Cover photo
Andreas Schou
Works at Google
Attended University of Idaho
Lives in Boise, Idaho
6,933 followers|2,114,572 views


Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 

Irina Tcherednichenko's profile photoJohn Douglas Porter's profile photoPat Gunn's profile photoKee Hinckley's profile photo
I have no idea what are you talking about which means it is time to leave this thread :-) but since Perl was mentioned and I'm watching tv with a tablet in my hands i found this link, may be you will enjoy, may be not, have no idea (sorry, a matlab person here :-))

Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
"The study, reported in the Nursing Standard magazine, found all the 250 patients aged between four and 16 they quizzed disliked the use of clowns, with even the older ones finding them scary."

There is more agreement that clowns are scary than that the Earth orbits the sun. There is more agreement that clowns are scary than there is that lizard people do not secretly rule the country. Why are there clowns?
Andres Soolo's profile photoPeter da Silva's profile photoDarryl Davidson's profile photoScott C's profile photo
Scott C
I minored in theatre, and I concur. You really do look like a freak up-close.
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
Elsethread, someone asked me where my libertarian sympathies actually lie and where they end. Well, they're here:

I'd like people to be able to do pretty much whatever they want. I mean, basically anything they want to do. Regulation is a pain in the ass. Basically every law is an impingement on liberty, or can be abused to that end, and when the quantity of laws outstrips our abilities to comply, abusive patterns can emerge from the merely discretionary behavior of authorities.

I think, fundamentally, that people should be able to organize in whatever way they please, and that the government's essential function should be sorting out the problems they cause each other in the process of organizing themselves.

The problem being is that, in the real world, the state of nature is basically horrible. We starve. We get sick. We isolate ourselves or each other. Even presuming a system where the rich don't own the arbitrators (which is not even the system as it stands), my fear is that pure voluntarism would just use nature's disdain for human life to coerce people into "voluntary" agreements which are actually no such thing.

The reason for those sympathies are probably not important to you. I'm not sure that there's any reason they should be. States with basically no consistent philosophical underpinnings can muddle along fine, adopting ad hoc solutions to whatever problems arise.

But because I have to make judgments about this kind of thing in day-to-day life, it's important for me to have some sort of ideal to compare the real world to. 
Andres Soolo's profile photoAnthony Zana's profile photoDarryl Davidson's profile photoDavid desJardins's profile photo
+Darryl Davidson I reject your efforts to force everything into your "us vs. them", conservative vs. liberal, frame.  I give millions of dollars to 'progressive' causes and I consider the head of the NEA a personal friend.  That doesn't change what I see.  I didn't state "this fiction that teachers can't be sanctioned, fired, etc." (although that is certainly true, not fiction; no one can seriously argue that it's not much more difficult to fire a Mountain View public school teacher than it is a Google software engineer) or anything about "regulations" (although it is certainly true that rules protecting teachers should be subject to collective bargaining, not written into California law as they are now).  All I said is a matter of pretty obvious fact: the system (which includes a wide variety of factors, including low pay, as you mention, as well as things like teachers being primarily paid based on seniority rather than on the quality of their work, and managers who have little control or jurisdiction over those who work for them) prioritizes 'fairness' over 'effectiveness' in teaching.  I visited a successful public school in the Bronx a few weeks ago; the principal still has to get the teachers to vote every year on whether to waive the rules that would prevent the school from operating according to the methods that makes it successful.  That's not a system that you would come up with if you were just focused on effectiveness.  You would build something more like the private sector, where people are employed at-will and executives have broad discretion but also more accountability than public school administrators and principals now have.
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
I suppose I should say that I don't unequivocally agree with Tyler Cowen or +Nicholas Weininger, but that I find this plausible enough to share.
"Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, argues that the very definitions of labor and capital are arbitrary. Instead, he looks around the world to find the relatively scarce factors of production and finds two: natural resources, which are dwindling, and good ideas, which can reach larger markets than ever before.

If you possess one of those, then you will reap most of the rewards of growth. If you don’t, you will not."

