PurpleBoxDragon

In the table it also specifies which is male and which is female.

Here is a link to far more specific data from the main study in the article. I suggest people look over the data themselves.

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115...

The data appears to not be in the friendliest of formats (tables with an axis labeled 'X'? No way my professors would've let that slide).

There was more than that. There was the match and the non-match division, and there was the case where they couldn't determine the gender of the Physician. Also, some of the data doesn't look exactly indistinguishable.

Look at Fig.S2 here http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115...

It looks like male and female doctors result in the same probability curve for female patients, but male doctors result in a higher probability curve for male patients.

I wanted to look at the actual numbers and see how close the findings were, but I don't see the study linked nor the title of the study (I do see a different study, but it isn't the one those numbers are from).

A different article someone else linked seemed to have the study, but it is behind a pay wall.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800097115

This seems to have the actual numbers though.

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115...

I'm having trouble grasping how to read the tables (especially given it seems Female Physician Female Patient is repeated twice on tables S2 and S3, but I think that is just a title error.

Here are the numbers, best as I can grasp.

S2 is full, S3 is matched

Mean then standard deviation.

    M/MS2:.881/.114
    M/MS3:.870/.124
    M/FS2:.854/.353
    M/FS3:.861/.121
    F/MS2:.887/.120
    F/MS3:.867/.130
    F/FS2:.857/.116
    F/FS3:.862/.112

Figure S2 looks interesting (M/F and F/F seem equal while M/M seems better than F/M), but I'm not sure what the real axis are.

Edit: formatting

Counter counter argument: do we make them watch equally graphic recreations of what happened in Nanking? Based on the American morals I'm use to seeing in others (granted these may not apply to people not in the US), any notion of letting a child see the horrors of war is immediately destroyed once you introduce certain forms of violence.

I've always wondered just how reliable the suicide stat is because once someone commits suicide, they are no longer able to attempt it.

It's kinda like how one has to be careful measuring people interviewing for jobs, since someone who interviews poorly will spend many interviews before being hired but someone who interviews well will only do a few (on average). So measuring the average ability of the candidate in interviews will be worse than the average ability of people who have been interviewed.

Wouldn't this depend upon how it is used? If I take someone's copy of a game and make it available for all to download, it can deprive the company of many sales. If I take Coca Cola's trade secret formula and research it for my own curiosity, but then do nothing with it, they would lose nothing.

Would the ability of the company to challenge the sharing of the game really make a major distinction, especially since it would be possible to host the website in a country that doesn't care enough to take it down?

Of course, in the case in the linked article, I think it is reasonable to assume this wasn't done just for sating some curiosity.

So this has me wondering, if I were to copy someone's car, would that count as conversion, and would the victim be the owner of the car, or the company who owns the right to make the car, or the dealer, or some other party?

I do think we could benefit from having a unique terms to differentiate the taking of something that doesn't belong to you which deprives another person of their copy and the making a copy of something that doesn't belong to you which does not deprive you of a copy.

If I take your car, you biggest concern is that you don't have a car now. If I somehow copied your car, you probably wouldn't care too much.

If I take your banking info, your concern is that I have a copy. That you didn't lose your copy is a lesser concern than that I have a copy and the damage I can do with that copy.

While these two things seem related, they do seem different enough that having a different word to differentiate them.

Because the students judge the utility of having a textbook available as worth the price (or in some cases the text books come with a code that you have to have to pass the class). Same reason a book collector may prefer buying a book over checking it out at the library.

It is like asking if cooking for for yourself is so cheap and healthy, why do people eat out so much.

Is there an easy explanation of what problems quaternion or octonions solve?

Imaginary numbers are needed to take the square root of a negative number, and complex numbers result from combining the new numbers with the real numbers. Complex numbers also allow solving roots that aren't found in just real numbers.

But I have no similar comparison of what I can do with a quaternion or octonion that I can't do with a complex number. I remember seeing some w based number system derived from the cube root of either 1 or -1 (forget which, but w and -w were the solutions that weren't 1 or -1), but it did all the same things that complex numbers do and was considered mostly uninteresting.

It also seems like there is a pattern to go infinitely beyond octonions, but they all behave identical to octonions, but are the octonions even needed in the same way complex numbers are needed, or do they just make some math problems easier to work with?

>We should absolutely not allow people to own homes in neighborhoods where they simply can't keep up with the financial realities of the neighborhood.

It should be fair to everyone and not discriminate. So make the tax rate equal for the person who has been there and the person who just bought a house. Otherwise you are making it harder for one of those groups to be able to own a home in that neighborhood for the sake of making it easier for the other group, in which case your sarcastic quip applies back to you.

>orthography also changes

Not of things already written down. The long S written in the Constitution is still there. It has not changed, and there would be outrage for anyone to go and change it. Changing the emoji from one meaning to another would be like changing the encoding of utf-8 so that a now means e and e means a, meaning that and and end flips in every utf-8 encoded file that is viewed.

>Any kind of writing system allows this.

The meaning of the words will change over time, but not the words themselves. So someone who reads it will know what the words written actually were, and just have to lookup any differences in meeting between when the words were written and now.

Imagine for a second if we took Shakespeare and rewrote it with modern day English, and then made the claim the new version is the original Shakespeare... I think we would see the problem with that. But that is what happened with emoji. It isn't that people look back, see as collections of pixels, and realize now those pixels mean water gun while in the past they meant firearm. When they look back, they see water gun.

The simple solution is we need to ban all ToSs and EULAs. Make it a crime to try to enforce them on users, one that results in mandatory prison time (else companies will still use them to scare consumers, same as the warranty void if removed stickers).

