discoursism

It might not be hard to convince a jury that it would be 80 or 85% if Google stopped all pro-diversity measures. It might be hard to convince them to penalize Google for it, though.

(FWIW, I'm on a team that consists solely of white and Asian males, and everyone on my chain is a white or Asian male, all the way to the top.)

Not sure if you're aware, but Amazon's doing pretty OK by all publicly available signs. To the extent what's bothering you is even a real issue, it's not bothering anyone else enough to stop them shopping on Amazon. I doubt Amazon feels much pressure to post action plans to satisfy the tiny minority of people who have strong opinions about this issue.

Not the majority. At least not in sensibly operating cities.

https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute

15-849 AUTHORS GUILD, ET AL. V. GOOGLE, INC. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041816zor_2c...)

I wouldn't say so. At least not in the epistemic/anti-epistemic way that parallels climate-change denialism. Most religions make a lot of unfalsifiable claims. Since opponents cannot conclusively falsify those claims, it gives religious adherents an epistemic place to hide and claim personal religious experiences, etc.

Most religions have not, in the main, been conclusively refuted, since they involve events that happened thousands of years ago, and even when something is shown to have not happened, the adherents have good precedent for claiming that a given portion is allegorical. Since religious interpretation is rife with different viewpoints, they'll even have a respected theologian to point to who called it in advance.

Flat-eartherism is a horse of a different color. It makes a bunch of falsifiable predictions, which have subsequently been falsified many different ways. Then its proponents just ignore the evidence and keep on believing their viewpoint anyway. Epistemologically, climate change denial has a lot more in common with this than it does with religion.

I say this as an anti-theist. I don't have much good to say about religion, but I'd rather deal with someone who believes things which can't be proven rather than someone who believes things that have been conclusively disproven. Religious people are in that way a lot like anyone else. They aren't as deluded as someone who can look at clear evidence and simply ignore it.

From that, here's the actual paper. Little methodology description, no significance testing, no indication of the number of participants or how they were selected. This has significantly diminished my belief in the proposition that power makes people more selfish in the cookie scenario. I still believe it is somewhat more likely to be true because of my priors, but this study didn't contribute much.

I wonder how successful attempts to replicate it have been. Couldn't find anything on that either.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvl46PmCfE

There is a fantasy series with this motif. It's called The Second Apocalypse, by R. Scott Bakker, and the first book is called the Prince of Nothing.

However, it's not that big of a deal if Amazon doesn't sell something. You just buy it somewhere else. I did not have any trouble acquiring a Chromecast when I wanted one, and I doubt anyone else did either. Using some kind of antitrust break-up to fix this would be like using a nuclear bomb to hammer in a nail. For a problem like this, a more targeted approach seems better, at least as an initial cut.

"Surprisingly few, it seems. According to a new review of studies related to running and health, jogging for as few as five or six miles per week could substantially improve someone’s health."

That's about an hour of running for most able bodied adults who have been making it a habit for three or four months. If you can't budget an hour a week for exercise, you're booking yourself too tight.

https://golang.org/doc/go1compat#operating_systems

I'm convinced that some amount of insider trading is going on. Just the other day I was in a sauna at a gym in midtown and walked in on some bankers discussing a deal they were working on and literally whether they ought to illegal trade on their insider knowledge. They kept on talking about it for a time while I was with them, and then said of me, "Better hope this guy's not from the SEC!" It was pretty blatant.

Now these kids were idiots, so maybe they wouldn't even be able to make a profit with insider knowledge. But if they're talking about it, I'm sure non-zero numbers of people are doing it.

I mean it's better than picking stocks yourself, but what isn't? As long as it's equally easy to choose a good option and a less good option, why not choose the one that's better?

Leaving aside the particulars of your own situation, I do want to comment on your assertion about the price of rent. $1,200 is maybe higher than we'd like, but it's still pretty low. It's manageable as long as you're making $30k per year or more. It doesn't seem crazy to me.

There's also the more option of getting roommates. In all of NYC there are just three units on Streeteasy going for less than $1,250. However, there are more than seven hundred two-bedroom units going for less than $2,500.