cadlin

Lithuania has also halved their homicide rate over the past ten years.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Lithuania/Homicide-rate

I assume you're talking about the Federal Insurance program (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). Because a lot of people on the left want to spend more money on those.

Done.

I didn't call the scientists' work shoddy, nor did I call the article circumspect.

I'm sorry, I missed that. I'll leave it in, but I'm wrong about it.

Emily Yoffe is not an objective arbiter on this topic. She has been writing against first the existence of, and then the response to, campus sexual assault for five years. That doesn't prove her wrong, but she does have an agenda.

I would point to several red flags regarding this article.

1st: If she sought comment from Rebecca Campbell, it's not mentioned anywhere in the piece. An article in a magazine like The Atlantic should include, at the very least (we reached out to Rebecca Campbell, but she declined to comment). (Edit: This is incorrect. She does mention a conversation with Rebecca Campbell near the bottom of the article.)

2nd: All of the people who firmly agree with her in the article are lawyers, some for those accused of sexual assault. The scientists she interviews are more circumspect. She interviews scientists who have doubts and uses lawyers to "prove" she's right.

3rd: She doesn't interview anyone who specializes in sexual assault research or work. There is no quote from anyone defending this theory or its applicability to their work. There are no interviews with people who have claimed this has happened to them, either (or who can say that's not what happened to them).

4th: There's no comment from any of the schools saying they use this research as a major part of their sexual assault prevention strategy. Once again, there's no "no comment" response either.

5th: There's not a single outside link in the piece (who is this band of self-styled experts schools are relying on? Who knows). If you look at Ta-Nehisi Coates's recent article, which is excerpted from a book, there are links, so it's not an editorial policy at The Atlantic.

This is shoddy journalism, and I encourage anyone reading it to take it with a grain of salt.

She didn't win the popular vote by 1%. She won by 2.1% (that means your memory of the election results are off by a factor of two... maybe check that). Fivethirtyeight's prediction had her winning the popular vote by 3.5%, so the results were within the margin of error.

Not sure where you're getting your information from... but get it from somewhere else.

No, all the training has to do is increase the corporation's profits by more than the cost.

People are getting paid to provide labor, not to be serfs.

That's not exactly what it means either. A lot of non-temp jobs were destroyed during the recession, so to some extent the low net-non-temp job growth in the US is due to the job market having to climb out of a giant hole.

And a lot of these jobs would have been considered full-time previously, but for political reasons such as the ACA, weak unions, Congress's general hostility to labor, the workers are classified as contractors instead.

From the econ paper these numbers are based on: >Unfortunately, we cannot determine the extent to which the replacement of traditional jobs with alternative work arrangements occurred before, during or after the Great Recession, although it is likely that there were tremendous losses of traditional jobs during the recession

$10 a day is $300 a month, which is a lot to someone near the poverty line (~$1000 a month). The maximum SNAP (food stamps) benefits for an individual is $194. I know SNAP is supposed to be supplemental, etc., but the government has decided someone who is very poor shouldn't have access to the level of nutrition you're talking about.

You can eat on $200 a month without much problem. I received max SNAP benefits for several months and I spent about $120 a month on food, so I had money left over at the end (being a vegetarian helps).

This really isn't relevant to the point at hand (or maybe it is, who knows?) but I think poor people would have an easier time if the means testing for food stamps were looser. The benefits fall off steeply. If someone is making a thousand dollars a months and working full-time or close to it, the government can chip in more than $10-20 to give them access to healthier food.

Donald Trump?

You might be interested in a New Yorker article about just that.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/silicon-valleys...

Minor point on your minor point, the French Revolution may have begun that way with the calling of the Estate General, but actions by the "passive citizens" (lower classes) spurred the overthrow of the monarchy, Louis's subsequent execution, and universal male suffrage.

They didn't direct things from the top, but the mob's opinion was accounted for.

He means the next right-wing backlash (so Trump-->Democrats return to power-->next reaction). The term was used in the French revolution to describe conservative reactions against revolution. The most famous would be the Thermidorian Reaction, which saw the fall of Robespierre and the Jacobin faction generally.

So the right wing backlash after Trump will look the Handmaid's Tale because the liberals went too far.

This article talks about wage growth for college only. There's no comparison to high school grad's wage growth or those with graduate degrees. You are jumping to conclusions about the value of a college degree without accounting for alternatives.

Most high school grads won't become programmers. They will work in warehouses, low level healthcare jobs, etc. The wage growth for high school graduates is worse than college graduates. It's a problem with the whole economy, not colleges specifically.

Elif Batuman is a fabulous writer; I suggest anyone who likes this article to check out her stories on Gobekli Tepe and Turkish soccer hooligans as well.