When you walk around in public, you are emitting photons that let me see you nude. Well, no human I know of can actually see you nude, but with some technology I can definitely do it unless you wear special clothing. So would you say me using that technology to take pictures of the photons people freely admit in public is fair and that I can then go sell those photos? Or does technology change things from how our society use to work?

In the same way a photo of the visible spectrum is not the same as a photo of lightwaves outside the visible spectrum, a photo is not the same thing as seeing someone, and using that photo to track their every facial expression, emotion, and interaction isn't the same as a photo.

Law has not yet caught up to technology, so we need to change the law.

You would still have contracts, they would be limited to being between people of similar power, and a lot stronger protections for someone being taken advantage of.

And specifically, about an easy to measure cost verses an hard (if not impossible) to measure cost. Facilities can easily be measured. Productivity lost due to employees overwhelmed with sights and sounds (and even smells)? Much harder to measure, and so much easier to just not measure it or low ball it. So even if money is being lost, it looks like money is being saved.

I think perhaps bigger than the open office problem is grand parent point seems obvious to me in our current society. Either you are 110% on board with what the company wants, or you aren't a team player (and implied a bad person/worker/resource). It is daring to question them, daring to say they did something imperfect.

No, just do like you do with children who sign contracts, invalidate any obligations the child has to the adult, but the adult is still bound to any obligations they have, and punish the adult for trying to take advantage of the child.

Ideally, the ability for individuals to sign contracts with corporations should be forbidden. Maybe a single 1 person corporation that doesn't involve a lawyer either direct or as a contractor.

>and the most respectable person is the one who silently gets stuff done.

Except even in this case, others must be aware of the person getting things done. If you managed to do a lot of work and people literally didn't notice or attributed the work to someone else, you won't be respected by them. So what ends up earning the most respect is the ability to spread knowing of your accomplishments without appearing like you are boasting about your accomplishments. That said, in such a system the people likely think they are valuing the person quietly getting things done, ignorant of what they actually value.

It would have to only allowing joining before a suit is launched or after all payments for misuse of its patents have been met.

Problem is, once it begins generating revenue, there is a chance it will want to continue doing so. The lawyers on staff don't want to get fired for lack of work, so there is a possibility it becomes a bad (or at least Chaotic Neutral) patent troll.

Is that for using a personal moral definition of consent (even if it is quite a popular one) or using a scientific definition? I find most people will find scientifically consensual cases morally wrong when considering the edge cases (since the scientific tests for consent are not based on age and instead based on measuring ability, they are mostly developed for studying mentally disabled adults, but the finding apply regardless).

Its and interesting concept, and one that may have already occurred in some societies in the past.

Imagine seeing someone attractive, you get to know them, and during this time you find out something that destroys their attraction. Maybe finding out they were of the opposite gender you like, maybe finding out they were an awful person who abuses pets, maybe finding out that they were much younger than you assumed. How much of the destruction of attraction is biological in nature verses social in nature? And even more complex is that idea that the origin is sociological in nature, develops to be biological.

I'd suggest looking up research on linguistic relativity. The extent of the impact of it is still being researched, and it is unknown the extent it might impact attraction (even far more mundane things like object placement and color recognition are still being researched and debated among scientist).

2018 article that has found evidence some mental processes may be impacted while others appear not to be:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438411...

Sadly basically all the research I found on it is locked behind paywalls, but I will say that while a lot of the initial concepts have been challenged and thrown out, from what I've read the idea as a whole has survived to some extent.

On some level this solution feels over simplistic, like saying the solution to teen pregnancy is telling teens to not do things that lead to pregnancy. At what point do we admit that, regardless how good of an idea something is in theory, its a failure in practice?

The entire notion of identity theft should be inverted. It wasn't your identity that was stolen, it was the money of which ever place didn't verify the person taking the money. So it should be their problem, not your problem.

>in a country like the one I live in, where money by design tends to trump just about everything in importance

That 'just about' gets overlooked to an extreme degree. How much money makes up for being autistic? From having a learning a disability? From a history of abuse?

And even if the sociologist are looking at all the right factors, once we are a single level removed from them lots of those factors are dropped from the vocabulary and not picked back up. For example, sex is often brought up in regards to some issues, but completely dismissed from others. Other issues are considered to minor to be worth mentioning, and while that may be true for any single one, someone who suffers from multiple such small ones can end up being declared privileged despite the combined effect of multiple minor issues completely eliminating privilege granted by others.

How does a wage gap and expectations of putting children before career compare to having a law preventing genital mutilation? How much benefits stereotyped to men are to be canceled out by someone with a gender neutral name who sounds female over the phone? How does being white, tall, and handsome compare to auditory hallucinations?

The 'normal people' discussion of privilege is an abstraction of what privilege actually is, and it is a very leaky one. That some can choose to ignore those leaks and the impacts of those leaks on themselves does not validate the abstraction as a good one worth using.

> (A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.)

In which case doesn't the word become entirely pointless because everyone alive is privileged? The discussion then can only happen when comparing the amount of privilege between two people, which becomes almost entirely subjective since it involves comparing different privileges and deciding some sort order. The subjectivity is even worse when we look at the intersection of different privileges. And what of the privileges which we don't even consider to measure, or which the lack of such privilege is socially taboo to call out the lack of?

I feel like we need some formal calculus to discuss privilege, which to my knowledge doesn't exist.

I tried doing a limited google search for any news about that story that occurred since November of last year and got 0 hits. Did the case die or is it that the media just doesn't care enough for there to be a single update to the story?

That is explaining changes in expenses, not the expenses themselves. In this simplified case, salaries are 100% of the expenses, while government funding covers X% and tuition has to cover 100-X%. If X goes down, 100-X% goes up, but the minimal of X is 0, and as such at minimum government funding, 100% of tuition would be due to salaries and 0% due to government.