The queries are the same as what you'd type into the Gmail search bar to filter emails so you can test them out in Gmail and then add them to the list. I've added a comment to the gist with an image showing the trigger to run it daily. You can run it manually from the Google Script editor too for testing.
Edit: Forgot to mention I removed a bunch of queries and only left a few in as examples.
While that area is usually pretty quiet, it is pretty close to the on-ramp to the Bay Bridge. This is purely speculation, but it is plausible that the crime was perpetrated by someone from the East Bay looking for a quick getaway.
I'm not sure that is really underlining too many "sleezy" things happening, though? Honestly reads more of "regional bank caters heavily to region it is in" to me.
And some of the numbers are high looking in this, but it literally states "its $9.5 billion fund," when the article here is talking about how it had 100+ billion in bonds. Which were deemed safe.
Let that sink in. Yes, they had 9 billion they were investing. But they had over 120 billion sunk in "safe" bonds. That is, the 9 billion was /supposed/ to be the risky part of their portfolio. Yes, they probably took some excess risk there. But that is definitively not the risk that tanked them. And any complaints in that direction is a side show that has virtually nothing to do with what happened. Unless you want to say they weren't doing it enough.
When dealing with particularly toxic people I find the exponential backoff to be an excellent strategy.
In my case, I hate cutting people off because I know people can change. What I do to manage relationships is run a forgiving version of exponential backoff. Start off friendly and forgiving. If someone becomes transgressive, increase the latency between interactions. If the transgressions continue, double the latency. If bad interactions persist, the time latency can go on to months or even years which means you'll probably never interact with that person again. Conversely, if an interaction goes well, reduce the delay for when you're willing to meet again. E.g. say an irritating individual causes the latency to go to once a month. If you have an interaction that goes well then the latency drops to 2 weeks. If interactions continue to go well they drop further to say no latency, i.e. you're willing to meet this person whenever. Obviously it's not perfect but it suites my needs quite well.
I also found his chapter on "overfitting" excellent. I like to think of it as "smart person disease." Big idea is that having more data can actually hamper decision making instead of enhance it because you winde up solving the wrong problem.
I read the book a while back and realized I do the caching one automatically. I have a pretty messy work bench where I build rockets and play around with microcontrollers. I purposely didn’t try to organize it because, over time, it organizes itself. All the stuff that has my attention gradually drifts to arms reach where the stuff I don’t currently need gradually drifts to the back of the workbench.
Edit: the stopping and explore/exploit chapters mirror my career too
I do the same. My other rule is that wherever I look for it when I've lost it is where it belongs.
It causes a fair amount of friction with housemates, though. Have you figured out any way to alleviate that when it comes to areas used by multiple people?
In some sense you have a race condition. By taking the item and misplacing it, you've caused a deadlock. Solutions are kinda the same: have a copy of the item for every person that might use it, or be strict about freeing all locked resources.
In my case the problem is that I need things to be where they make sense for my brain or I lose them, and my sister (who I live with) has the type of anxiety that manifests as needing control over and having a 'tidy' space. So it does end up in a deadlock because she wants things all nice and 'organized' but then I can't see them and have no idea where they are.
That sounds like something I do; if I can't find something I don't think "where should it be" but rather "if I were going to put it down right now, where would I put it"
Honestly, I'm still pretty shit at finding things, but this strategy has helped considerably.
I read the book around 3-4 years ago and regularly returning to the exploit vs explore and randomness concepts. 37% rule is something I regularly talk about as well, but mostly to help other people make sense of the dilemmas "should I continue looking or stop now" (like searching for a flat, for example).
I often make estimations based on the heuristic that if we don’t know much about how long something will remain, then we’re most likely half way currently. For example, McDonalds was founded 82 years ago and if we have to guess how long it will still exist then probably around 82 years (until 2104).
This also works great, for example, to answer whether you should make plans for Christmas 2023 with the girl you have been seeing for two months now: probably not yet.
Quite often though, you know a little about some thing. How do you adjust your heuristics then?
What about the job that I started two months ago, should I expect to work there by December 2023? If the US was founded in 1776, how long will it still exist?
The heuristic is that the average of an interval is the middle. If you know nothing about it other than you're at some point on the time interval, assuming you're at the middle time is a good prior.
When you know more, you certainly should adjust. For the job example, you might think "how long have I usually stayed jobs that have lasted least two months?", "how long do people usually stay in jobs if they make it through the first two months?". Generally speaking, Bayes' theorem is the technical answer to "how do you adjust". Not that I ever actually do that...but I think it's the technically correct answer.
Not OP and haven't read the book, but maybe this is more about survival, if McDonald's survived 82 years, then we can assume it can survive another 82, if you've been at the job for 2 months and there are no signs of trouble, then you can assume you'll survive another 2, reevaluate then to conclude that you can survive another 4...
I apply some things from the explore/exploit chapter when travelling. If for the first half of the trip I try as many places to eat as I can. For the second half I’m fine with revisiting the best ones.
I’ve read years ago, and became my comfortable keeping my inbox or my files become messier, relying more on the search. I wish Google Desktop would still exist, however.
I used the optimal stopping guidelines to help people I mentor stop applying for jobs and change their resumes/approach. It worked pretty well for them.