She also just published a novel, The Idiot, and is promoting it. I haven't read the book, but I plan on seeing her give a reading this Tuesday in D.C.

r/The_Donald is banned from being a default subreddit while /r/politics is not. That matters because users without accounts or who aren't logged in will see content from r/politics if an article is trending but not an equally trending(?) article from r/The_Donald.

The reasoning behind this is that r/politics doesn't ban people or articles that the mods disagree with. It's the community itself that downvotes pro-Trump stuff. r/The_Donald, on the other hand, bans people who make comments critical of Trump and people who submit anti-Trump articles. Similarly, r/enoughtrumpspam or r/communism should also be banned from making it to the default front page (I don't know if they actually are).

I've never heard of a Ga Tech student being murdered, and I can't find anything about such an incident online. Do you have a source for this?

No offense, but looking at your website, you've solved the problem of fake news by not showing any news. Unless you're talking about no bias in UFC news specifically.

I live in Virginia. Both of my senators are Democrats, as is my representative. One of them (Mark Warner) has released a statement condemning the executive order, while Tim Kaine and Don Beyer are not. I left voice mail for the latter and wrote an email to the former, as AFAICT he doesn't take phone messages over the weekend.

Trump signed this on Friday because the response against it will be slower. Sure, a public statement by Democrats won't stop this, but it won't hurt and what the hell else are they doing? I work on the weekends, and they can too when core American values are under assault.

And of course, giving or raising money for other organizations is a great thing to do as well.

This DoJ list of clemency recipients includes both pardons and commutations.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemencyrecipients

The paper was written for fun. It wasn't published in a journal until after the author won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics.

The Green Bay Packers aren't owned by their city, exactly, but they're publicly owned and no individual can have more than 4% of the shares. They have 360,584 owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Community_ow...

Yes, but the average net worth is 301k. It doesn't make any sense to look at median numbers when talking about uneven wealth distribution. Of course the median is going to be very low, that's the whole point!

You know that it was a student who wanted the trauma room, not an administrator, right? The entire article is a string of anecdotes of decisions by students and student groups, save for the one about Oxford, which isn't in the United States.

Here's my theory: college students are well-meaning, overzealous, and inexperienced. Therefore they make bad bad decisions, and even good decisions they make are often framed or communicated poorly. Like all adults, only moreso.

FTA: "Still, it’s disconcerting to see students clamor for a kind of intrusive supervision that would have outraged students a few generations ago. But those were hardier souls."

Is there anything more tired and myopic than "kids these days?" But the Hacker News commentariat, a bastion of reason and rationality, has correctly identified these students' actions of civilization's imminent destruction by "rabid third wave feminists."

It's more like getting a lot done and breaking things for everyone else. Imagine your boss has a terribly, horrendously stupid way he wants things done. Overperformance would be going over his head to his boss to try to change the awful policy. It might be the right thing to do, but you're only going to piss off your boss in the process. Michael is saying it's better to do what the boss asks in that case, but only do the minimal amount of work necessary, instead of going off on a crusade that will only cause trouble for yourself and provides no benefit.

Since this seems to be the overall point

>But when other people are totally happy to talk about speed and blood pressure and comas and the crime rate, and then suddenly switch to a position that we can’t talk about IQ at all unless we have a perfect factor-analytical proof of its obeying certain statistical rules, then I worry they’re just out to steal cows.... But when people never even begin to question the idea of different cultures but make exacting demands of anyone before they can talk about different races – even though the two ideas are statistically isomorphic – then I think they’re just out to steal cows.

There is of course, the opposite problem, which is that people take things like IQ and infer wild conclusions, usually in the service of white supremacy. An example of this is the MAO "Warrior Gene." There are several studies showing a weak correlation between a variant of the gene and violence. Black Americans have this gene more often.

There is a specific, very bad, study that is often quoted. It cherry picks its data, and still can't achieve a significance of p > .05.[1] Yet it is often brought up as indisputable proof of the savage nature of black people. It's ridiculous, and IMHO, much worse than the tendencies criticized in the blog post.

[1] http://www.soc.iastate.edu/staff/delisi/MAOA%202013.pdf

Maybe you could be bothered to link the paper? Otherwise this is no more than hearsay.

The data is derived empirically; that r > g has been the historical norm since the industrial revolution, with the notable exception of the period ~1910-1970.

If that fact changes then the entire premise of the book is wrong. But the thesis of the book is grounded in historical evidence (this is how the world works), not any particular theory that answers "why."

There is a book called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" currently being discussed in the economics world that examines this phenomenon (wealth, however, not income). The tl;dr is that World War I, The Great Depression, and World War II distorted wealth accumulation, and the world is back on track to straight line wealth capture.

A more detailed analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-demo...