Parity Problem Puns

I am trying to crowdloan to Moonbeam via polkadot{.js} and Parity Signer and I got this message when scanning QR: "Oh No! An error has occurred. Request coming from a restricted region". I am in Europe, and it's not about location, I crowdloaned with no problem from another wallet. What can I do?

The video where Wattles talks about the issue can be found here.

The idea is similar in vein to what the Buzzy Bees Update did for ironing out bugs. 1.15 was, at its core, purely to solve technical problems with the game, with bees and a few new blocks making up the bulk of the new content.

A hypothetical Parity Update could work like that, with the core goals of the update being parity changes across both versions. The only remaining question is, what would be a good thing to use as "filler" to meet that new content quota? That's an easy question: the losing Biome Vote biomes, of course!

Despite the ammount of new mobs that adding them would entail (just four, five if for whatever reason termites are a new mob, too), their updates are still just small complementary features. Four new animals, three new wood types and a dozen or so new decoration blocks are more than enough to make the hypothetical Parity Update feel like it's still bringing a lot to the game outside of the technical changes.

Of course, if this theory is correct, the Parity Update won't completely solve parity issues, just like how the Buzzy Bees Update didn't iron out every bug in existence, and that's completely fine. The point of 1.15 was not a definite end to all the bugs the game had, just enough for it to not turn the game into a broken, buggy mess in the future. The Parity Update could be like that, too, simply bringing enough parity that the issue is not as glaring as it is right now, and it won't get worse in the future.

What are your thoughts?

Full disclosure, I moved to Messages, but left Hangouts enabled. A 'beta' test for myself, if you will, before diving in head first. Given the severity of some of these bugs, I plan to leave Hangouts enabled until Google pries it from my cold, dead hands... or until they fix some of the problems described below. On that note, here is what I submitted to Google Fi's "Feedback" mechanism:

So since moving to Messages (and, more specifically, Messages for Web) from Hangouts, I have noticed several problems that render this solution nearly un-usable. I really hope someone is reading this and can prioritize fixes/improvements for at least some of these:

• Sometimes a new/unread text pushes that chat thread all the way to the bottom instead of the top. This renders Messages for Web useless (I effectively wouldn't even know I had a new text in this tool without Hangouts or my phone's Messages app indicating as such), and I have to revert to my phone or Hangouts to view/respond to the text... At which point, it populates up at the top in Messages for Web where it was supposed to have been that whole time.
• If I mark a text as read in Messages for Web, it still shows as unread on my phone, and vice versa. This is a major regression from Hangouts. Very frustrating to have to clear notifications in multiple locations. No other apps (Discord, Slack, WhatsApp Web, Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, etc etc) make me do this, they're *all* capable of telling if a notification has been cleared in some manner or other.
• Addendum to #2, let's say I'm texting back and forth with Fred. I send him a text, he sends me a text. I reply. I'm doing all this from Messages for Web, and because of #2 above, the entire conversation shows as 'unread' on my phone. What's worse, the texts that I am sending to Fred from Messages for Web are actually ringing / causing notifications to occur on my phone indicating I've received new text messages. You're reading that right -- my phone is pinging me to tell me that I have a new text... a text I wrote and sent to Fred from Messages for Web. This situation essentially means I now need to keep my phone's Do Not Disturb setting on 24x7x365.
• Sometimes phone calls don't come thru in Messages for web, despite both Hangouts and my phone both ringing. I am forced to revert to take the call.

The above 4 issues essentially render Messages for Web entirely untrustworthy, and I beg you to not disable Hangouts until the replacement is u

College Football has an enormous parity problem. Reality is, only 3-4 teams (out of 130!) have a realistic shot at winning the College Football Playoff every year. This is entirely due to recruiting. There is an enormous statistical correlation between how well you recruit as a team to your on the field performance. This has creating a self-perpetuating machine where the best teams are always able to recruit the best players, because they have the best shot at winning a championship. If you're a fan of LSU, Clemson, Alabama, and Ohio State, this is great. Otherwise, it honestly makes College Football incredibly frustrating as a fan.

The only way I see to fundamentally fix this parity problem is to take recruiting *as much as possible* out of the equation and institute a College Football Draft. Basically, this is how it would work:

1. High school athletes would release their "top ten" of schools they are willing to commit to
2. Each year there would be a huge CFB draft for all 130 D1 teams. (all 130 teams would be ranked at the end of the year, and then in the next draft the 130th team drafts 1st, and so forth)
3. Schools can only draft players that have put the school in their "top ten"
   1. The point of this mechanism is to ensure kids still have some choice in where they go, since they are kids after all. It also creates a disincentive to "tanking", which is when teams lose on purpose to get a higher draft grades.
4. Kids have to commit to sticking it out for two years at the school they are drafted to, so that kids don't immediately transfer somewhere else after they are drafted.
5. If a kid's top ten does not draft him, he is put into a pool of "free agent" players that any team can draft from. But, the kid has a right to first refusal to accept that draft pick
   1. This mechanism serves two purposes. First, it creates a backup option for schools who don't get a lot of kids in their "top ten". Second, it creates an incentive for kids to only put schools they have a realistic shot at being drafted in in their "top ten", as they could otherwise get drafted to suckdog state if they have unrealistic expectations.

