The idea I had of London as a place I could live for decades when I first moved here: that's starting to fade away. That's the fall. And it's not just me; it's lots of other EU citizens.
Stop being so literal. Rome is still there, and has been for 2000+ years. It just isn't a terribly important city any more, globally; London will be similar.
London is the idea that a city can have and respect both a past with all its cultural heritage merits/baggage/identity as well as a future as a globalized hotspot. The corporeal hope that you don't have to give up one to have the other. If post-Brexit London turns out to fail on the globalization side of that balancing act, that hope takes a hit not just for Londoners but for everyone who values both sides.
It's the hope that is feared to fall, not the bricks and stones.
London voted overwhelmingly against Brexit, but will this change as Brexit continues.
Quite a lot about how it feels different, about how London is a multicultural hub, about how migrants are thinking about leaving, about how London will change.
It's a mood piece, but a fairly accurate one from my point of view (lived in London for 20 yrs)
What about the brains who never moved now moving away?
I am British and have lived here for nearly 40 years. I'm currently looking at an Irish passport (Irish wife) or maybe France. My taxes and know how will be better put to use somewhere our values (openness, tolerance, mutual respect) agree.
If having an irish spouse and not living in Ireland is all you've got, then you're not getting an Irish passport. On the other hand, you definitely can have one 3 years after you've moved here.
The Peter Dinklage bit annoys me, as this is precisely the issue - survivorship bias.
I happen to have a few actor friends. All talented, harder working than me, and dedicated to their craft. And no-one is interviewing them because they haven't made it.The talent and hard work pays off because you also get the lucky break.
Exactly. Fuck Peter Dinklage. Even Louis CK is at it - he was so humble for so long, and then when he got really big he started with the "I've put in the time" schtick, and feeling like he deserves it (which he does, but he's not successful because he deserves it)
There's a more specific example of this - in the Netherlands for years before 1939 they had a wide ranging census and an excellent civil service. On that census was an option for religion.
The Nazi's took the census records and then used the excellent civil service to deport the overwhelming majority of Jews to the camps. The Netherlands had some of the lowest rates of survival of Jews amongst occupied territories. The Nazi's knew who they were, and where to find them.
Who knows what piece of information could be used to hound you to your death, years after you divulge it?
And now we track almost everything about everyone, .. except for religion. It's almost funny how we managed to learn the absolute minimum of that lesson :-/
I remember the auction - it delayed the intro of 4G as the big players had spent so much money on the auction that they had to sweat their 3G assets to try to recoup their costs.
It worked for the govt - it certainly didn't for the customers...
The classic hedge fund used to be able to find niches in the market where they could make money - and the good ones used to be able to do it well.
They could do things other money managers couldn't - short stocks (i.e. hedging against a fall, hence their names), better analysts, investments in more diversified instruments, early HFT.
They would often take a fee of two and twenty - that is to say 2% of the money you lent them (every year), plus 20% of the profit they made from that money.
If you gave them $10 million, they'd take $200k as a fee every year, then 20% of the profit they made. So let's say they made you $1 mill a year, they'd be paid in the first year $200k fees and $200k performance fees.
However nowadays there's millions of them, and almost all of them lose money as there weren't that many profitable niches to begin with, and a lot of them were lucky anyway (survivorship bias).
The vast majority of hedge funds have high water marks on fees now. I'd love to see the source on "almost all of them lose money" - since my experience doesn't tie up. I'm assuming you're talking about returns vs passive indexation after fees?
Of course any reported results on hedge fund returns are kinda funky for the reason of bias that you mention.
There have been several studies out of 100 hedge funds ~20-30 percent beat passive funds after fees in a given year. However, next year the results are random. So, that % drops as the time frame increases.
Survivorship bias is huge in this industry. There have been plenty of funds with awesome runs, but few have lasted 20+ years.
PS: The financial industry also loves to point at old funds as being above average while quietly killing off lot's of tiny funds and growing others over time. IMO, this goes past survivorship bias and into the old con where you mail 1024 people the results of a game, then 512 people you got right, then 256... Until you have great history with your last sucker.
There are hundreds of strategies in hedgefunds from HFT to Macro to volatility trading to commercial ground rents to God Knows What™ - so I'd really like to see what was being done for this kind of analysis (and who by and what data they had access to).
Past performance is a lot like the false positive problem in medical testing. A 99% correct test on a condition affecting 1% of the population is not useful. Similarly looking at past performance for a hedge fund is a poor way of identifying those with "alpha" (if you believe true alpha exists at all, which is entirely dependent on your point of view).
Take Mr Buffet as a spurious example. If he leaves the fund, it won't affect past performance for some time. So do you want to buy into B-H without him - just because it used to make money? Or would you go into his new fund because you think he has a process that works.
Is that part even necessary? Even linear growth with a higher constant factor than humans have due to faster iterations could rapidly outgrow human capabilities if we take a hypothetical human-level AI as starting point.
But the important question is whether Moore's law is a necessary part. There's a big difference between "a redundant part, if it fails, the whole thing continues" and "a necessary but not sufficient component".
It doesn't say it'll fall into the sea. It wonders how such a city might change, most likely in directions opposed to its current identity.