ryanmonroe

" In one study, participants who read that an artist was strongly passionate about his job said it was more legitimate for the boss to exploit the artist than those who read the artist wasn’t as passionate."

If you know someone who loves painting and a mural needs to be painted on Saturday, is it really crazy to think it's less bad to ask them to paint the mural than it would be to ask someone who has no passion for it at all? The question is not "Would you prefer a world in which we ignored the differences in passion and decided to never exploit anyone at all?", the questions is "Which is worse?". It does not say anything at all about whether people think these things are OK. If I tell you killing one person is less bad than killing two, that doesn’t mean I think killing people is OK.

"Participants read about a Ph.D. student’s working relationship with their graduate advisor. Those who read a scenario in which the student was being exploited – verbally abused and given unreasonable deadlines – rated the student as likely to be more passionate than students who weren’t being exploited."

Isn't that true though? If there's an identical distribution of passion across advisors at the start of the program and passion is negatively correlated with deciding to drop out in response to an exploitative advisor, people with exploitative advisors are therefore likely to be (although may not individually be) more passionate. It's essentially just asking if passionate people are more likely to continue towards a goal even in an exploitative environment, and has nothing to do with whether that is a good thing.

Ctrl-C also works

The idea that parking exists primarily to increase the revenue of business owners seems pretty bleak.

Forgive my ignorance, but are you saying you use A[(i-1)×m+j] to get the element in the i-th row and j-th column? Why not use A[i, j]?

> Have different standards for awarding doctorates based on race?

This is not at all what the article is saying. The article argues the low percentage is partially due to a "leaky pipeline" where black students don't have access to the same educational resources, and partially due to an unwelcoming atmosphere. The "So what?", if there is one given, is that we should address those issues, and the only example they give of how to do this is voluntarily setting up and participating in organizations for minorities. Implying the article as asking for lowered standards for black people is a mischaracterization.

I wouldn't even look at the article as an argument for any particular educational policy though. To me it seems like the article is light on the "So?", because its main aim is just to convey what's in the title: "What It's Like to Be a Black Mathematician". If the content of the article just boils down to "it's kinda shitty", it would still be worthwhile and convey valuable information we should care about, even if the implications are left to the reader.

One difference is that Blind requires you to verify your account through your work email address. So users of Blind's Facebook section are presumably Facebook employees, while (most) 4chan users are not.

Better yet, stop checking for "real" names. If I use something as a name of Facebook, it's because that's what I want to go by. What does it matter what's on my birth certificate?

When you say "This isn't going to do much but ..." in response to an article about a specific policy proposal, and don't say what you mean by "this", the common-sense interpretation is that you're referring to the policy proposal in the article, not some other policy you think is likely to be enacted as a result.

f you have one set with 5 elements and another with 10, the set difference cannot have 13 elements.

-------

In anticipation of some possible technical replies, let me be more explicit:

It isn't a set difference, no matter how you view it.

Viewpoint 1: The original lists of objects are not actually sets because the elements are not distinct. From this viewpoint, it isn't a set difference because they aren't even sets to begin with.

Viewpoint 2: There is an implicit "row number" feature of each object so in that sense the objects are distinct and do form sets. From this viewpoint, it still isn't a set difference. If you have one set with 5 elements and another with 10, the set difference cannot have 13 elements.

The fact that I don't use "on" is just syntax, it doesn't change the query. The following query is equivalent.

    select tbl_1.A 
    from tbl_1 
    left join tbl_2 
      on tbl_1.A = tbl_2.A

I don't think this is a special complex example. It's about as simple as you can get.

The author is arguing for a mental model in which all joins are just cross joins with a filter added, and that Venn Diagrams are a bad representation because they depict set differences, which is not what SQL joins are.

Say tbl_1 has 5 rows, and column "A" is the numbers 1 to 5. Then tbl_2 has the numbers 1 and 2, each repeated 5 times. Now how many rows are in the result of the query below?

    select tbl_1.A from tbl_1 left join tbl_2 using(A)

The fact that the result has 13 rows (more rows than either of the tables!) seems like it would be pretty surprising to someone using the left-join venn diagram as a mental model. The Venn diagram depicts a left-join as a set difference, which it clearly is not.

Because news papers and magazines review all their content by hand (and usually make that content themselves). The comparison you're making is like seeing a weekly neighborhood get together where everyone joins in except the black family which is excluded and saying "Well what about all the other private homes that black people never enter?". Those other homes aren't having a neighborhood get together, it's a different thing.

