defertoreptar

I can't find the source, but I remember reading about how there's a lifecycle to stolen art. The thief sells it to a sketchy art dealer at a huge discount. The sketchy art dealer then sells it to a more legitimate dealer at less of a discount. Then, it either goes to a legitimate private collector or museum. The length of time between each step can span decades, but it becomes more valuable at each transition.

How about when people become upset when you simply disagree with what the group believes, when it's not even hurting anyone. I have seen people act upset, and then use that emotion to justify shutting down the conversation.

It could mean people who would be going give blood or provide essential services at their job refuse to out of irrational fear.

Looks like there are 1.29 million in the US military (0.3% of US population), with an average age of 34.5. (All figures from top search result of Google.)

59% of millennials lean or identify as Democrat compared to 35% Republican https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/01/1-generations-party-...

I was under the impression that this was because the left skews younger, and Gen X and millennials are more active and capable online.

Companies have always supported candidates and political parties of their liking with political contributions. What's different now is that these companies can now contribute not just with money, but by influencing the online discussion we see and the search results we get.

Then they should remove those rule-breaking posts and ban the posters, but that's already the case.

My point is that I think political minority users will believe that they may be punished for upvoting content that doesn't explicitly break the rules. It doesn't even need to be true. As long as users believe it, that will be enough to impact their behavior. In fact, it's already enough just to know that big brother is watching what you upvote. This passively results in upvoted political content being more in line with Reddit's political bias.

Your assumption here is that the enforcement of the new rule will be executed perfectly and without bias, and further that people will believe it will be enforced that way. This totally misses my central point.

I wasn't just talking about the_donald, but the broader effects of no longer having the promise of a "secret ballot." When people know their vote is being observed, they change their behavior. My point is how this will favor Reddit's political majority and disfavor the minority.

> This is only for being a moderator. Simply upvoting posts (that don't break any rules) in quarantined subreddits does not get you punished.

That was a requirement given for being a new mod at /r/the_donald. There is also a separate, new rule change revealed in the recent "Transparency Report" that says that users who consistently upvote rule-breaking content will be banned.

> The whole point of a quarantine is exactly to push people to report bad content, and acts as a warning. This new change makes sense as far as pushing people to report said content and not keep promoting it.

That may be the case. On the other hand, that may only be the pretense. Every four years we see the same thing happen on Reddit. We saw massive upvoting of anything related to Obama, which at that time it was just thought to be organic (and maybe it even was).

Then in 2016 we saw massive Bernie Sanders support to a swift and sudden change to Hillary Clinton support. That was followed by the "Correct the Record" movement and then later "Share Blue." These were all coordinated efforts to inorganically promote one political party and suppress another.

But that wasn't enough to keep r/the_donald posts from regularly popping up on r/all. That's when they quarantined it. Now they're taking it even further.

Before, political minority users may not post out of fear of being downvoted or targeted by those searching through their post history, but they felt safe upvoting content they agreed with. But now, there is this implication that they could face repercussions for simply upvoting the wrong thing.

Sure, we're told it's only for things like illegal content or racial slurs, and only in quarantined subs. However, we'd be stupid not to see the political bias on Reddit. There's ambiguity over what counts as the wrong thing to upvote. They don't tell you what content you upvoted that you're being punished for. The net result? The "wrong" type of political content will be naturally suppressed by users now being reluctant to upvote it.

Apathy, or they find more value in spending their attention and time doing something else, a feeling like their vote won't change a thing, or straight up laziness.

I don't actually think it's important why someone doesn't vote, so long as their right to vote isn't impeded. I have a theory that society, like many other systems, tends to take on more stable forms over time. Part of the reason democracy has been so stable is that it allows people, who would otherwise be unhappy and want to change things, a chance to have a say. Non-voters are already a "stable" part of society, since they apparently don't have strong enough feelings to go vote for something different. I don't see a problem with that.

