defertoreptar

[removed]

[removed]

I was wondering if anyone knew enough to clarify a couple of things from this part of Dean's letter:

> Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted.

There seems to be something between the lines here. How was it approved for submission? Did Gebru or one of the other authors approve it? And if so, would that be unusual?

> A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues. We acknowledge that the authors were extremely disappointed with the decision that Megan and I ultimately made, especially as they’d already submitted the paper.

Does this contradict what Gebru has said so far? Didn't she say she wasn't given any feedback?

> This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google (which is when they backed off--before that Google lawyers were prepared to throw us under the bus and our leaders were following as instructed) and the next day I get some random “impact award.” Pure gaslighting.

And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but that they'd want her to stay so much that she could leverage it?

That's just you not realizing how your company sees you as a litigious/PR disaster timebomb and are tiptoeing around you. The worst part is that there was a path for you to be professional and achieve your goals, but then I guess you don't get to bask in Twitter's righteous indignation that way.

At first I thought this was going to be about the ever popular "why I quit Google" posts, where people get to feel morally superior as well as humblebrag about the impressive tech firms they've quit.

Anti-Streisand effect? This article "spoils" the surprise of NYT's article. I don't think it's odd, and it's probably the best they could've done if all the people responsible really no longer work there.

Where they could get you is how they can protect their "likeness." If you reduced the simulation to only functional aspects of the game, then I don't see how it'd be a problem.

Wouldn't student loan forgiveness only put more fire on that inflation?

Maybe, but in this case we're literally talking about moving tax money directly into people's student loan accounts. I'd say, "yes, really true."

What inflation are you referring to.

As someone who was in the thick of it, what do you think could've been done differently to improve the problems with the rating system?

> then they would simply perform the fraud 'properly' such that the given technique(s) don't show evidence

Unless the fraud is decentralized, for example when some scattered districts fudge their numbers but can't necessarily coordinate with one another (and especially not with those districts that aren't fraudulent). In that case, the anomalies would still show up.

Why? Parent poster was making a judgement as to what people should be allowed to believe, and they didn't point to any authority or why that authority should be in charge. How do we know the parent poster doesn't consider themselves to be a good enough authority to decide? They seem to present themselves as one.

Isn't that more than a bit paternalistic? Who gets to decide what people can believe about the election? You? Give people the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.

That's not so much an argument against approval voting as it is an argument for carefully and clearly wording the ballot. That's true of any voting system.

> Has anyone come across strong, detailed arguments against it?

There's a simpler way that's much easier for voters to understand: "approval voting." You mark all the candidates you approve of, and the candidate(s) with the most total votes wins.

> Most importantly Solarpunk is a rejection of dystopic fears and a return to hope, not as a con-trick, but as a construct.

Yeah I just don't find that to be very "punk." In cyberpunk, we have drug-addicted hackers, alienated from society. "Solarpunk," to me, sounds pretty wholesome and very much in line with the direction that society wants to go.

Normally, those high comps would motivate people into earning the credentials for taking that career path. But you can't address local scarcity in this way when the law incentives you to instead import cheap labor from abroad.

Maybe this has to do with women entering the workforce, increasing supply and putting downward pressure on prices. Look at real median family income:

1968, 55745

2019, 86011

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N

Edit: Real median income has also increased: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

To me, the author is trying to express a feeling that I've also experienced before. It happens when someone in a discussion appeals to the spirit of freedom of speech, and the other guy shuts it down using the argument in the Xkcd comic.

I hate seeing that happen because it shows how little people value their ability to freely express their minds on a public forum. Or if they do value this, it shows how they're willing to disconnect that notion from the one that gave rise to encoding the freedom of speech into our constitution.

Paywalled, but I see it's dated 7/28, so I'm guessing it's based off this paper https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768841

> Question What is the discriminative accuracy of plasma phospho-tau217 (P-tau217) for differentiating Alzheimer disease from other neurodegenerative disorders?

> Findings In this cross-sectional study that included 1402 participants from 3 selected cohorts, plasma P-tau217 discriminated Alzheimer disease from other neurodegenerative diseases (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 in a neuropathologically defined cohort and 0.96 in a clinically defined cohort), with performance that was significantly better than established Alzheimer disease plasma- and MRI-based biomarkers but not significantly different from key CSF- or PET-based biomarkers.

> Meaning Although plasma P-tau217 was able to discriminate Alzheimer disease from other neurodegenerative diseases, further research is needed to validate the findings in unselected and diverse populations, optimize the assay, and determine its potential role in clinical care.

Or it's just acknowledging that it can be disruptive and divisive at a place where your goal is to focus and communicate effectively.

I've lost almost 20 lb so far. I eat between 11 am and 7 pm, and on one day a week I only eat one meal (dinner). The first month was tough, and I overate during my eating windows.

I did calorie tracking many times (sometimes successfully), but IF is so much less of a mental load. It addresses the core issue: appetite. After a month, I no longer want larger portions. I no longer want to snack after dinner.

The Democrats wanted the nomination to go through, but the Republicans blocked it. There's no real precedent unless both parties are for it.

I understand that you equate voter ID with voter suppression. However, when you say someone's "on the record," you ought to use their own words. Those politicians went on the record for supporting voter ID.

How does this compare to pre-covid S&P 495?

I just read the article again, and I don't see any language in it to support the idea that it's implying you'd have any less wealth than it calculates that you would.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is to say that if wealth tax offsets growth exactly, then the government has taken the difference of what your wealth would have been after 60 years. For example,

  1 - 1000*(1-.01+.01)^60 / [1000*(1+.01)^60] ~= 45% taken from the government

Which is the same as the author of the article found.

The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, but as you mentioned, some use tolls.

When you have rival + excludable, it is straight forward to charge on an individual basis. This efficiently allocates resources and punishes abuses.

It's not as easy to efficiently do that with non- (or perhaps less-) excludable goods. Also, when a good is non-rival, there is much less worry about abusing the system. That makes subsidies and "everybody pay the same" easier to be seen as a fair enough system.

Prefunding medical pensions is not the reason for their cash flow problem:

> In addition, with respect to financial reporting, here are the key figures for 2019:

> Healthcare benefits paid out of the Benefit Fund: $3.7 billion.

> Normal costs scheduled to be paid into the Benefit Fund to cover current year’s current employees’ retiree healthcare cost accruals: $3.775 billion.

> Amortization payments scheduled to be made into the fund: $789 million.

> Overall net loss for the year: $8.8 billion.

> The math just doesn’t work to blame retiree healthcare contributions for the USPS’s losses. The amount they are recording on their P&L for retiree healthcare costs (which, again, they aren’t paying out in cash) — $4.564 billion — is only moderately more ($800 - $900 million, depending on rounding) than the amount that they would be paying out directly for pay-as-you-go benefits had the PAEA never been implemented. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...

And I actually do see this as a "because it's not A it shows it is therefore B" type argument. When the USPS runs at a deficit, tax payers ultimately are the ones that have to bail it out. That goes against the principal necessitating stamps in the first place: individuals who don't place extra cost to the USPS end up paying more than their share and subsidize individuals who do cost the USPS extra.