's so cold it doesn't really matter which since you just wear everything you can anyway.
Less than 0: rare enough in the UK that I have no real use for those values. 0 = possibly icy underfoot: be careful (maybe skip the bike ride). 3, 4, 5: still cold enough for gloves (wear overshoes if cycling). 6, 7, 8: leave gloves at home (long sleeve jersey + base layer on bike). 10, 11, 12: starting to feel like spring (consider regular instead of 3/4 bike shorts). 14-18: shitty temperatures for summer (but wear anything on bike) Above 20: proper summer. Anything above 30: hot. Definitely hot. Two bottles of water.
By contrast, Fahrenheit wastes the whole of the 40-60 range: great precision to cover a temperature range no one really cares about.
Speaking of weather, I can now confirm that the Bering Strait is very windy and cold. In case anyone was wondering. Too windy for airplanes at the moment, so I may be here a while.
Less than 0: rare enough in the UK that I have no real use for those values.
I hate you so much right now.
47: You can legally get stoned and you have the time.
48: Today didn't get about 0 C, but it still felt warm to me.
49: True, there is that. I'm staying at the school, though, and they might not appreciate it.
51: As long as you brought enough for everybody.
32: Perhaps everyone (well everyone who's anyone) does.
13 is totally bollocks as is the argument in the link.
I was in Edmonton once, talking to a local about the chilly weather, and he said yeah it's cold, same temp Celsius or Fahrenheit. It took a moment to register: Minus forty. But it was a dry cold....
Speaking of cold, all the women complained and got the heat raised in the office. So I've got my window open.
36.2:It would be better to buy things in grams, but somehow that seems soulless.
No, it's not that it would be better to buy things in grams, it's that the things that you buy in grams are better.
By contrast, Fahrenheit wastes the whole of the 40-60 range: great precision to cover a temperature range no one really cares about.
Wha? I'm a big fan of those temperatures. I should see if they have a Facebook page I can like.
58.2: I also learned it the American way, but for fuel economy, volume/distance is better than the reciprocal in that additivity works in an intuitive way. If you replace your 40 liters/100 km car with a 30 liters/100 km car and you drive 100n km, you know you're saving (40-30)*n=10n liters. If you replace a 20mpg car with a 30mpg car and drive 100n miles, you've saved 100n/20-100n/30 = 100n(1/20-1/30) = 100n(3/60-2/60) = 5/3n gallons. Getting 5/3 (really 1/60) going from 20 to 30 isn't obvious.
Oh man, energy units are crazy. I can see why regulators would want to standardize on metric units, but I can also see how that would be totally confusing and inconvenient for everyone else.
I'm a big fan of those temperatures.
No, in the sense of those temperatures are benign, hence you don't need to pay much attention. By all means, live there if you can.
Oh man, energy units are crazy.
Electron volts or prefixed versions thereof! Nothing else makes sense.
64: We can surely all agree that the British Thermal Unit, whatever that means, is the most steampunk of units.
Hey: I have a vague memory of a conversation here, where someone made the case that fuel efficiency should really be measured in gallons/mile, not miles/gallon. Now and then I think of that conversation, and for the life of me I can't re-derive the argument why, and I go in circles. What was it?
68: Because your goal is usually to go a particular number of miles, not to use a particular number of gallons?
68: Something like 63. Also, volume/distance has a silly physical analogue: it's the cross-sectional area of a pipe the length of your journey whose volume is the amount of fuel you need.
69: My inability to convert pence per liter into dollars per gallon is why going to British gas stations is a blissfully ignorant experience for me. Doesn't hurt that they usually aren't next to each other like in the US.
Idea on a shorthand for quick representation of a locality's temperatures: list 1st, 25th, 75th, and 99th percentile (out of days of the year). Attempted below with 20-year data:
San Francisco: 44/52/61/64
Dallas: 40/53/80/89
Minneapolis: 13/26/66/76
New York: 30/40/70/80
The trouble is these are average daily temperatures, rather than highs or lows. But it does still tell you a fair amount.
65: You only think of that range as benign because your weather isn't that variable which is how your island is able to use Celsius without rebellion. The typical daily temperature swing here is over 20 degrees F (citation: I guessed). If it is 40 in the afternoon, it was well below freezing when I got up in the morning. If it was 60 when I get up in the morning, it will very often be well over 80 by afternoon.
71: Btu is widely used in the U.S. when discussing thermal energy, and sometimes for total energy as well.
