Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

pulitzer.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#31

Post by caminante »

nojito wrote: post #8
guerby wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Echoing recent discussions on HN, from wikipedia: "An article published in The New York Times in 2015 said that Simons was involved in one of the biggest tax battles of the year, with Renaissance Technologies being "under review by the I.R.S. over a loophole that saved their fund an estimated $6.8 billion in taxes over roughly a decade."[46] In September 2021, it was announced that Simons and his colleagues would pay…

Even with accounting for that change RenTec’s returns don’t change all too much.

Do you know the denominator? I'm skeptical.

RenTec's secret sauce has always been their tax attorneys, not their quants. Prior to this "retirement fund" issue, RenTec was notorious for tax avoidance schemes like claiming LT capital gains on basket options.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#32

Post by dipsplacemat »

Maro wrote: post #15
mjreacher wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His foundation, the Simons Foundation, funds among a few other things, arXiv. I have wondered why other tech related billionaires do not sponsor more items in the scientific sphere like Simons does, because unlike funding a building at some rich university your money could actually be used for something useful and if something good comes out of it, having your name attached to it could mean a lot more than the name o…

What's wrong with paying for academic buildings to be built (and having your name on it)? The point is that students can go to the building and receive lectures, or run labs, or read books in the library. Who cares whose name is on the building... These buildings will stand for a long time anyway, soon nobody will know who that person was anyway (other than by the name of the building).

Today's plutocrats should be looking to people like Carnegie for inspiration.

He didn't pay to put his name on one or two libraries in influential universities, he paid to set up a national system of libraries which any person could walk into and make use of.

Why haven't any of our tycoons stepped up to create a national system of community centers, makerspaces, etc? I'll give you three guesses.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#33

Post by lexapro »

soneca wrote: post #17
Maro wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with paying for academic buildings to be built (and having your name on it)? The point is that students can go to the building and receive lectures, or run labs, or read books in the library. Who cares whose name is on the building... These buildings will stand for a long time anyway, soon nobody will know who that person was anyway (other than by the name of the building).

For me what’s wrong is that ”buildingless students” in rich universities is not a social problem at all, so funding those has no positive impact in the society.

One would think that such buildings would be built even without rich donors.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#34

Post by tgb »

magnio wrote: post #20
melling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve often wondered why we, the public, don’t fund more items in the scientific sphere. Basic research, for example. At one point, there was a “Kickstarter” for science but I haven’t gotten an email from them for years.

I think that is the case, no? The majority of research is funded by the government, i.e. taxpayers' money, even more so for basic research. The better question is why we taxpayers have to pay publishers to access research funded by ourselves.

Good news! It’s been years since most government funding sources have required research they fund to be open access. The NSF has required this since 2016 and the NIH since 2008. The bad news is that journals charge incredible fees to researchers to make their articles open access and so your tax dollars go (via grants to researchers) to these publishers to fund this. Which would be fine if the prices were more reasonable but they just keep increasing.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#35

Post by belter »

DantesKite wrote: post #29

Fun fact I love to repeat: Quanta Magazine gets most of their funding from the Simons Foundation which gets some of its proceeds from the Medallion fund, which uses deep, mathematical techniques to perform absurdly successful daytrading, most of which comes from other daytraders losses. So every time someone loses money on Robinhood, they contribute to Quanta Magazine lol. Source at 17:55: https://youtu.be/Q2u0dKRA1c…

It's fascinating how their algorithms only seem to work for insiders.

"...Renaissance Technologies’ famed Medallion fund, available only to current and former partners, had one of its best years ever, surging 76 percent, according to one of its investors. But it was a different story for outsiders who are only able to invest in other RenTec funds — two of which had their worst years ever. ..."

https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1q3fndg77d0tg...

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#36

Post by DoughnutHole »

mjreacher wrote: post #9
melling wrote: post #3

Publication founded by mathematician Jim Simons who started a hedge fund that consistently beat the markets and made billions. The entire story: https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Solved-Market-Revolution/dp/0... Lots of interesting information on the internet about him too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Simons_(mathematician)

His foundation, the Simons Foundation, funds among a few other things, arXiv. I have wondered why other tech related billionaires do not sponsor more items in the scientific sphere like Simons does, because unlike funding a building at some rich university your money could actually be used for something useful and if something good comes out of it, having your name attached to it could mean a lot more than the name o…

Because billionaires are more often than egomaniacs and having your name be remembered is more important than the actual value of your charitable donations.

