Procedure for evaluation:
Truly random sample of 100 documents from Pile
Establish authorship of sample if possible
Release numbers
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ22 | |
| 2 | Ṁ11 | |
| 3 | Ṁ11 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 | |
| 5 | Ṁ7 |
People are also trading
I used a (poorly randomized) sample of a few documents from pile and got (note: for some of these, gender was guessed from name):
unknown 9
male 8
female 2 or 3 (two confirmed, one has a name that seems female, i think they were married to a woman so probably male) - two of sci grant/paper one fashion blogger
@jacksonpolack so 20 authors, 18 are "plausibly written by men"? Including as plausible all of men + unknown + "married to a woman so probably male".
How plausible does the gender have to be?
How are we counting jointly authored documents?
I'm assuming OP will interpret their criteria in a good-faith way lol
How are we counting jointly authored documents?
I just counted the 'first author' of papers / named author of blogposts. I counted two wikipedia articles primarily authored by men as 'written by men', and none for women - that is debatable, but removing that can only increase the % female estimate. Counting multiple authors also doesn't seem within the spirit of the market.