I've never seen an air conditioner or furnace listed using a different unit.
I just got back from a Commonwealth country and one of the things I miss is temperature in Celsius. Fahrenheit, like several other things in the digital age, has lots of false precision. I can't feel a difference of 1 degree F and neither can you. One degree C is also a bit too small to feel, but at least it's closer. I mean, really, we can probably feel about 10 different temperature ranges, max?
If you want a real temperature scale for practical weather purposes, you want to use something like Newton's scale. Which, BTW, is so painfully British. 0 is freezing. 0-2 is winter temp, 4-6 is summer temp, and 12 is body temp.
Temperature should be measured on a integer scale of 0-10, corresponding to leading digit in the current 0-100 range of Fahrenheit temperatures. Temperatures below 0 or above 10 should just be reported as 'below 0' (or 'off the scale cold') or 'above 10' (or 'off the scale hot'), respectively. There's no need for further specificity.
How about using pluses and minuses? It's a 5+ means the high fifties. Think of the cognitive savings!
Temperature should be measured on a scale of 20 different Doges.
HEY CELSIUS, Y U NO USE THESE DIGITS?
Why do I find that so funny? It keeps making me laugh.
What is the function of numbers in this context at all? "Really cold", "Cold", "Chilly", "Pleasant", "Warm", "Hot", "Sweltering" conveys anything anyone could possibly need to know about the weather.
It's like you don't even hear cognitive savings.
Or maybe see them? Feel them, like the weather?
Isn't that what we subconsciously do anyway?
>30 C = too hot
30 C = hot
25 C = warm
20 C = perfect
15 C = a bit cool
10 C = chilly
5 C = cold
0 C = freezing
Hey, I had seven 'temperatures', four less than urple (six less, if you include 'off the scale' high and low as temperatures.) Cognitive savings all the way.
77.2 maps to US lady dress sizes. Except for the regoinal sizing variation which I am convinced exists. That is, a given size in a fat region will be more fabric than the same size on the coasts, though maybe this is just different brands being popular different places.
What is the function of numbers in this context at all?
Some Lancastrians are still getting used to the concept.
87
Another source of false precision: decimal grading. Totally useless. There's a reason we only used 5 letters when we invented the scale.
88
Regional sizing totally exists. I wear one size smaller when I buy clothes in the Midwest.
I grade my students on a scale of F.00-A.99, the mean being usually around C.75.
88, 91: I had no idea. That's really got to confuse internet shopping. Come to think, I do count on frumpy catalog clothes (e.g., Lands' End) running big compared to what I'd buy in a local store.
I'm really not sure about that bit. Different stores - yes. Old Navy fits bigger than a high end brand. But I don't believe J. Crew sizes things differently when shipping out to Peoria vs. Miami.
though maybe this is just different brands being popular different places.
So I'm agreeing with this part.
"Really cold", "Cold", "Chilly", "Pleasant", "Warm", "Hot", "Sweltering" conveys anything anyone could possibly need to know about the weather.
Except those words mean different things to different people. When the temperature outside is a sunny #4, I think it's very pleasant, but my in-laws from Florida would call it cold or possibly really cold.
0 C = freezing
You could just look at the calendar and see when it says "January" and "February" without losing any significant amount specificity over that system.
97: They can all suck it up and learn what I mean by those words. Or reconcile themselves to being confused.
79: I'm not okay with plusses and minuses. You can't tell the difference between a 9+ and a 10-, or between a 3+ and a 4-, etc.
I would be okay with the idea that it's possible our 0-10 scale should be re-normed. Just like the decades, where the 60s are really 1963-1973, the 80s are really 1982-1992, and the 90s are really 1993-2001, etc. I'm open to the idea that temperature #7 should correspond not to Fahrenheit temperatures 70-79 but instead to 68-77.
41.3 is the sort of bollocks one expects to hear from lazy warm climate people. If it's below zero F outside, that's face-hurting cold. 20+ F, by contrast, is quite balmy. On the other end, 100 F is definitely uncomfortable, but 80 is OK, and 120 is Hadean. Meanwhile, in C, those are -17.8, -6.6, 26.6, 37.7 and 48.8 in C. The hell do those numbers even.mean? Plus, in the middle you've got numbers like 50=sweater, 60=long sleeves, 70=short sleeves, 80=shorts. Much more reasonable than havering over 10, 15.5, 21.1 and 26.6!
