learnstats2

The stated purpose of the WCAG accessibility guidelines is that disabled people should be able to access the same content.

If you can read the negative voted comment, but another person can't, then it is not a "legitimate" violation. Why is it right that some disabled people shouldn't have access to that content?

"Don't break the chain" is the absolute worst system for me to form a habit.

As soon as the chain is broken, I'm never going to pick it up again.

So your claim (in response to my point) is that young Asian women who might create content on TikTok want to be fetishised? I don't think so.

This is why TikTok's algorithm is better than YouTube's, in my opinion.

YouTube takes the content you have seen and explicitly shown that you like, and shows you a more extreme version of it. It tends to over-recommend alt-right YouTube, for example.

TikTok takes the content you have seen and implicitly shown that you like, and shows you diverse content that has some of the features you seemed to enjoy, while it learns from that.

If you are looking to fetishise young Asian women, then maybe you are on the wrong type of website (and: maybe you shouldn't do this).

Is it a bug in the algorithm, or a feature of it? If I'm a young Asian woman creator, I also have an interest in whether the algorithm is fetishising my work.

From the article: "I doubt anyone in tech will find the description [of the algorithm] anything but obvious."

But TikTok is definitely special in this regard.

If you actually use TikTok for any length of time, you can see how remarkable it is. It learns extremely quickly what you want to see (and what you don't want to see), and provides it accurately and in apparently infinite quantity.

Disagree.

As far as greener technology has been driven by incentives from democratic nations, the 50% have much more influence.

Tesla (let's say) is not dependent on the wealth of billionaires: it is dependent on billions from government grants, some of which end up in the billionaires' pockets.

Considered carefully, heart rate data measures your tiredness (probably even better: how quickly it returns to baseline).

For pro athletes, comparing heart rate data to the player's typical patterns could tell you how hard they are being pushed and potentially give a very good indicator of who was going to win.

I'm not sure why this would be discriminatory (in law or otherwise) for engineers and not for doctors.

Maybe the difference is that (computer-based) engineers are expected to do unethical work in some situations and for some employers, and there is an unwritten code that they can pass the buck and won't be penalised just for "doing their jobs".

How would it be illegal?

Doctors are often required to attest their ethics before doing a job.

The article describes someone exploiting an unfair advantage and then says they are "worse off" when they are situationally forced to stop that exploitation.

This is a horrible perspective. Exploiting another person's need to survive in order to gain unlimited labour is akin to slavery.

Serious question: Is there an ethics course for popular economics?

What do you use Pringles cans for that makes them so useful: say you were buying one per week?

I imagine that a knighted professor at Imperial can comfortably access a mortgage in London, so I doubt this applied to Martin Hairer.

But, post-graduates in London (if they have no other source of support) do tend to have a difficult lifestyle. Not recommended.

I find it human-exceptionalising when we say that non-human animals can't have a concept of number.

Why wouldn't they? In evolutionary terms, we followed the same path to get here.

I think it's very naive to think a local militia system of government would work like the game Top Trumps.

You'd still have a bunch of people thinking you are a jerk - the reason your life might quickly become horrible is because you've been a jerk to pretty much everyone by claiming that you need to rule them by force.

I'd argue this shows that you are responding to the punishment, and have complete disregard for the authority (since you don't care to obey the rule when punishment is unlikely).

"Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it" (and similar) is a very common aphorism.

It's not an unreasonable position to take that we should dismantle these power structures (having extreme wealth or extreme political power), and it's not unreasonable to be cautious of those who seek to maintain those.

Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.

Right - 17 year olds are unlikely to have enough experience of business or negotiation to know (for example) what conventions protect themselves from exploitation.

But, on the other hand, can learn that as quickly as anyone else.

If your stated intent is to take advantage of systemic sexism and racism, then yes, you're most clearly being sexist and racist.

So it was a racist and sexist point, aiming to use the misery of other people to enrich yourself (or, just for fun).

So was your point not that you could "fuck over" Arab men by oppressing Arab women?

I find it informative that you want to fuck "him" over with intentional planning for the continued oppression of women.

If you read that "accessibility" is only helpful to specific groups, then you haven't understood accessibility.

(I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you here)

Does this headline have a third derivative? Completely misleading.

We've seen that the economy can take a ~30% shock to the headline figures - I'd guess that we would have formerly agreed that was to be considered "destroyed"... and in truth people haven't risked going hungry (any more than they were at risk before).

Political welfare decisions are protecting people (or not) more than capitalist incentives are.

Perhaps it depends what you mean by 'productive'.

There is less incentive for people to survive financially by doing unethical work on behalf of powerful and wealthy people, OK, we can agree on that.

But, is (for example) cooking and cleaning and caring for others 'productive'? We don't see that in macroeconomic figures, so it doesn't count - but most people do a huge amount of that without being motivated by pay.

My understanding of the world is that most people are even more motivated to do things for others that don't bring a financial reward.

>the participants are usually aware/suspect that this bonus income probably won't last forever

If a country fully implemented permanent UBI today, all of this would still be true. Controversial political decisions are likely to face constant challenge, and this especially applies to those decision which do not benefit the most powerful.

Being critical of this as an imperfect experiment is an odd take to me. This is what reality looks like. Having a real-world test like this is an important stage of the process of implementing UBI.

Yep - if you want people to focus on what you actually wrote, don't do this. I couldn't get past the title.

Or target the neighbours with video doorbell advertising.

I understand that people generally mean 'null results' here, by your definition, when they say 'null results'. That's the intent.

Null results are also important.

Suppression of null results allows for p-hacking and confirmation biases to creep into research, and greatly reduces the power of literature reviews.