Drafts have proven to help create parity in every national sporting league out there (except maybe the NBA). But most importantly, it works really well in the NFL.

As you can tell, I'm pretty committed to this crazy idea. But, I am open to my mind being changed as to how we fix parity in college football.

Also, I wont consider a C

So Put-Call Parity assumes that:

> Price of a Call + PV(Strike Price) = Stock Price + Put Price

And PV stands for Present Value. Or mathematically:

> C + K/(1+r)^t = P + S

Where C = Call price, K = Strike price, r = risk-free rate, t = time, P = Put price, and S = Stock price

Let's say there is a stock which is currently $10 dollars, and there is a call on it and put on it with a strike of $10, and let's say the call and put both have prices of $10, they both expire in exactly a year. Say the current risk-free rate is 0%.

In all cases you will have:

> $10 (call price) + $10 (PV of strike or a bond with the same value) = $10 (put price) + $10 (stock price)

> $20 = $20

In this case and we see that Put-Call Parity holds. Now let's keep everything the same but say instead that risk-free rate is actually 5%.

Now you will have:

> $10 (call price) + $9.52 (PV of strike) = $10 (put price) + $10 (stock price)

> $19.52 = $20

That's because:

> Present Value of Strike K ($10) = $10 / (1+0.05)^1 = $9.52

0.05 = risk-free rate, t = 1 year

Which is mathematically incorrect, there is an opportunity for arbitrage if so. There would be an opportunity for a reversal because you would buy the call, sell the put, and short the stock. I understand that.

But what I don't get about this parity is that there's a difference in the purchase price of the bond or present value of the strike price and the stock. Let's say the stock does not move in price. If you buy the call and then buy the bond or invest the present value of the strike in a savings account, you'll get it at discount ($9.52) and earn interest. After a year you'll have 5% x 9.52 = or $10. Stock holders have to pay cost of carry. Option holders avoid that cost. If you buy the stock, you'll have to pay cost of carry and will miss out on investing the $10 the stock costs in an interest bearing account. So if the stock doesn't move, you're out the carry costs. So they're not equal.

Also:

There are four variables in the Put-Call Parity relationship for: (Stock Price + Carrying Costs - Dividends), Call Price, Put Price and Exercise price. These are in the relationship (1)=(2)-(3)+(4).

> Stock Price + Carrying Costs - Dividends = Call Price - Put Price + Exercise Price

In this relationship, are we not still assuming that cost of carry is added to the prices of the call (2) and put (3) because they should be equals to (1) which is (Stock Price + Carrying Costs - Dividends). Shou

From the article (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2711962-kevin-durant-says-hes-not-to-blame-for-nbas-parity-concerns)

"Like I'm the reason why (expletive) Orlando couldn't make the playoffs for five, six years in a row? Am I the reason that Brooklyn gave all their picks to Boston? Like, am I the reason that they're not that good (laughs). I can't play for every team, so the truth of the matter is I left one team. It's one more team that you probably would've thought would've been a contender. One more team. I couldn't have made the (entire) East better. I couldn't have made everybody (else) in the West better."

What a difference 2 years can make - an eternity in the NBA.

Picks aren't worth very much with the current status of how the drafts work, so having a top 5 picks means quite little when you're drafting an 18 year old rookie that's not gonna be a good player for many years. Back when players came into the league at 22-23 years old(MJ, Bird, Kareem), they had instant impact on the league.

Nowadays, a team drafts a top prospect. He sucks at the moment, but they draft for the potential, but then by the time he's good, he's shipped off in free agency to a bigger market.

If these lottery teams were drafting high-quality players that had been in college for 4 years, they'd be instant contenders. Imagine a 22 year old Zion joining a lotto team. But none of the talented players ever make it to that age because joining the NBA at 18-19 years old is too enticing.

If they just paid college players for 4 years and then the NBA drafted from a class of 21-23 year old players, there'd be so much more parity, since the bad teams would actually be locking in quality players for many years with their draft pick, instead of using their draft pick to train up a guy for 5 years then watch him leave.

