I found a place to live in Washington–a classy studio in Cleveland Park. I’m going to the Uptown four times a week.

 

Hey guys. I’m just stopping by to make a plea. I’m going to be working in Washington, DC this summer and I need a place to live. Ideally, I’m looking for a place of my own–a furnished studio or 1br–from mid-May to mid-August. If you happen to know of anything that might be helpful to me, please pass it along. Thanks internet buddies.

 

Excellent.

 

I’m going to be away from the internet this week. I’m going to sit around in the sun in Florida and read some good books. I’ll be back on the tubes on March 16.

 

I don’t rate movies based on what I think of them. I rate them based on whether I think I would like similar movies. I do this all the time, rating certain mediocre things as good and rating other mediocre things as awful. It basically comes down to this: I don’t trust their ratings algorithm to accurately identify what I like from accurate ratings. Why? Because when I rate an objectively cheesy and dumb movie as good because it has some sort of ideosyncratic value to me, Netflix uses that information to recommend a bunch of terrible movies. And, similarly, when I rate an objectively good movie as bad because it just didn’t quite work, Netflix removes dozens or hundreds of recommendations for things that, in all likelihood, I would enjoy.

Here’s an example. I have been watching Undeclared, Judd Apatow’s TV followup to the ill-fated but excellent Freaks and Geeks. My honest opinion of Undeclared is that it’s just okay. I honestly find listening to the commentary tracks more entertaining than watching the regular shows. But because I like most of Apatow’s other work (Anchorman, 40 Year Old Virgin, etc.), I gave it 4 stars on Netflix, so that it would recommend more Apatow-ish shows/movies to me.

I can’t imagine I’m the only person who tries to anticipate what a recommendation engine will do and aims to game the system to get optimum results.

Obviously, this is relevant for any service that is based on a recommendation engine. I use Amazon’s stars the same way, and there’s lots of other similar stuff going on in other areas.

Bonus content:
Definition of the day: Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “monopsony” as “an oligopsony limited to one buyer.” Tremendously helpful, thank you MW.

 

Warren Buffett’s annual Chairman’s Letter for 2006 is a rollicking ride! He seems like a pretty cool dude, except for living in Omaha! It’s sort of hard to summarize the letter, but it includes a fascinating history of, well, it starts with Lloyd’s of London.

Our tale begins around 1688, when Edward Lloyd opened a small coffee house in London. Though no Starbucks, his shop was destined to achieve worldwide fame because of the commercial activities of its clientele – shipowners, merchants and venturesome British capitalists. As these parties sipped Edward’s brew, they began to write contracts transferring the risk of a disaster at sea from the owners of ships and their cargo to the capitalists, who wagered that a given voyage would be completed without incident. These capitalists eventually became known as “underwriters at Lloyd’s.”

Though many people believe Lloyd’s to be an insurance company, that is not the case. It is instead a place where many member-insurers transact business, just as they did centuries ago.

Over time, the underwriters solicited passive investors to join in syndicates. Additionally, the business broadened beyond marine risks into every imaginable form of insurance, including exotic coverages that spread the fame of Lloyd’s far and wide. The underwriters left the coffee house, found grander quarters and formalized some rules of association. And those persons who passively backed the underwriters became known as “names.”

Eventually, the names came to include many thousands of people from around the world, who joined expecting to pick up some extra change without effort or serious risk. True, prospective names were always solemnly told that they would have unlimited and everlasting liability for the consequences of their syndicate’s underwriting – “down to the last cufflink,” as the quaint description went. But that warning came to be viewed as perfunctory. Three hundred years of retained cufflinks acted as a powerful sedative to the names poised to sign up.

Then came asbestos. When its prospective costs were added to the tidal wave of environmental and product claims that surfaced in the 1980s, Lloyd’s began to implode. Policies written decades earlier – and largely forgotten about – were developing huge losses. No one could intelligently estimate their total, but it was certain to be many tens of billions of dollars. The specter of unending and unlimited losses terrified existing names and scared away prospects. Many names opted for bankruptcy; some even chose suicide.

From these shambles, there came a desperate effort to resuscitate Lloyd’s. In 1996, the powers that be at the institution allotted £11.1 billion to a new company, Equitas, and made it responsible for paying all claims on policies written before 1993. In effect, this plan pooled the misery of the many syndicates in trouble. Of course, the money allotted could prove to be insufficient – and if that happened, the names remained liable for the shortfall.

But the new plan, by concentrating all of the liabilities in one place, had the advantage of eliminating much of the costly intramural squabbling that went on among syndicates. Moreover, the pooling allowed claims evaluation, negotiation and litigation to be handled more intelligently than had been the case previously. Equitas embraced Ben Franklin’s thinking: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately.”

That’s two of the letter’s twenty-one pages. I encourage you to read the rest.

[Gulfstream]

 

Devin Hester is hiding in my closet. He got in there by pretending that my closet was the End Zone.

I think that Brian Urlacher would tackle most people.

A selection from ‘Da Bears, a collection of Chicago Bears themed writing by 826CHI students.

You can find this excerpt as well as an extensive description (with photos!) of The Boring Store here.

 

Reihan Salam reviews Netflix’s Watch Now service in Slate. Basically, he sees it as a great concept with some serious technological and content problems to work out. Of course, he also says:

I will note here that my Netflix habits are unconventional. During my early days as a Netflix subscriber, I spent anywhere from 1 to 3 hours a night watching DVDs on fast forward with the subtitles on. Because I read fairly quickly, I was able to follow twists and turns at high speed, thus increasing my cultural literacy in record time. This is impossible with Watch Now. To fast-forward, you grab the slider and drag it to the right, then wait. It’s more like teleporting than running at high speed.

Um, yeah. Most people rent movies to, you know, watch them–not just to get the Cliff’s Notes version. (This also goes a long way to explain why he doesn’t have a problem with the “sub-DVD” image quality–he isn’t watching movies for anything but the dialogue and plot, so who cares how it looks?)

Continue reading »

© 2011 Hello World Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha