285 karma · joined December 17, 2019
So, since the Bay Area has socialist subcultures [0], and they actually have power [1], will you say it is socialist in governance? Or are you applying a double standard?
> The direction of both results was very much in the libertarian direction.
Those two particular results, sure. What about all the other results and legislation I referenced?
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/13/young-democratic-soci...
> libertarian subcultures
I’m sure there are lots of subcultures. What does this have to do with who is actually governing?
> libertarian paradise
What a strange notion. San Francisco has some of the most paternalistic laws in the US, courtesy of its board of supervisors. Some of them even wanted to ban corporate cafeterias, an issue which returned last year:
https://sfist.com/2019/07/22/watered-down-version-of-sfs-tec...
To pin the blame for these problems on libertarians, of all people, is the height of absurdity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_in_the_San_Francisco_...
See also:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/OPINION-San-Francisc...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Nanny-state-or-...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-nov-02-la-fi-ha...
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/economic...
https://reason.org/policy-study/us-metropolitan-area-economi...
> zoning laws
Where did you get the bizarre idea that their zoning laws are in any way “libertarian” or “individualist”?
https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/san-franciscos-regulat...
Instead of buying oil from jobbers, they made the jobbers’ profit by sending their own purchasing men into the oil region. In addition, they made their own sulfuric acid, their own barrels, their own lumber, their own wagons, and their own glue. They kept minute and accurate records of every item from rivets to barrel bungs. They built elaborate storage facilities near their refineries. Rockefeller bargained as shrewdly for crude as anyone before or since. And Sam Andrews coaxed more kerosene from a barrel of crude than could the competition. In addition, the Rockefeller firm put out the cleanest-burning kerosene, and managed to dispose of most of the residues like lubricating oil, paraffin, and vaseline at a profit.
Between 1870 and 1885 the price of refined kerosene dropped from 26 cents to 8 cents per gallon. In the same period, the Standard Oil Company reduced the [refining] costs per gallon from almost 3 cents in 1870 to 0.452 cents in 1885. Clearly, the firm was relatively efficient, and its efficiency was being translated to the consumer in the form of lower prices for a much improved product, and to the firm in the form of additional profits.
https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-compan...
It is difficult to overstate how much Standard Oil revolutionized the oil refinement process, resulting in oil that was significantly cleaner and cheaper than its competitors’.
Do we think that a problem persists even when it has become less frequent? Levari et al. show experimentally that when the “signal” a person is searching for becomes rare, the person naturally responds by broadening his or her definition of the signal—and therefore continues to find it even when it is not there. From low-level perception of color to higher-level judgments of ethics, there is a robust tendency for perceptual and judgmental standards to “creep” when they ought not to.
How fortunate for you. On the other hand, other people are hurt by the explicitly racist policies you endorse. You don’t speak for them.
> in my own caste
Why don’t you speak for yourself, instead of speaking for others and assuming they’re “in your caste”, whatever that means?
Absolutely not. Both positive and negative claims need evidence.
It’s factually correct. For example [0]:
Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed the life expectancy at birth among 13th-century English nobles at 30. Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:
1200–1300: to age 64
1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 69
1500–1550: to age 71
17th-century English life expectancy was only about 35 years, largely because infant and child mortality remained high. Life expectancy was under 25 years in the early Colony of Virginia, and in seventeenth-century New England, about 40 percent died before reaching adulthood.
During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The under-5 mortality rate in London decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over...
Concentrated benefits and diffused costs.
It’s not.
This isn’t Reddit.
It's not.
The beta distribution is p(x) ∝ x^(α-1) (1-x)^(β-1). x is in the bases.
The continuous Bernoulli distribution is p(x) ∝ λ^x (1-λ)^x. x is in the exponents.
As https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.06845 says:
> the continuous Bernoulli is not a beta distribution (the main difference between these two distributions is how they concentrate mass around the extrema, see appendix 1 for details)
The appendix is available here (under "Supplemental"): https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2019/hash/f82798ec8909d23e55679...
Why would they need to?
Here's a few more: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404647160942598.html
Nonsense. The Cultural Revolution had much to do with Marxist philosophy. For goodness’ sake, read the May 16 Notification and Sixteen Points.
The Implicit Association Test at Age 21: No Evidence for Construct Validity [0]
> The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is 21 years old. Greenwald et al. (1998) proposed that the IAT measures individual differences in implicit social cognition. This claim requires evidence of construct validity. I review the evidence and show that there is insufficient evidence for this claim. Most important, I show that few studies were able to test discriminant validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit personality characteristics and that a single-construct model fits multi-method data as well or better than a dual-construct models. Thus, the IAT appears to be a measure of the same personality characteristics that are measured with explicit measures. I also show that the validity of the IAT varies across personality characteristics. It has low validity as a measure of self-esteem, moderate validity as a measure of racial bias, and high validity as a measure of political orientation. The existing evidence also suggests that the IAT measures stable characteristics rather than states and has low predictive validity of single behaviors. Based on these findings, it is important that users of the IAT clearly distinguish between implicit measures and implicit constructs. The IAT is an implicit measure, but there is no evidence that it measures implicit constructs.
The Creators of the Implicit Association Test Should Get Their Story Straight [1]
> The problem, as I showed in a lengthy rundown of the many, many problems with the test published this past January, is that there’s very little evidence to support that claim that the IAT meaningfully predicts anything. In fact, the test is riddled with statistical problems — problems severe enough that it’s fair to ask whether it is effectively “misdiagnosing” the millions of people who have taken it, the vast majority of whom are likely unaware of its very serious shortcomings. There’s now solid research published in a top journal strongly suggesting the test cannot even meaningfully predict individual behavior. And if the test can’t predict individual behavior, it’s unclear exactly what it does do or why it should be the center of so many conversations and programs geared at fighting racism.
Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job [2]
[0] https://replicationindex.com/2019/02/15/iat21/
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem...
[2] https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24797649
> Do you agree that there are objective facts that should be accepted by the society for the well being of the society?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24795296
> They should be cancelled if they are proven to be dangerous to the society
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24795078
> I do not believe my unlimited free speech rights is of higher priority the health and wellbeing of the overall society.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24793340
> The whole "absolute free speech is a sacrosanct human rights for everyone" is an ideal that simply would not scale with the 21st century civilization.
> But we can all agree that freedom isn't free, at one point in the future the cost would be so high that the whole civilization would be facing a "give me freedom or give me death" moment.
Feel free to clarify what you meant, which is precisely what I was asking about.
> Where did I say people should be killed for believing different things?
I explicitly said that was an example, not something you specifically said.
If the only reply left is “Well, they can legally do it!” (assuming their lies about said censorship aren’t legally problematic), that’s very telling. It completely ignores the question of morality, especially when the platforms in question have so much control over society.
Lots of things are legal. That doesn’t make them right. In some cases, they’re very wrong.