Off-topic question someone here might have some idea about: a grad student I know is deciding between taking a job at Google or at a hedge fund after getting his PhD. I made some unhappy noises about the evil of finance. He said his impression is that the 2008 crash was caused mostly by big investment banks, not by hedge funds, and that the pitch from the hedge funds is "at worst we're making money without hurting anyone else; at best we're providing useful liquidity for the market". But he said he's a little uncomfortable with it and wants to know if I have a more precise argument about how hedge funds in particular, rather than investment banks, cause harm. I don't, really, because I don't pay much attention to what hedge funds are and what they do, but I thought someone here might.
I calculate BTU/acre-feet as I plan to boil the inland seas.
It's not like I'm in finance.
79: I'm not okay with plusses and minuses. You can't tell the difference between a 9+ and a 10-, or between a 3+ and a 4-, etc.
It matters when the sunny day goes on the job market.
If it's below -15 C outside, that's face-hurting cold. -5 C, by contrast, is quite balmy. On the other end, 40 C is definitely uncomfortable, but 25 is OK, and 50 is Hadean. Meanwhile, in F, those are 5, 23, 77, 104 and 122 in F. The hell do those numbers even.mean? Plus, in the middle you've got numbers like 10=sweater, 15=long sleeves, 20=short sleeves, 25=shorts. Much more reasonable than havering over 50, 59, 68 and 77!
The point of the article linked in the OP was that you didn't need to haver on about those numbers as you could just talk about it being in 50s or whatever when you didn't need precision.
Refer him to the discussion of Capital and suggest that hedge funds increase wealth inequality.
Also, derivatives trading and shadow banking is regulated much more lightly than anything else. Not by accident, those who trade CDSs and other exotic instruments lobby hard to stay unregulated. Investment banks are bigger, so more effective, but that's the team he'd be playing on.
Neither of these is IMO totally convincing. Hard to say which is worse. The people I know who have worked in finance in Manhattan do not report pleasant work environments, at all. Maybe suggest he ask what the turnover for the position he's hiring into is, in case he has not already done that.
Huh. The people I know who left academia for finance seem pretty happy, including the postdoc who left our group a couple of years ago for this particular hedge fund and has been trying to entice everyone he knows to join him there. I assume part of the happiness is related to sleeping on piles of money.
Academia itself increases inequality. Harvard: worse than a hedge fund?
"at worst we're making money without hurting anyone else"
Probably not physically hurting anybody, but obviously taking taking their money.
I found the discussion of "dumb money" in here useful.
We're certainly increasing the inequality between our students' salaries and our own.
109.1: I dunno if that's as true as hedge fund managers would have you believe. A lot of them haven't actually done that great. Personally, I'd recommend a finance job in flyover country. People and working conditions are a lot nicer, and cost of living is way lower.
A lot of them haven't actually done that great.
Then how can they afford to hire people fresh out of grad school in fields that have nothing to do with finance and pay them $300k/year?
107: I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Except for this comment. Which is pretty short.
crash was caused mostly by big investment banks, not by hedge funds
Not for lack of trying. See Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, with their "pick up all the nickles in front of the bulldozer" investment strategy.
Do you mean hedge funds haven't done well as in their returns haven't been great (true) or they haven't made piles of money for themselves (untrue)?
I dunno if that's as true as hedge fund managers would have you believe. A lot of them haven't actually done that great.
Au contraire. Hedge funds are excellent vehicles for making money for hedge fund managers. But for investors, yeah, not so much.
On the other hand, hedge funds do give us liquidity in teh markets, which is a great public service, and totally justifies the special tax breaks.
I'm pretty certain that a $300k salary would be sufficient to get me to leave the university and burn a few buildings on my way out.
Is his concern about working in finance, or hedge funds specifically? If it's finance, all the hedge fund specific stuff is moot.
Is there actual research on what the sensitivity of the human temperature sense is? Like, fifteen minutes each with 60 versus another temperature, 62 or 64 or 60, and see how different it has to be before people can reliably notice how it's changed? Maybe we should calibrate our scale to that.
Hedge funds specifically. One in particular. But hedge funds seem to be what everyone I know who goes into finance does.