The abstract from the author's paper on the subject:

> Human same-sex sexual attraction (SSSA) has long been considered to be an evolutionary puzzle. The trait is clearly biological: it is widespread and has a strong additive genetic basis, but how SSSA has evolved remains a subject of debate. Of itself, homosexual sexual behavior will not yield offspring, and consequently individuals expressing strong SSSA that are mostly or exclusively homosexual are presumed to have lower fitness and reproductive success. How then did the trait evolve, and how is it maintained in populations? Here we develop a novel argument for the evolution of SSSA that focuses on the likely adaptive social consequences of SSSA. We argue that same sex sexual attraction evolved as just one of a suite of traits responding to strong selection for ease of social integration or prosocial behavior. A strong driver of recent human behavioral evolution has been selection for reduced reactive aggression, increased social affiliation, social communication, and ease of social integration. In many prosocial mammals sex has adopted new social functions in contexts of social bonding, social reinforcement, appeasement, and play. We argue that for humans the social functions and benefits of sex apply to same-sex sexual behavior as well as heterosexual behavior. As a consequence we propose a degree of SSSA, was selected for in recent human evolution for its non-conceptive social benefits. We discuss how this hypothesis provides a better explanation for human sexual attractions and behavior than theories that invoke sexual inversion or single-locus genetic models.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976918/

I pulled the Fide player database for standard play ratings. The set of ratings had a minimum of 1001, maximum of 2862 (Carlsen), an average of 1663, and a standard deviation of 349. The 25th percentile had a rating of 1428, 50th percentile: 1663, 95th percentile: 2237, and top percentile: 2862.

Given those ratings, the 95th percentile has a ~100% chance of beating the 25th percentile, a 96.75% chance of beating the 50th percentile, and a 0.38% chance of beating Magnus Carlsen.

I think 1 in 20 is fairly rare. It's just that something being rare and something being hard to reach aren't always the same thing. It's likely just a matter of "trying hard to reach x" is the fairly rare thing. That doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile accomplishment. Sure, only having a 0.38% chance of beating Carlsen doesn't look great, but then you're comparing yourself only to the top players and not looking at the whole picture.

Shouldn't this figure be tied to the CPI?

Thermonuclear pandemic bad? Isn't that R0 similar to many other diseases?

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

A trust score could solve this problem.

Whenever someone flags a thread, the thread either gets globally flagged or not. If it automatically gets globally flagged, a mod may un-flag it. Or, it may not be automatically flagged, and a mod will flag it.

We can then find the probability that a user's flag will result in a "permanent, global flag" by looking at the user's history. We ought to use the lower bound of the Wilson score interval for this. This is the user's trust score, which needs to remain hidden from them.

We then set some threshold under which a user's flag will be shadow-ignored. This way, we only act on feedback that has a high probability of fitting the same pattern of mod behavior. Just make sure you have quality mods who consistently and correctly flag threads.

The brand, the IP, is the whole company. Once a court rules that people can recreate the rules of Tetris and make money, then they will have to compete against generic brands, and probably lose millions of annual revenue.

The thing is that they don't have copyrights on playfield dimensions and the shapes of the blocks, since those are actually functional elements of the game. However, they have been able to protect their brand by claiming that these things fall under trade dress.

What they've argued in court is like Ford saying that Chevy infringed on their trade dress by also using wheels, an engine, a steering wheel, etc.

What part of Tetris do you think is copyrightable? The graphics and sounds are. The source code, yes.

The game rules? No.

It's harder to walk away from a mortgage than a rental home. It's more work to sell a house.

Since the mortgage-payer owns the house, has made improvements on the house, has an emotional investment in the house, there are strong biases such as sunk cost that make the buyer much more reluctant to get out from under it.

Nihilist: the expected value is 0. I'll play just for the hell of it.

Pessimist: the expected value less than or equal to 0. It's a meaningless game of chance, and it doesn't matter what you do.

Existentialist: the expected value is 0, but if you score 10 points, we'll call it a win.