We are entering our 11th year in 2019 and our 12 team league has a big parity problem. Half the owners are consistently competitive and half are not. Our conferences are unbalanced giving a couple teams easier paths to a super bowl year in and year out. As commissioner I proposed revamping our system. Instead of having divisions and conferences we have 4 3-team "tiers" based on potential points from the previous season. Top 3 teams in Tier 1, next 3 in Tier 2, and so on. Best 5 records make the playoffs, top scoring team not in gets the 6th spot. Essentially, use the division system as a strength of schedule maker that gets redone every year. Big surprise, the bad teams and owners like it, the good teams and owners don't like it. The good owners feel it's handicapping for the bad teams. One called it fantasy communism. Thoughts? Am I on the right track with this? Am I way off? What have you folks done to deal with the issue of parity? I want to expand to 14 teams so everyone plays each other once and we are done with it but that argument has been a losing effort.

There are 30 teams in the NBA but only 10 of them get any exposure. If you bring this up to people, most will say, well who wants to talk about __ insert team.

Well that's the problem. The.media.is not putting the effort to expose what other teams are about, whether they are winning or losing.

Another problem, is if there is a lone star on the bad teams, it is always suggested that they get traded to a team that is already a contender. But then by mid season, they complain about the lack of parity in the league.

For example. I just happened to have the Woj & Lowe show. They had a segment talking about expired contracts. They bring up Chris Paul (OKC Thunder), Kyle Lowry (Toronto Raptors), and Bradley Beal (Washington Wizards). They were talking about the fact that one of the contenders should make a move to add them to their team. For being called an expert, how is that fair to the teams at the bottom of the league, and even more,.hownare fans of those cities su} osed to feel, just so YOUR Job can be more exciting.

So basically these experts are contributing to their own problems. So they might as well cut the fat. and just have 24 teams. Then allocate those players to whomever has been contending.

With the way the media gets paid to represent the league to the public, they are not doing a great job. And since social. Media is big and everyone has more access to listen to the media, their voices are heard even more than before. Players can no longer act like they don't hear what people are saying. It then further effects what happens on the court and outs out a.medicre product.

Well as the title states I bought a new drive to start upgrading. (I have 4TB drives in array and one 4TB as parity right now)

I bought a 8TB WD mybook and opened it, no problems here. I then installed it as parity drive and the rebuild process started. Somewhere down the line the rebuild process stoped and the drive reported around 300 errors. I read somewhere, that loose cables can sometimes be responsible for errors, so I switched in a different sata cable and to be extra careful started a preclear process. Drive got pre read and zeroed without any problems, but I skipped the post read cycle half way through (got inpatient and since everything looked good so far blamed the cable) I then started the parity build process again.... and got around 300 errors again.

So I guess I will send back this drive and try a new one? Might this be a problem with the 8TB white label? Is there anything else I should look out for?

EDIT: So, finally got home and did a quick scan. Extended Scan is running at the moment: https://pastebin.com/YwyWg7hx

I was successfully using Parity v1.6x to manage my CDP so I can use my Ledger Nano. I finally decided to "upgrade" to 1.9.5, hoping it would sync faster. Big mistake. Now it sync's slower than new blocks are discovered and I don't see a way to reverse the upgrade to an earlier version of Parity. I had it going all night to get through 100 blocks. Now I find myself unable to manage my CDP, which is a bit scary given all the volatility right now.

1. Does anybody have any idea how to get Parity to sync? or
2. How do I transfer my CDP to Metamask? I've seen in previous posts that this is not trivial.

Of course, I am much more interested in getting my Parity working again. Ugh!

Edit: Are Geth or Mist also options for using my Nano? Does anybody have any experience with those programs?

A lot of people on this sub have talked about the lack of parity in the NBA. Some don’t think it’s an issue, as there has never been parity in the NBA. What’s the best solution to this perceived problem? I think there are two solutions, one absurd and the other realistic. The first would be to redraft the entire league every year. Obviously absurd, but that’s the only true way to achieve parity. The second is instituting a hard salary cap and eliminating max contracts. This would help disperse the talent and spread the stars across several teams.

Played last afternoon with OpenAi's request for research warmup problem. It asks to use an LSTM and predict the parity of bit sequences of length 50. Naive attempts didn't work (large hidden state, different rnn cells, different optimization algos, etc). It was a fun challenge. Won't spoil it.

I like that it's very easy to state but requires a bit of insight to figure out. Do you know of any others like that?

The Showtime Lakers and Jordan Bulls dynasties had different opponents from their rivals. Would fans complain about parity if the Warriors played a different finals opponent next year?

Hello everyone, I wanted to offer to you all a solution to the Parity Game, that I've been working on lately. This is really interesting because it is a Polynomial-Time solution to a problem that up to now only has had NP solutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_game

I put together a google docs presentation to explain the solution, because I feel that the only real way to explain a graph problem is with diagrams. If there is enough interest in the topic I can explain the "why's" behind this solution, but I'll be even more interested if anyone can come up with a counter-example that this solution doesn't solve correctly! https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ujqdQ621SZqgvwn55WfFBqVsK7M2uN6kIdVG5ZV9cgk/present#slide=id.p