So I just did some conversions, and Celsius isn't so bad at some ranges. 68 degrees, which is the minimum comfortable temperature, is 20 degrees Celsius. 72 degrees, which is the maximum comfortable temperature, is 22 degrees Celsius. Below 68, the next quantitative shift is probably around 60, which is 15 degrees Celsius. 50 is 10. All good. But then 40 is 4 and 32 is 0. What sense does that make? 15, which is getting into "frigid" territory, is -9. ? At higher ranges it's ok again, as anything over about 25 (27 if you have to lie to yourself) is going to suck.
sensitivity of the human temperature sense
Highly context dependent, I'd imagine. Any regular swimmer will be able to feel the difference between water at 82 vs 78 degrees, and many can tell the difference between 80 and 82 or 78 and 80.
Over 82, when you piss yourself in the pool, you can barely feel the warmth of it.
125: this is probably the paper you want, but as far as I can tell it's paywalled everywhere.
Just search Pubmed for Mengele as the primary author.
If Pitchfork redid their album review numbers in Celsius, I would have to read whole reviews to know whether it was okay to admit I liked an album.
I don't think the nazis were terribly interested in the effect of mild and not-terribly-uncomfortable temperature shifts, were they?
It must be weird being in an academic science department where people have the option of leaving for a salary of $300,000. Why would someone say no to that? Is the average postdoc salary $240,000?
Lips can detect .03 degree Celsius temperature changes? That seems implausible.
Veins, arteries, capillary reactions. Good to know.
I didn't even know I had a body part called a "thenar".
Hedge funds have some unfair tax advantages, and they generally fleece their clients. But they're not systemically harmful the way the investment banks are (by having implicit government guarantees, being too big to jail or fail, etc.). So it depends how you feel about ripping off dumb greedy rich people.
So it depends how you feel about ripping off dumb greedy rich people my pension fund.
(by having implicit government guarantees, being too big to jail or fail, etc.)
Is there a size limit to hedge funds? To the size of the markets the hedge funds trade in? To the size of their trading with other institutions (This is far too respectful. Entities?) that do have those properties?
Fair enough, Spike - but I have the impression that a lot of pension funds are coming to their senses and getting out of hedge funds -- well, Calpers is, anyway, which seems likely to set a trend. Eggplant, I... don't actually know what I'm talking about here. But so far as I know, no, there are no size limits, so (is this your implicit point?) they may indeed be 'too big to fail', in the way that Long Term Capital Management was when it pretty much tanked the world economy and got a bailout in 1998. That shows that some kind of regulation is needed which (still) doesn't exist; but it's still not as bad as the kind of actively evil regulation that supports the investment banks, ratings agencies, etc. Hedge funds are basically just collectivities of rich people (and, yes, pension funds) getting together to (hire others with comically misaligned incentives to) roll the dice, and that should be taxed and inhibited a lot more than it is but it isn't inherently corrupt in the way most other parts of Wall St. are.
There are two issues, (1) hedge funds ripping off the pension funds that invest in them and (2) hedge funds ripping off the other participants in the market. Edna described (2) as rolling the dice but I'd guess that on net they are successful at taking a lot of the other participants' money. These other participants include pension funds, airlines buying jet fuel, etc.
Having grown up with Fahrenheit and then lived in Canada for a few years, many of the pro-Fahrenheit arguments in this thread are, to use a technical term, completely whacked out. Both scales are fine. Just don't get them confused.
And going the other direction, 40-60 is a noticeably divergent range. Average high temperature in Vancouver 5 months of the year was in the 40s. I definitely noticed days in the 50s. In Celsius, below/above 10 was also a meaningful distinction.
I think we should compromise on the Rømer scale, in which water freezes at 7.5° and boils at 60°. Or possibly the Newton, in which 0° is the freezing point of water and 114° is the temperature of bodies that can barely be seen glowing at night. Although I'm quite fond of the Delisle, because it runs backwards (water boils at 0° and freezes at 150°.
For practical purposes, 10-30° Celsius is bearable; 15-25° is comfortable; and if your temperature is >37° you have a fever. Easy enough day to day.
Currently 'enjoying' a body temp of ~38C.
But so far as I know, no, there are no size limits, so (is this your implicit point?) they may indeed be 'too big to fail', in the way that Long Term Capital Management was when it pretty much tanked the world economy and got a bailout in 1998.
Except that the bailout was from lenders, not the government. Also it's overegging it a bit to say LTCM itself tanked the world economy - it was more the canary in the coal mine for the emerging markets bust. What tanked the world economy was Russia defaulting (and then a whole bunch of other countries).
