37
What have you learned recently? Which rabbit hole have you been digging into?
(discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
37 points (97.4% liked)
Casual Conversation
1526 readers
66 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You mean it only applies to the US, or something different?
The big issue is the typical issue of survivorship bias. For obvious reasons they can only study the PAWs who are, you know, successful PAWs. So one of their claims is PAWs are willing to take economic risks if the return is high.
But what about the people who took economic risks and had it collapse under them? They'd be UAWs by their nomenclature ... yet they did a PAW thing.
In reality you learn more about what led people to failure than enumerating the things that supposedly led to people's success.
This, thank you!