I find this plausible, but of course I would, due to confirmation bias: it suggests that Georgist resource taxation and weakening IP protections, both policies I favor on general efficiency and equity grounds, would also reduce inequality.
For 50 years, economic consensus has held that new machines lift demand for skilled workers. But what if technology has become a substitute for labor?
David Steinmuller's profile photoJohn Nelson's profile photoPeter da Silva's profile photoJay Gischer's profile photo
The robots aren't gonna take over overnight (despite Andy Rubin's best efforts). At least in the short-run, humans can provide value-added to the machines as long as they are sufficiently trained and educated. 

One of the main take-home lessons of Piketty's monstrously important treatise (perhaps the most important book of the 21st century just ahead of Lean In) is that we need to tax wealth (capital) sufficiently so that we can use the proceeds to invest in human capital (among other things).
Add a comment...
Self-aggrandizing nonsense.

If unemployment is structural, not cyclical, then you would expect that there would be significant differences between the long-term unemployed and the employed. You would expect that there would be structural shifts in training for people who have entered college since the beginning of the recession, and an increasing skill premium across fields where there is an undersupply of labor. You would expect that job losses would be concentrated in the 50-65 band, as employers moved to clear out older workers with outdated skills.

None of these are the case. The long-term unemployed and the employed are similarly situated. Other than a drop in law school admissions, there has been no significant shift in training. Wages are flat, even among the working rich. And the job losses are concentrated among the young.

It may be that the poor response to the recession has created a sort of hysteresis, and this is the best we can expect from now on. But the argument that this is caused by some shift deep in the fundamentals of the economy is not borne out by the facts: the places where we might look for those fundamentals have not seen the sort of deep and systematic change that we might expect.
In the wake of last week’s job report, there has been a flurry of new debate about what precisely is keeping job creation in the United States so anemic. The pivotal issue is whether the challenges facing the job market are cyclical or structural. The cyclical hypothesis is that we...
Steven Flaeck's profile photoDimitrios Diamantaras's profile photoDavid desJardins's profile photoJay Gischer's profile photo
So, here's an exercise for the reader, about inequality. Suppose you were in a society where there are two kinds of people, redheads and blondes, and the redheads are always exactly twice as productive as the blondes at whatever they do. Would it make the society more or less efficient if you imposed a 50% tax on all income of redheads? Would it increase or decrease total utility?
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
6,933 people
Unsurprisingly, there is very small demographic difference between the people who have been unemployed for short and long durations. They are about the same in terms of education, about the same in terms of hours worked, about the same in terms of industry. The difference?

The long-term unemployed lost their jobs at or near the bottom of the labor recession. The short-term unemployed did not. That's either (a) all there is, or (b) there is some je ne sais quoi which correlates heavily with whether you lose your job during the recession. 

Occam's Razor favors (a) over (b).
One characteristic distinguishes the long-term unemployed from the rest of America's jobless. It isn’t how many hours they worked at their old job, or what industry they came from, or even their le...
Wes Winham's profile photoJohn Douglas Porter's profile photoJordan Henderson's profile photoKee Hinckley's profile photo
+Andreas Schou, right. There's a problem in this that for a few years, new employment fell massively: businesses didn't expand and current workers didn't quit. So both expansion and churn dropped. However, businesses don't seem to have adjusted their expectations -- as evidenced by studies which use same resumes but alter the length of unemployment -- and so there are actually lots $100 bills lying around.

Some people argue that LTUs have lost too much labor capital. But that doesn't mesh well with how most of the economy actually works. While skill atrophy is real, re-acquisition is extremely fast and less important than "fit" considerations.
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
There's been a general tendency among Russophiles to accuse the West of hypocrisy in supporting independence for Kosovo but union for Crimea and Ukraine. This assumes a general majoritarian principle.

And this is sort of true.

I'm generally a majoritarian about this sort of thing: my argument against the ethics (rather than the legality) Southern exit was not that white Southerners didn't have a right to a morally neutral exit, but rather that black Southerners didn't get to vote about whether they would like to continue to be ruled by the people who were presently oppressing them. With that in mind,  I think I can articulate a single good-faith rule that governs regions seeking exit, and which isn't wholly majoritarian:

Insofar as it is practicable, people should not be obligated to live under the government of their most recent oppressors. This covers any ambiguity in the decision principle governing Kosovo, Kurdistan, Crimea, East Timor, Israel, and Palestine: if the people ruling you have tried to murder or deport you recently, they don't get the benefit of the majoritarian principle just because they almost succeeded.
Anthony Zana's profile photoTed Hardie's profile photoPat Gunn's profile photoJay Gischer's profile photo
Nations have interests and people have narratives.

My estimate is that Russia already got what it wanted: They have Crimea and as a side development Ukrainian gas is now paid in Euros.

Putin personally also already got what he wanted. Now he's doing nationalistic after-sales.

Ukraine is a poor corrupt underdeveloped country. Even he won't touch the hot Ukrainian potato until he's forced to.
Add a comment...
WTB 1x guerilla home improvement team, fixing roofs and repainting siding to force recalculation of tax basis.
Aaron Hamid's profile photoAaron Gilliland's profile photoRosa Golijan's profile photoRob Bush's profile photo
I have vibram 5-fingers, which makes me a potential restoration ninja. It's like reddit charity shame, but with real estate!
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
Q: So, why is Silicon Valley studded with an implausibly large number of abandoned barns, shacks, and other things that don't look like they belong here?

A: Because this all used to be orchards. This all made sense, fifty years ago.

Q: Right, but shouldn't they have, like, torn them down by now?

A: No. Abandoned barns in Silicon Valley are a better investment than historical stock market returns.

Q: Wouldn't they be an even better investment if there were, like, usable buildings on the land?

A: No.

Q: You have got to be shitting me.

A: Proposition 13 makes abandoned barns an enormously lucrative investment. You see, the assessed value of a piece of property is capped at a rate well below the rate of increase in property values out here. So you can just get the price of the land reevaluated every year and take tax-free loans against the increase in equity. This is a huge amount of untaxable money. Especially if you're an abandoned shed that's worth seven figures, right smack dab in the middle of the Google campus.

Q: Right, but that's just about low taxes, right?

A: Yeah. Well. Uh. I was going to get to the "except" part.

Q: And what's that? 

A: The increase is capped except upon the sale or the completion of new improvements. Like an apartment building, for instance, to partially solve the housing crisis out here. Or a new building on the Google campus. This means that if the value of the improvement is less than the compounded increase in the value of the property absent the improvement, then it doesn't make any sense to actually build anything.

Q: That's horrible. Why aren't people, like, vandalizing abandoned buildings to get rid of them?

A: The only way you can vandalize anything in California that solves the problem is to literally build a new improvement on the property without the landowner finding out. That resets the tax basis and gives them an incentive to stop holding the land off the market.

Q: That's... double horrible.

A: Yeeeeeeah.
Aaron Wood's profile photoFrancesco Virotta's profile photoDaren Harmon's profile photoDavid desJardins's profile photo
Don't rush! I see that their are complexities that needs to be internalized in laws out there. Serious matter indeed.
Add a comment...
I find this unlikely. Not that the NSA knew about Heartbleed; not that they would have exploited it had they known. Rather, I find it unlikely that anyone "familiar with the matter" would tell a journalist that they had known about the bug for at least two years, especially given NSA's rather strict segregation between the people who research vulnerabilities, people who deploy vulnerabilities, and analysts.

The reason is simple: the commit that created Heartbleed is dated March 14, 2012. At the time the bug was discovered, it had been in the wild for a little over two years and three weeks. NSA could not have known about it for any longer than the lower bound that Bloomberg was given.
The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dubbed the Heartbleed bug, and regularly used it to gather critical intelligence, two people familiar with the matter said.
Andres Soolo's profile photoSimon B's profile photogreg vanderlaan's profile photoJay Gischer's profile photo
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
6,933 people
  • Google
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Boise, Idaho
Moscow, Idaho - Pocatello, Idaho
Other profiles
Dilettante. Incapable of boredom. Diverse interests. If you'd like a distilled stream of my best posts, try here:
  • University of Idaho
  • University of Idaho
  • Idaho State University
  • Pocatello High School
  • Irving Jr. High School
  • Indian Hills Elementary
Basic Information
Looking for
Friends, Networking
Other names
Andy Schou, Andreas Christian Schou