The long and short of it from my perspective is that individual hedge funds can be bad actors, as an industry their performance doesn't justify the fees they charge, but they're definitely not as systemically risky (relative to other investors, say) as investment banks are, especially investment banks within universal banks.
How long before Russia defaults this year?
Long-term Capital Management was too big to fail.
And they were using a fancy academic theorem dreamed up by a Nobe Laureate.
So academics in finance have the power to do a lot of evil.
Ginger Yellow's point about LTCM really being about the Russian default. Still, academics can really fuck things up in finance when they try to get too fancy.
TBTF, as generally understood, means to big not to get a government bailout. I don't think LTCM was that. I mean, it definitely wasn't at the time, but I think if governments had a do-over they wouldn't bail it out, whereas with Lehman they probably would.
That isn't to say that hedge funds can't do a lot of damage on the way down (or, you could argue, up), but I really can't envisage any western government bailing one out. Hedge funds qua hedge funds, anyway. There are plenty of institutions or arms of institutions which act like hedge funds which might get a bailout (eg JPMorgan CIO, as I've argued here before).
As long as they all go up against the wall when the revolution comes, the exact details of the order don't matter that much.
I agree with edna k, Ginger, and others. The purpose of hedge funds is to convince rich people to give them money, and maybe they'll give some back. Investment banks make money by making themselves integral to the world economy, and taking as much as they can get away with. The only reason LTCM got government attention was because all of the big investment banks were at risk if LTCM liquidated too suddenly.
"We can't all be first against the wall" is a great motto for a financial institution.
Maybe for a credit union or a smaller bank.
I did the wrong sexual harassment training so now I have to do it again.
162 is intriguing. Can you elaborate? How many sexual harassment training courses does one institution have?
So far as I know, only two. I got an email directing me to take a training but the link was disabled by the university's own email system because it looked suspicious. (We have gotten spoofed emails of a similar nature before.) So I went to HR's home page and found a link for sexual harassment training and took that training. But I was supposed to take the one with the external link that my own department's server thought was too suspicious to leave enabled.
We have two sexual harassment training courses, one for managements and one for proles. Apparently we have to take it every six months so we don't forget the exact contexts in which bum slapping is frowned upon. Unfortunately, finishing the quiz isn't sufficient, you also need to page through the instructional material, with each page on a time-delay.
When my coworkers and I discussed it, we couldn't help but commiserate with the actors in the stock photos that go with the training. Who would want to be part of male_construction_workers_look_disapprovingly_at_female_construction_worker.jpg?
Well that was a weird variety of my info getting eaten.
all of the big investment banks were at risk if LTCM liquidated too suddenly.
Aaand part of the reason for this is that there were very weak capital controls on derivatives, which weak controls the banks themselves lobbied for-- if I remember right, there was a particular CFTC attempt to tighten that failed, and subsequent weakening of the puny controls that were in place.
To the claim that Harvard (possibly serving as synechdoche for all of higher ed and indeed the entire specialized economy of the postindustrial world) heightens inequality, recall that Piketty's main point was that r>g implies self-perpetuating fortunes. Hedge funds which notionally offer excellent returns only to very wealthy clients exacerbate this imbalance. This is a different and much worse mchanism than an expensive education being prerequisite for well-compensated work.
Hedge funds which notionally offer excellent returns only to very wealthy clientsmanagers
168: Private equity exacerbates inequality, but I don't think hedge funds in general do. The world is full of dumb rich people who have no idea what to do with their money, so they give it to hedge funds. It's not materially different from if they put it in an ETF.
166: My company has trainings on various aspects of compliance and ethics that are professionally produced and quite well done, but feature actual colleagues in starring roles. So you run into these people and think, "Hey, you're the one who inadvertently violated the Iran trade sanctions in the training video!"
166: Tim's company has that feature where you have to page through. Usually sexual harassment is something you take every year.
Toldja, Mobes. Now they need to teach you folk employment law.
If Faulkner were still alive, his care and handling would make a great online training.
Who would want to be part of male_construction_workers_look_disapprovingly_at_female_construction_worker.jpg?
How much does it pay?
He said his impression is that the 2008 crash was caused mostly by big investment banks, not by hedge funds
"Mostly" is doing a lot of work there. I agree they're not as culpable as the big banks, but hedge funds were responsible for a hell of a lot of the derivative positions that exponentially compounded the leverage in the system. Hedge funds played a big role in the disruptions in the money market funds following the Lehman bankruptcy (which could have been catastrophic without federal intervention). Hedge funds are responsible for a lot of the unregulated and underregulated trading activity generally, high-frequency trading and the like, that in the aggregate adds a lot of unpredictability to the system.
