datashow

I'm confused. Influencing the market is the same as insider trading?

Also remember China does not have a real bail system. If you get arrested, you are very likely end up in prison directly. You also can be disappeared (better than be suicided) during the process.

Edit: No. I wasn't referring to the Epstein case.

Also, Chinese police has a habit of using force to rob the corpse of the victim from the family who want to send the corpse to the 3rd party for examination. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shishou_incident

Sorry I did not make it clear. What I meant the automation tool is something like Autohotkey. Let's say I made a private software XAuto (like Autohotkey) many many years ago with tons of efforts, and then I wrote a XAuto script (like an Autohotkey script) to automate my work. Do I have to give both of the XAuto script and the XAuto software to my employer?

Funny, I searched "The filing was a response to a FOIA lawsuit brought in March by conservative organization Citizens United", and the first result in google is from here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-vs-foia-1443136...

Aslo, if you search "url:http://www.wsj.com/article_email/" , you won't find any active link at all. It seems they have changed their website structure.

> The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin.

This reminds me something I read recently: The Court concluded that "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

> These domain experts would very much like to "do things right" but they lack the leverage to make it happen.

The reality could be worse though. My experience is that many domain experts refuse to "do things right" from a software development perspective. Many domain experts think their code is good enough as long as the code get correct results. Unfortunately, domain experts in general are terrible coders.

But do you have to give the automation tool to the company? My impression is that the automation tool is not part of the job.

This could be a reasonable argument. Unfortunately it is not the one used by CDC officials. They are literally saying gun violence is a disease.

I also like to see what is the argument for treating gun violence as disease but not car accidents.

How is malaria comparable to guns? Is malaria in the Constitution? Does Americans have a malaria culture?

I'm not sure how the link support your point.

Is shelter A responsible for the state arresting homeless people?

Should not the state stop this practice?

What if shelter A says I will close if you don't allow me to practice religion?

> but it wouldn't be defensible for me to do so under separation of religion

I don't understand your sentence. "separation of religion" with what? Is there a law stating religion needs to be separated from everything else?

You can always compare two samples without controlling for confounding differences. However, you need to controlling for confounding differences when you want to explain the differences. When we say there is a difference in IQ between two groups, we are not saying the difference is genetic. The raw difference in IQ does have a meaning by itself.

I do agree with you that there are questions regarding to measurement issues and confounding issues. But it is hard to believe all the group differences can be explained away by solving these issues.

One of the most important sentences in this article is "sex differences in behavior are so pervasive in nearly every other species. It's just not plausible that somehow male and female psychology evolved to be identical despite the physiological differences and different reproductive roles across human evolutionary history."

The point is, we not only have data of sex differences, we do have an explanation for why those differences exist.

There is comprehensive book about this: Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences https://www.amazon.com/Male-Female-Evolution-Differences-Sec...

You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence

Lowest nations are around 70 (can be lower than that). Highest nations are around 100 (can be higher than that).

Experimental studies have replication crisis, but the studies on this topic are not experimental studies. They are based on survey data and statistical analysis. They do have their challenges, but have nothing to do with the replication crisis.

> What is "agreeableness"

Quote from the article https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.0017...: "Agreeableness comprises traits relating to altruism, such as empathy and kindness. Agreeableness involves the tendency toward cooperation, maintenance of social harmony, and consideration of the concerns of others (as opposed to exploitation or victimization of others). Women consistently score higher than men on Agreeableness and related measures, such as tender-mindedness (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001)."

> why is it measured on a scale of 1 to 5

Quote from the article https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.0017...: "Participants rate their agreement with how well each statement describes them using a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree."

> But, if you can just define whatever quantities you like and give them a commonly used word for a name- then what does anything mean anymore? You can just define anything you like as anything you like and measure it anyway you like- and claim anything you want at all.

> At the end of the day, is all this measuring anything other than trends in filling up questionnaires? Can we really draw any other conclusions about the differences of men and women than that the samples of the studies filled in their questionnaires in different ways? Is even that a safe conclusion? If you take statistics on a random process you can always model it- but you'll be modelling noise. How is this possibility excluded here?

Not that simple. There is a whole field called Psychometrics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics

If you really care to answer those questions you need to take a complete psychometric theory course such as https://personality-project.org/revelle/syllabi/405.syllabus...

Before you learned the whole thing, don't assume the field is as superficial as you imagined.

