What Book Are You Reading at the Moment?

[Martin Hash]

I watched a couple Ballard-based movies: Crash & Empire of the Sun, both good.

[heydaralon]

I watched a couple Ballard-based movies: Crash & Empire of the Sun, both good.

That Empire of the Sun book is an autobiography of sorts. The dude grew up in Shanghai when the Brits controlled it, and he actually ended up in a Japanese prison camp. He used him imagination to make the best of it, but that experience fucked him up in a major way. I know you are busy travelling Martin, but I think you'd enjoy Ballard's books. He is a very outside the box thinker and he writes beautifully. Hope you are your family are having a good holiday season. Post some pics of Easter Island if you have't already. I'd be very interested in seeing them.

[Fife]

Is anyone here familiar with Theranos?

I got a kick out of this over the weekend. I'm willing to assume the accuracy of this WSJ reporter's sources for the purposes of this book, which caused more than a few IRL head shakes.

Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup

In 2014, Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes was widely seen as the female Steve Jobs: a brilliant Stanford dropout whose startup "unicorn" promised to revolutionize the medical industry with a machine that would make blood testing significantly faster and easier. Backed by investors such as Larry Ellison and Tim Draper, Theranos sold shares in a fundraising round that valued the company at more than $9 billion, putting Holmes's worth at an estimated $4.7 billion. There was just one problem: The technology didn't work.

A riveting story of the biggest corporate fraud since Enron, a tale of ambition and hubris set amid the bold promises of Silicon Valley.

Elizabeth Holmes is an interesting case study.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's almost as if there exists a decent bearish trading strategy based around betting against the delusional thinking of progressives.

[Fife]

It's almost as if there exists a decent bearish trading strategy based around betting against the delusional thinking of progressives.

You should read this one. This crazy bitch had the Clintons, the Obama WH, Jim Mattis, George Shultz, proggo nuts in charge at Walgreens and Safeway on board; just to name a few.

[Fife]

I have a book to recommend, that I think we had some discussion on back on the DCF. I think a few of you will dig it the most.

But first, a question:

I have a table with three upside-down red solo cups on it. The three cups are labeled "one," "two," and "three." Under one of the cups I have placed a folded up $100 bill, and under each of the other two I have placed a single penny.

I bring you into the room and tell you that under one of the cups is $100, and under the other two are single pennies.

I ask you to pick one of the cups for yourself, without turning it over yet. You choose cup number one.

I then want to show you one of the other cups covering a penny, and I tip over cup number two, exposing a single penny.

I then offer you the choice to stick with your original choice, cup number one, or to switch to the remaining cup, cup number three.

What strategy maximizes your chance of getting the $100?

(A.) Stick with cup number one.
(B.) Switch to cup number three.
(C.) It makes no difference if you stick with cup number one or switch to cup number three.

[DBTrek]

Everyone knows the answer is to switch - this one is so old.

[Speaker to Animals]

It actually makes no difference. It seems like it does because now, on paper, you have a 50% chance of choosing the winning cup rather than 33%, but you have a fifty percent chance if you do nothing as well.

[DBTrek]

It actually makes no difference. It seems like it does because now, on paper, you have a 50% chance of choosing the winning cup rather than 33%, but you have a fifty percent chance if you do nothing as well.

Right, but the theory goes that at the time of your choice you only had a 33% chance. So by switching you upgrade from a 33% choice to a 50% choice.

Now, I think you’re right because the second decision involves re-selecting the same cup or selecting the other option - meaning both choices are 50% choices - but that’s not the “answer” to the commonly posed question. The answer, historically, is to switch.

So are we looking for the mathematically accurate answer, or the historically advised answer here?

And don’t you win whether you get $100 or $0.01? Free money is free money.

[Speaker to Animals]

The mathematical error is assigning the probability to the act of choosing rather than the physical location of the prize.

In reality, the prize is in one of two cups. It makes no difference statistically if you change your choice. You have a .5 probability either way.