Ireland is such a useful tax haven that it's within all of our interests to protect it </kidding not kidding>
223 karma · joined September 29, 2018
Politically colored = an inclination of outlook
The thing is that he doesn't present any alternative. I know he's some variant of a communist, so does he suggest government control for everything? As if that solved anything? I guess what you find on empty market shelves is cheaper.
Truly a question - what's your solution? What's a solution? People have been arguing that everything is getting worse since forever. I've yet to see people organize and stop buying Pepsi or Coke. Should the government do it for them? Do you propose AI will solve the Socialist Calculation Problem? You're probably against AI as well...
[1] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/win_n1?tab=factsheet#14538168
They found a fabric in a royal tomb in Greece that fits the description of Alexander's famous sarapis. What is more likely - that this is Alexander's sarapis itself or that a very rich guy had one made just like it?
As for the second question - why is every generation of the left charmed by a different set of psychopathic terrorist groups?
For us rest-of-the-worlders - note that Peanut allergy is not an invention - there is a small minority of people with peanut allergies, even after exposure to peanuts as infants. However, there is a larger subset of people who developed peanut allergy in the US through full avoidance of peanuts, so that when later in life they came into contact with them, it started an IgE-mediated cascade (according to the model, on the second exposure to peanuts) that could've been avoided had their body been habituated to peanuts earlier in life.
The real thing to learn here is how suggestions become dogma in human society. "We don't know what's causing allergy, maybe just avoid it?" becomes "We [some formal group of pediatric allergologists] suggest to avoid peanuts" becomes "Our guideline is to avoid peanuts".
The point of Evidence-Based Medicine is exactly to avoid this, but note that this is the standard affairs in anything else in life. Iterative improvement is built on doing something until it stops working/starts harming and then doing something else. It's just magnified where human life is concerned - Military, Aviation, Medicine, etc.
Just like in Aviation - the best solution is process - to admit mistakes and force changes and improvements without knee-jerk opprobrium and litigation (here it's obvious that no medical association should suggest something extreme if there's no evidence for it one way or the other, duh) - but creating sensationalist headlines demonizing a group just makes sure that future mistakes will continue to be covered up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Gell-Mann_amn...
Or in short - the Yin and Yang of mathematics - sometimes you need the excellent dry theory and sometimes you need the more concrete but messy application, and in truth you will always vacillate between the two - this is the former.
We already know that women are more susceptible to auto-immune responses and that pregnancy is one of the reasons for that disparity between the sexes (carrying a foreign invader for 9 months plays with the expression of immunity genes in a manner that occasionally - rarely, at a population level - backfires.) And we know that the risk for an autoimmune "malfunction" rises with age. Thus there will obviously be random clusters of people, with more women who've given birth and and average age that skews older than, say, 30 - to which you unfortunately seem to belong - where there are more autoimmune responses than the average population.
What's funny is that in response to this post there are multiple posts each suggesting their own conspiracy. I wonder if this actually points to something, or it too is a just random noise.
At least in Judaism there is sizable chunk of believers who believe in God and that everything is God's will and thus there is no free will - Hashgachah Pratit - so at the very least only one direction of your argument could hold, though I don't understand why it's a coherent idea to begin with.
(also, which particular audience are you trying to insult with that categorical statement and why?)
As I see it, the US - the first place with a supposed egalitarian bent on the cosmopolitan society - created a system whereby people from all backgrounds and ethnicites could interact in the public sphere without tripping each other's emotional wires - that is the basis for Political Correctness. Keep your baggage at home, and out in the real world and in the market you can interact with everyone as equals (so, Mike Munger's "the answer is trasaction costs!").
The system worked pretty well for a time (fine, it's called the 90s). The problem is that the edifice kept on being built up, as more voices raised more touchy subjects that needed to be sanitized in public, enough that it began to bother people. I think that as alternative means of communication allowed people to more be "themselves" in the digital, if not real, public domain, the discrepancy between public discourse and private thought became more glaring.
Now, for every system, there are those who naturally like to uphold norms, and these are the ones you say are "virtue signalling" - I think they're just norm upholders. But for the rest of us, it takes only one euphemism that hits us the wrong way to get us questioning the whole over-built edifice. The fact that one political side arbitrarily took it up as a cause, of course, made the other side all the more dogmatic in its application.
So it will be eventually torn down and replaced by something identical and the cycle will continue anew. ~fin~
(everyone is more visual, though we have less aggregated data on how blind people use their visual cortex)
* Yes, I get that this is supposedly a preventive study - but if your metric for diabetes is blood glucose level, and you take a drug that lowers blood glucose level, it's not surprising that people on it are found to "fail" to reach the given threshold for diabetes on average