But generally, hedge funds are so diverse that the generic term "hedge fund" is almost meaningless. You can't know how evil it is or isn't without knowing the fund's investment practices and strategies.
||
Since some of the Pittsburgh contingent is here, I'd like to request a meetup for Thursday, March 12. I think that's going to be my trip with the girls for their spring break. If someone could help me find a babysitter who could hang out with them in a hotel and while they feel decadent watching movies until they fall asleep, that would be great too and give me the flexibility to go to Arby's or wherever else you hang out.
|>
It would be really great to see you again, but I can't make the 3/12, except lunch. I've got a function in the evening and am flying out very early the next morning. I'm sorry.
high-frequency trading and the like, that in the aggregate adds a lot of unpredictability liquidity, glorious liquidity to the system.
Except that the bailout was from lenders, not the government.
Lender-funded, but government-organized and -urged, no?
Lender-funded, but government-organized and -urged, no?
Yes, but I don't think that's what most people think of by too big to fail (and it's certainly not what governments mean by it). After all, governments tried to organise and urged a private sector bailout/takeover of Lehman, and it still failed. TBTF means the government either bails out/nationalises the institution itself (eg RBS), or provides some form of guarantee or subsidy to the third party doing the takeover/emergency lending (eg Bear Stearns). The point being the socialisation of private sector losses (or for successful institutions, an implicit subsidy to the funding cost).
Other Pittsburgh people might want to weigh in. I didn't mean to close the issue.
182: No, actually I need to close the issue because spring break just changed from what I thought it was to make up for snow days, so last week in March or first in April are when we'd be free instead. Never mind! I'll check on other things and ask again when there's a plan.
I'm up for it in theory. In practice, if it ends up being a weekend I'll probably be out of town.
I am traveling for Easter weekend.
Okay, so tentatively weekend before easter, March 27 say? If weekends are better, I could do that. We're probably pretty flexible, unless I'm forgetting something about that weekend.
Before easter weekend, that is. Not that I'm deliberately avoiding Moby.
Not that I'm deliberately avoiding Moby.
Me too.
Weekends are worse for me, but if I know a couple weeks in advance I can probably work around it. But looking at a calendar, the 27th is a Thursday so that's fine, and the 28-30th is probably going to be the weekend for March I'm in town, so that's okay too.
189: How else am I supposed to get to the parking lot by Five Guys? There's like three other lanes.
having been raised with fahrenheit and lived for 15 years in celsius land I'm inclined to think of celsius as totally useless because I don't have any sense of what the in-between numbers are. pleasantly cool, mid-sixties kind of thing. I need the 40s-50s to tell me crucial stuff about crisp days, and the 60s-80s to tell me what is happening when it is (considered by some to be) warm outside. this may be in part attributed to the fact that I learn of celsius only by turning the wall-mounted aircon in the bedroom from 25 to 22 and back up again as needed at night and listening to a daily report which tells me there will be a high of 33 and a low of 26 with 100% chance of thundershowers. I have been to central india pre-monsoon when it was 45 and I way do not recommend that to anyone. I'm honestly not sure why any humans started to live there, ever.
||
So, speaking of temperature. I tried making the fantasy fudge recipe. But was distracted and numb-brained after dinner. I looked at the butter and saw 3/4 cup. But I read 3/4 pound.
So, guessing this'll come out pretty bad.
|>
192: a pound of butter is two cups, right? Can you double the rest of the stuff? I'm assuming it's too late to scoop half out.
Just call it "extra creamy" or something.
Test batch, so no biggie. Except the humiliation.
I poured off what I could once it cohered.
it still came out. intense shit tho.
"Slightly less than double bUtter fudge"
191 see 148.2. If you're acclimatised to Narnian temperatures you might want to raise the bands by a couple of degrees. Over 37 is still a fever.
192-199. Probably not a lot different to the Cornish fudge made with clotted cream. Great stuff but you don't want too much at a time.
There is nothing wrong with Celsius. People bitch and make up stupid rationalizations to justify their preference for what they happened to grow up with because they are weenies.
I grew up with Celsius and have acclimated to Fahrenheit without any difficulty. It's a crappy system for a number of reasons but it's not hard to learn. And of course essear is right about electron Volts.