With apologies for the extremely unscientific anecdata, I've seen too many examples of individuals who profess to support the ACA while opposing Obamacare to believe that there isn't something here.
557 karma · joined January 26, 2016
I am a twenty-something without a Facebook account (used to have one, though). IMO, there isn't much I would want to do with Facebook that I can't do with email or texting.
It doesn't strike me as very plausible that NYT would be reporting on the extermination of Jews in 1939. If they were, I am eager to learn about it. If anyone knows more about this, please link me to it.
To my knowledge, mass exterminations didn't begin until 1941, carried out by gas trucks and firing squads. The Final Solution was formulated in 1942, with the first death camps going into operation that year. In 1939 the Nazis had already started exterminating some "undesirables" (including at least the disabled and mentally ill) and they were already operating concentration camps, but the nominal goal of these camps was the eventual deportation of Jews rather than extermination. I would be surprised to learn that any Allied governments (or those who would become Allies) knew about the extermination of Jews in 1939, let alone the press.
Interesting theory. Personally, I'm not sure it's clear that good strategy can overcome ruthless tactical precision. I'm also not sure a human could ever be motivated to achieve a 0.00% tactical blunder rate. (Much as I would love to see human strategy defeat computer tactics.)
This is the blog post that introduced me to the idea that human + computer might be better a computer alone: https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/playing-chess-with...
It's called Freestyle Chess or Advanced Chess. Humans have beaten the best computers this way, but I'm not sure it is clear that human + computer outperforms a computer alone consistently.
Incidentally, that's a great blog to browse if you like chess and math/CS theory.
I'm told this is a huge problem in medicine. They might be even more hierarchical than the military.
Fine, you're just a terrible communicator then.
> Second, though my details are in my profile, your use of my name is clearly meant to be threatening and is therefore over the line.
Bullshit. For a guy who demands that everything he writes be taken 100% literally, you sure are quick to read extraneous meaning into what I wrote.
There is baggage associated with your argument, and it didn't originate from me. You can't deny that. What you can do is acknowledge the baggage and disavow it. You have not done so, which leads me to suspect that you might be comfortable with the baggage.
As far as I can tell, all you have contributed to this conversation are the assertions that inherent racial differences "almost certainly" exist and that those who disagree have a world view that is inconsistent with universal basic rights, followed by affectedly exasperated claims that anyone who disagrees with you is simply too encumbered by hang-ups and complexes to understand your reality. Do you understand that even if your position is genuinely non-racist, you have completely failed to communicate that? Part of communication is recognizing the broader context in which our words will be interpreted and addressing that context. We do not have the privilege of communicating in a vacuum.
Put another way, and charitably assuming that you are not a white supremacist, what's different between what you have said and what a white supremacist would say if they were trying to be oblique about it?
There are problems with scientific freedom in the U.S. related to funding and job retention. Even if the situation in China isn't as bad as it used to be, it's still not good.
Similarly, when Scalia died Ginsburg said she would miss his rebuttals to her opinions because they always made her final product better.
Is it possible that you're not really a white supremacist, and that you're just leaving your mind open to whatever the science determines? Maybe. But if that's the case, the burden is on you to convince us clearly and thoroughly that you are not a racist.
On the other hand, people who believe that there is such a correlation have a convenient excuse to consider themselves objectively superior while smugly granting rights to the inferior races.
A simple solution to the problem at hand would be to let everyone designate any one residence as their primary residence taxed at a lower rate, with any additional property they own being taxed at a higher "secondary/unoccupied residence" rate unless they can prove it is being rented out.