It doesn't matter too much IMO. Most people intuitively understand how object references work in modern programming languages, and these discussions don't add a lot to their knowledge.
125 karma · joined October 23, 2017
It doesn't matter too much IMO. Most people intuitively understand how object references work in modern programming languages, and these discussions don't add a lot to their knowledge.
The majority of lifestyle-oriented media is produced with an extrovert bias and we tend to define happiness in extrovert terms, but for those of us inclined towards introversion much of this advice would make us miserable.
Just admit that the marxist analysis doesn't hold much water in this case. That doesn't mean it is never useful, just that you might need to think a bit before applying it.
I don't disagree. A big part of the problem is the social sciences claiming the mantel of science (often just statistics layered over tiny samples, as you point out), in order to imply some sort of impartiality and precision on par with the hard (i.e. real) sciences.
Unfortunately, and I say this sincerely, I believe the ideological nature of the social sciences since the 60s has been responsible for a huge amount of uncritical acceptance of bad (false) work as well as preventing a lot of unpopular good (true) work. I don't know how to deal with that fact other than stating so forthrightly, which, unfortunately from the perspective of science, carries necessary ideological freight with it.
It's a nice story you've got there, but the reason there is a replication crisis in the softer sciences is not due to the evil capitalists of the marxist imagination. In fact, much of it is due to cultural marxist insistence on outcomes conforming to political correctness, as well as uncritical acceptance of politically conforming work. See the ongoing fight against the idea of a high genetic basis for adult IQ.
All of this is obvious enough: capitalists aren't interested in non-reproducable results unless it is obviating them from blame for a given externality. But that sort of research is a small fraction of overall research (and should absolutely be done by impartial third parties.)
irrelevant: there are no hard numbers for that and that's not the timeframe the article is discussing (since the 90s)
Our foreign policy is directed by people who do not care what the american people think.
Any analysis of American children that ignores demographics is silly. 44% of California children don't speak english at home. What on earth do you expect from these children if you test them in english proficiency?
I suppose one bright spot in this otherwise dismal time is that both the left and the right mostly agree that we shouldn't be dropping bombs on people.
There isn't really an argument for brutalism except laziness and the usual contempt the design community has for its end users. Minimalism has its place, as does maximalism, depending on the context within the application. But that requires actual thinking and then both taste and skill, respectively. Much easier to just wallow in contempt with occasional outbursts of sarcastic novelty, as architecture has done for the last sixty years.
Articles like this are encouraging the most intelligent and highly conscientious of us not to have children and, in the long run, will destroy the planet rather than save it.
The right attitude is one of stewardship: we have a sacred duty to preserve the planet and a sacred duty to produce intelligent, thoughtful children to enjoy that planet and to carry on our work.
The consensus amongst neurobiologists is that adult IQ is somewhere between 70-80% based on genetic factors. I invite you to read "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" by Richard Haier, and the many studies cited therein.
Comparing this scientific work with astrology is clownish, on par with young earth creationism.
Perhaps, rather than a fluency model and the associated billable consulting hours, there are simpler and less expensive explanations of the failure of Agile Inc.'s advice to software developers.
The problem is not "compounding returns", it is genetics and, to a lesser extent, culture.
Until this fact, which most educated people know but are terrified to say aloud, is admitted and reckoned with, no progress will be made. This will hurt non-asian minorities the most.
Or will this DNS service, like their DDoS service, be at the whim of their CEO?
the chans
Gidla says that proselytization didn't help her lot. "Christians, untouchables - it came to the same thing. All Christians in India were untouchable. I knew no Christian who did not turn servile in the presence of a Hindu."
Proselytization did help her a lot: it was the reason the christians were there in the first place.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/harper-reed-oba...
There are specific reasons that this is the case, but most people will not discuss it openly. Putnam sat on his results for years because it is simply not acceptable to discuss in polite society.
lol
Banks lend as much as they possibly can, and then a bit more, and then expect the taxpayers to pick up the pieces when it all falls apart.
The irony is that there need not be a reserve ratio: if we just adopted duration-matched banking, where a bank had to demonstrate it had ownership of a given dollar it was lending for the duration it loaned that dollar (e.g. via a CD) it would be fine.
This is the fundamental problem with banking, and I don't understand why no one talks about it. Banks are lying about having money they don't have (i.e. they are promising the same dollar to more than one person at the same time). If we forced them to just stop lying it would all work out, and there wouldn't be any need for a reserve ratio.
I would bet that we could agree on many social programs to help the poor. Where we probably disagree is on the amount that we think these programs would help fix the long term problem of poverty, and I might be more inclined to look to see if the program has dysgenic effects that would compound that long-term problem.
But, if we are serious about the problem, we need to be honest about the large genetic basis of adult intelligence and then figure out how to humanely encourage eugenic reproductive patterns (or at least discourage dysgenic ones) in the poor.
Contra what you say, people (really, the liberal elite consensi) seem very attached to the "anyone can do anything" approach, but, once you avoid the obvious stuff and give kids enough food, it is simply not the case: raw genetics is responsible for 50-80% of adult intelligence. This is not a popular position, despite the ample evidence, and will get you thrown out of most sociology departments today.
Educational institutions are, generally, an effect of high societal intelligence, rather than a cause.