Cynic: you think that the expected value is positive. You idiots only act like you're not playing to win.

If Asimov was still living, what do you think he would say about younger Asimov?

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 happened the year before he died. There was a big change in the way people saw this behavior between the 80s and now.

How many celebrities, who lived through that era, would now say that behavior is okay? I honestly think had he lived, he'd say he was wrong.

Ok so you can't make bibles in USA. That doesn't mean you have to make bibles in China, though. There are other countries that have cheap labor who aren't the target of tariffs.

From what I'm reading, the Pentagon is saying that there was clear intelligence that he was planning an imminent threat to American lives (again), giving the president Article II authority to use force to act in self-defence. Unsurprisingly, the intelligence is classified.

I'm not sure I'm following. In the example, there's a sunk cost of dressing up and setting aside time. Then, other than sunk cost, there's the probable future cost of reduced cooperation as well as cost in rapport and morale. I don't see those things as sunk cost because the decision to go or not go can influence those costs.

> When a senior leader within a nation is murdered by agents of a foreign government without even the decency of declaring war first, of course there will be calls for revenge.

I don't see why whether there was a declaration of war or not should matter if people want revenge. However, since you brought it up, Trump did tweet this all-caps tirade: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10212345256266096... . I remember being very concerned that a president would post something like that. Anyhow, you have to admit that it shows how Trump wasn't keeping retaliatory plans hidden from Iran.

> The company in June 2019 removed 4,779 accounts it said we linked to the Iranian government. Most of those accounts tweeted international news stories with an angle that portrayed the government in a positive light, while others were focused on engaging in conversations about Israel, and another subset used false identities to target global conversations about Iran, Twitter said at the time.

Also, I can't find a recent source, but Iran censors their people's internet, including Twitter and Facebook. This article from 2013 says they lifted the ban, but then shortly after re-banned it. So it's not even clear to me if legitimate users can even use Twitter. https://mashable.com/2013/09/16/twitter-facebook-iran/

> And the little I do speak is designed to appeal, as much as possible, to my audience.

"How to Win Friends and Influence People" really helped me understand where I was running into problems when interacting with people. It was written mainly for those who are in sales and need to learn how to persuade, but I've found it overall helpful in my career (not sales). It's one of the three books I would recommend for those who either manage people or are customer-facing (the others being "Nonviolent Communication" and "Carrots and Sticks Don't Work").

That said, I don't really observe the book's dogma in my personal life. To an extent, it has basic advice that's good no matter what. On the other hand, carefully speaking to make someone like you and to persuade them can be awfully inauthentic. I've learned to be careful about being rude or pedantic, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy a good argument. I like it when I disagree with people. I like to dig down into it with them to uncover the truth. I like to share the truth that I know with others, and I really like it when someone helps me discover a truth I didn't know before, changing the way I see things.

Unfortunately that means that, while I try to avoid it (without sacrificing authenticity), I will be perceived as unlikable to some. This tends to be people who hate confrontation, those who are maybe a bit insecure about their beliefs, and those who tend toward valuing what the group thinks opposed to what the individual thinks.

I wish I could afford to do that. I've got important calls coming in of which I don't always know the number. If I miss the call, it can be a headache trying to get the process going again.

I have found that there can be drastic differences in Go performance in the particular way you structure the program. Writing Go code in a Python-like way is going to be less performant than if you run escape analysis every compile and make deliberate effort to stay on the stack.

If you ask me, if this was to be done, s the following steps should be taken.

1) The government should commission an expert panel to investigate a system for assessing land value (or perhaps even crowd source it). A set of descriptors (size, location, if it's next to a sewer treatment plant, etc.) should be determined. Along with sale price records, a system should be designed to predict land values.

B) Every part of the system should be public information, including the set of descriptors, so that individuals can dispute them and have them updated in the records.

C) Per law, the system should be regularly reviewed and updated, so that it is as accurate as possible.