> All the statistics are quantifying the answers that respondents gave to questionnaires and how the researchers rated them - without any attempt to blind or randomise anything, to protect from participant or researcher bias, as far as I can tell (I'm searching for the word "blind" in the papers and finding nothing).

Your searching for the word "blind" means you don't know anything about psychology research. We don't use this word in our research. In psychology studies, we care about "reliability" and "validity" and we have extensive methods to test those.

> In the study I link below, participants found the website by internet searches and word-of-mouth. The study itself points out that this is a self-selecting sample, but what have they done to exclude the possibility of adversarial participation (people purposefully filling in a form in a certain way to confuse results)?

Maybe there are a few people try to do that. But with a sample size of 130,602, these response wouldn't impact the research findings at all, unless it is an organized effort trying to influence the research.

> There is so much that is extremely precarious about the findings of those studies and yet the Scientific American article jumps directly to d values. Yes, but d-values on what? What is being measured? What do the numbers stand for?

The ScientificAmerican article does fail to clear this up. But the first linked study using "D" clearly stated it is "Cattell's 16PF (fifth edition)". https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jopy.12500

> This is just heartbreaking to see that such a contentious issue is treated with such frivolity. If it's not possible to lay to rest such hot button issues with solid scientific work- then don't do it. It will just make matters worse.

Maybe the ScientificAmerican article is not flawless, but I think you need to calm down a little bit.

> If you're the type of person for which those points sounds disastrous, don't have kids.

This is not a great advice. Those points only "sounds disastrous". It can be totally changed after you have kids.

As a developer, I always know I will be less productive etc. after having kids. On the other hand, I know I am not a genius, and I know I will be fulfilled more from my kids than from my lost productivity.

And then, you know what? When you get older, you will realize that losing productivity is unavoidable. It is so great to spend time with your family outside of work. Nobody can stay at 20s forever.

There is one more important factor: If you want to have a life without kids, you need to find a partner with the same mind set, which is not easy, or just stay alone.

I can't believe this comment get voted up.

> women in America are "organically" picking non-STEM jobs, but that is because the jobs suck, the environments suck and people are assholes at these jobs

Very general assessment without any supporting evidence.

Your sister is not sufficient evidence to make this kind of assessment. Neither is "Ask Women".

By the way, I will be very surprised to hear women in general are treated better in India than in America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_India

It is not "a conspiracy theory", it is a logical interpretation of Durham's statement.

DOJ's internal investigation already showed lots of violation of its protocol. Durham made clear his investigation is not limited to within the DOJ/FBI, of course he found more damning evidence that's why he made this statement. Otherwise how would you logically interpret? Investigation outside of DOJ/FBI makes DOJ/FBI look better?

"literally the definition"? You have a weird definition of "conspiracy theory". Every interpretation does not fit with your narrative is a conspiracy theory?

I never said anything like "the Deep State perp-walked to Guantanamo and The Hague", nor did anyone on this discussion. Maybe there is a right-win conspiracy theory about that, but it has nothing to do with the discussion here.

FBI / DOJ violation of the protocol in secret courts is really a serious matter in a democratic society.

This is not the worst yet.

Durham's investigation may reveal something even worse.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-joh...

Another shot: at that time he / she was a college student. Totally different preferences and cretira now.

What if someone learned something on their own time, do they get to be reimbursed from the employer?

Or, can I ask my employer to reimburse my under-graduate and graduate tuition?

American law system does evolve itself through case law. Things which are not clearly defined in the original language are clarified and adjusted through cases. Does it always get everything correct? No. But it's one of the best systems you can get on this planet.

1) Democracy never relies on citizens to go to college to get political education 2) The general public has far more political diversity than faculty and administrators in universities 3) The general public is exposed to a wide range of political and ideological ideas through traditional and social media.

Career and technical education covers many fields, such as agriculture, business, education, service, military, mechanics, construction, programming, etc... Yes, field training does come later. However, in general, CTE provides more direct field experience than four-year college.

"more education" does not equal to college education. Education can take many different forms. It can be career and technology education, internship and apprenticeship, also self-study.

College has an entrance barrier and is very disconnected to the outside world, so it has a strong signal effect.

Also consider this: with four years of college time, you can get two career educations with real life industry experience and come with much less cost.

The title misses " and software". Isn't Linux "foreign"?