jfager

It's also odd to simultaneously state that women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, but it's somehow damaging to present them with another choice they can decide on. Why, exactly, do we need to protect women against the awful specter of another option in life?

I already showed the probability that we would receive the message the way we did, assuming we're sampling fathers with two children, and its pretty low. If we drop the sampling assumption, it would go even lower. But that's irrelevant to the actual question, because we've already won that lottery. I've also shown the probability that we would get the statement we got given that the father had at least one son born on a Tuesday, but again, we already won that lottery.

If you still insist, can you please stop talking in hand-wavy fake math and show some actual concrete numbers? To start, if each of the 27 possibilities are not equally likely, what are the actual probabilities and why?

    N = Total number of ways to have 2 children over 7 days = 14^2 = 196
    B = Two sons born on Tuesday.
    O = Exactly one son born on Tuesday.
    A = At least one son born on Tuesday. 
    T = Two sons.
    S = The statement.

    P(B) = 1/N = 1/196 = 0.005
    P(O) = 26/N = 26/196 = 0.133
    P(A) = P(B) + P(O) = 27/N = 27/196 = 0.138 

    P(S|O) = .5  
    P(S|B) = 1  

    P(S) = P(S|B)P(B) + P(S|O)P(O) = 1.0 * 0.005 + 0.5 * 0.133 = 0.0715 

    P(B|S) = 1/27 = 0.037
    P(O|S) = 26/27 = 0.963
    P(A|S) = 27/27 = 1.0
    P(T|S) = 13/27 = .481 

    P(S|A) = P(S|B)P(B|A) + P(S|O)P(O|A) = 1.0 * 0.037 + 0.5 * 0.963 = 0.519

    1BT 2BM    1BM 2BT
    1BT 2BT    1BT 2BT <-- Counted twice
    1BT 2BW    1BW 2BT
    1BT 2BR    1BR 2BT
    1BT 2BF    1BF 2BT
    1BT 2BS    1BS 2BT
    1BT 2BU    1BU 2BT
    1BT 2GM    1GM 2BT
    1BT 2GT    1GT 2BT
    1BT 2GW    1GW 2BT
    1BT 2GR    1GR 2BT
    1BT 2GF    1GF 2BT
    1BT 2GS    1GS 2BT
    1BT 2GU    1GU 2BT

http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/KeyboardMacrosTricks

From there:

    If you want to produce this list:

    test1
    test2
    test3
    ...

    Do like this:

    C-x r n q           (store the number 1 in register q)
    C-x (               (start macro recording)
    test C-x r i q      (insert contents of register q)
    C-x r + q           (increment register q by 1)
    RET                 (new line)
    C-x )               (stop macro recording)

If so, then yes, we hopelessly disagree.

If not, then you're agreeing that wealth can accumulate to some people who don't create value and/or can fail to accumulate to some people who do. I'd hope you would also agree that that's a problem, and that we'd be better off if we figured out how to fix it?

The best you could ever hope to do is "CEO candidates with this kind of background tend to have this kind of record when taking over this kind of company", which I'm sure is quite an illuminating sample.

Other than pure envy, it's hard to see how I could somehow be made worse off if Bill Gates' income suddenly doubled, but everything else remained the same.

Nobody reasonable begrudges anyone who is wealthy for creating commensurate value. The issue is with wealth that accumulates to those who don't, like CEOs who run their companies into the ground or bankers who crash the entire economy.

If you're creating value, the wealth society has given you is probably a bargain for society; if you're not, it's an inefficient allocation of resources, a symptom of a systemic fault that hurts everyone else.

It's actually rather more worrying if what they're giving their children is a strong education and an absolutely ferocious work ethic. An aristocracy that simply bequeaths money and social position to its children will eventually fall. And aristocracy that bequeaths the actual skills required to earn more money than everyone else is self perpetuating.

Strong education + ferocious work ethic + skills to earn money seems like a weird definition of meritocracy to me, especially given that later in the article we acknowledge that this combo doesn't actually seem to be getting good results. A strong education does not necessarily imply you know how to apply it, and there's certainly a long history of people without that advantage succeeding. The dirty secret of working long hours is that much of it is either for show or spent doing shit work. And the 'actual skills' in question are still very frequently having the right connections.

Don't tell me it got hostage to the wrong ideology--tell me why all those professors we paid millions of dollars to study economics couldn't provide a convincing rebuttal to that ideology in advance of the crash. Don't tell me that regulators were stupid or bankers got greedy until you first explain to me why tens of thousands of very well educated people, most of them graduates of colleges and professional schools that had aggressively winnowed them based on intelligence, barely outperformed a bunch of upstart micks, third-generation coupon-clipping WASP dimwits, and central bankers who still worshipped the barbarous relic of the gold standard?

I... what?

https://github.com/rkapsi/patricia-trie https://github.com/jfager/functional-critbit

The latter is my own, with a focus on memory efficiency (by my benchmarks, it uses about 40% less space than patricia-trie for the same data set). Would love to get some extra eyes on it to figure out how to trim it further or speed it up.

Advances in ocean-faring ships led to colonialism. Train travel led to a rapid westward expansion of the United States. New farms get established, and new towns crop up to serve them, needing homes and markets to be built, a local newspaper, a local grocer, a local bank, eventually local radio and television stations. Similar basic economic structures get replicated in many diverse geographic locations. Once one place gets saturated, people move and start up another franchise of the town model.

Skipping ahead fifty years or so, the web means I don't have as great a need for the local bookstore, the local newspaper, the local television or radio station, the local bank, etc. There are plenty of businesses that I still need locally, but they in turn don't have as great a need for the local advertising agency, the local newspaper's classifieds section, the local accountant, the local lawyer, the local travel agent - assuming there's still a local owner, with a local HR department, local management structure, etc.

Of the startups you see, how many are going to end up with a business whose operations need to be replicated in many geographic locations? How many are ever going to be more than an office in the Valley or NYC and maybe a few sales outposts? How many pitches are you getting that require large marginal outlays on labor in order to scale, and how would that requirement affect your investment decision?

This statement makes no sense. Associating sex with non-sexual things is the definition of sexualization.

And I know why advertisers do it, it's not rocket surgery to figure it out. Their motivation doesn't change the fact that the action itself objectifies and degrades women (and to a lesser extent, men).

Watch an advertiser sell SUVs to women: they have a big, hulking, strong look and are advertised as serving and protecting the kids. That is the masculine face of advertising.

You quote me stating that men are sexualized, and respond by explaining how men are sexualized? What's your point?

Which is absurd. As others have pointed out, if even 10% or 1% of men behave this way, it creates a hostile environment. If 1 out of every 100 random people you encounter punch you in the arm, you wouldn't think of arm-punching as an unfortunate part of the culture? (If you don't like getting punched in the arm, maybe you shouldn't go out wearing those kinds of sleeves.)

And objectification is not limited to inappropriate behavior in bars and the like. Constant sexualization and stereotyping in advertising and other media create social expectations that many people aren't comfortable with. Yes, men are sexualized as well, but not to anywhere near the same degree, and usually in a different way (for instance, it's still pretty rare to be confronted with sexualized images of men that suggest submissiveness or vulnerability, but those characteristics are very common in images of women).