We grew up in a world dotted with buildings and universities with the names of robber-barons like Carnegie, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller. Having your name carved into the stone of the building of a major institution means immortality (well, as long as the institution remains important) - directly sponsoring science might do more real good but it's not as good at sanitising your image or for being remembered long term, which are the real goals of most billionaires' philanthropy.

People don't remember John D. Rockefeller for the money he pumped into eradicating hookworm, probably the single greatest thing he did for the world in his life - ending generations of sapped energy and cognitive impairment in the American South. People remember him because his name is on the buildings and colleges he funded.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#37

Post by Bubble_Pop_22 »

DantesKite wrote: post #29

Fun fact I love to repeat: Quanta Magazine gets most of their funding from the Simons Foundation which gets some of its proceeds from the Medallion fund, which uses deep, mathematical techniques to perform absurdly successful daytrading, most of which comes from other daytraders losses. So every time someone loses money on Robinhood, they contribute to Quanta Magazine lol. Source at 17:55: https://youtu.be/Q2u0dKRA1c…

No post body was provided.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#38

Post by selimthegrim »

mjreacher wrote: post #30
Maro wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with paying for academic buildings to be built (and having your name on it)? The point is that students can go to the building and receive lectures, or run labs, or read books in the library. Who cares whose name is on the building... These buildings will stand for a long time anyway, soon nobody will know who that person was anyway (other than by the name of the building).

There's nothing wrong with it per se, it's just in my view the money could be better spent. If a university needs a new building it will get built regardless. In contrast, I know graduate students living off ramen and suffering because their stipends are so small. Here the work of Simons Foundation on funding grad students is of great help because it means the students don't have to focus on getting money on top of t…

For some reason he didn’t want to fund William Stein and his rival to Mathematica.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#39

Post by next_xibalba »

belter wrote: post #35
DantesKite wrote: post #29

Fun fact I love to repeat: Quanta Magazine gets most of their funding from the Simons Foundation which gets some of its proceeds from the Medallion fund, which uses deep, mathematical techniques to perform absurdly successful daytrading, most of which comes from other daytraders losses. So every time someone loses money on Robinhood, they contribute to Quanta Magazine lol. Source at 17:55: https://youtu.be/Q2u0dKRA1c…

It's fascinating how their algorithms only seem to work for insiders. "...Renaissance Technologies’ famed Medallion fund, available only to current and former partners, had one of its best years ever, surging 76 percent, according to one of its investors. But it was a different story for outsiders who are only able to invest in other RenTec funds — two of which had their worst years ever. ..." https://www.institution…

My naive guess? Incentives.

Their institutional fund, which at one point was claimed to be capable of managing $100B, is also a dog.

Re: The 2022 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Explanatory Reporting

#40

Post by next_xibalba »

mjreacher wrote: post #9
melling wrote: post #3

Publication founded by mathematician Jim Simons who started a hedge fund that consistently beat the markets and made billions. The entire story: https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Solved-Market-Revolution/dp/0... Lots of interesting information on the internet about him too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Simons_(mathematician)

His foundation, the Simons Foundation, funds among a few other things, arXiv. I have wondered why other tech related billionaires do not sponsor more items in the scientific sphere like Simons does, because unlike funding a building at some rich university your money could actually be used for something useful and if something good comes out of it, having your name attached to it could mean a lot more than the name o…

Gates (and Buffet via Gates) invests huge sums in science and tech via his foundation. Elon Musk funded the $100M XPrize for carbon removal. Yuri Milner funds the Breakthrough Prize in fundamental physics. Sergei Brin and Mark Zuckerberg are also breakthrough prize funders. Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt are also major funders of X Prizes.

The list goes on and on. These things just aren’t widely reported because they are boring and don’t fit narratives favored by much of the press.

Post reply on HN