> denial of the holocaust

This is a good example of something that is, without a doubt, unconstitutional to ban in the US.

If you prefer not to have solutions, pretend you don't have solutions. Having solutions is strictly better (for the reader. I'm ignoring the cost of producing them to begin with)

Asking that question and then implying in the comments that the wording doesn't lead people to a specific conclusion is exactly the type of "bad faith" action this post purports to be against. Well, either that or the author is just very biased and very oblivious. Either way, it gives some insight into what he means by "infer indirectly from my neutral analytical text that I promote the most extreme views imaginable"

So it sounds like your complaint is not that they are being misleading, but that they made factually incorrect statements. Do you have any reason to believe that statement is incorrect other than "I find it highly unlikely"?

I'm not sure why you think there must be some sinister motive here. The comment chain was

P1: Does this violate some California law by deciding who can attend based on sex?

P2: The third member of your team may be any gender

P3: It's still discrimination based on sex

It seems pretty clear to me the "motivation" for the comment was to respond to P2's implication that this isn't discrimination.

You clearly don't actually "want to know what the motivations for it are", but to attribute motives to the commenter yourself.

> I think, if you're honest with yourself, you'll realise that your goal isn't really to help or support anyone, or to end gender inequality, but instead to take the opportunity to engage in a little bit of reflexive and unhelpful "look how much men are discriminated against" complaining.

What they said was that "This is clear discrimination against men", which is true. The program discriminates against men. You might think that's a good thing, but if you do you should argue that. Responding to a statement of fact with accusations about the motives behind the statement doesn't do any good.

This statement

> The BART police are afraid of being falsely accused even when they are in the right, because of the legacy of the Oscar Grant case

is not accurately summarized by this statement?

> Law-abiding people are afraid of being falsely accused, because of the fact that a true criminal was convicted

What part is incorrect?

This implies it's rational to fear for your freedom as a law-abiding person on the basis that a true criminal was convicted. That makes no sense. By that logic we should be against letting police arrest these robbers anyway, because if they did, all of the non-criminal commuters would refuse to enter BART for fear of being charged with robbery.

> I'm talking about when someone decides not to confront potential criminals because they might get sent to prison for killing someone when they accidently usetheir pistol instead of a taser.

I mean, same idea. If a police officer is not confident they can dependably discern the difference between a gun and a taser, BART is definitely safer without them.

For all of the protests against police shootings / killings I know of, the protests were due to the fact that the criminal was unarmed and didn't actually pose a threat. Is there really a large political movement against shooting armed criminals?

If someone decides not to be a police officer because they aren't allowed to shoot unarmed civilians in the back while they're being held face down on the ground, BART is safer without them.

I don't believe there is this large "criminal apologist" political force as you say there is. On the example you gave of a decision to hold back police force at an Antifa counterprotest, the police chief gave this explanation: "If police had deployed tear gas, they could have dispersed the black bloc, but they also would have gassed hundreds of peaceful protesters – including seniors and children – who had marched over from a “Say No to Hate” rally at nearby Ohlone Park." So they were concerned about injuring civilians, and moved in after all the non-criminals fleed, arresting 13 people.

But even if there was this political motive to allow leftists to break laws with impunity, that has nothing to do with this story. This story is about run-of-the-mill robberies. Antifa doesn't run around robbing random people, and I don't think you'll find any influential bay-area politicians arguing against arresting people for robbery.

I don't see it. Crime is up on the subway, so you think this is part of a politically motivated strategy to "[hold] back the police force from doing their jobs"? The article says they have a lot of vacancies. Maybe they can't find people who want the job? Maybe their budget for policeman salaries doesn't fare well compared to the area housing prices? I could think of quite a few possible reasons for a rise in crime before getting to the idea that this must be some leftist plot to help the criminals.

A track record of holding police back from political protests isn't relevant. There's no political group supporting these robbers.

How is this story related to these political movements you're describing? The events in the article seem like the usual robberies, unrelated to any political cause.

> You think other nations actually buy into peaceful globalism?

I hope you didn't use the word "other" to imply the US has a policy of "peaceful globalism". That would be wrong.

I really don't like the fact that any argument or concern perceived to be outside a commonly-held value system is usually shut-down by some meta-argument about the strategy being wrong, without even a chance of being evaluated on its merits. I mean, if you're right and no one will bother to listen to these concerns then you shouldn't have to say anything at all, just let it be ignored. If you have a specific better way of communicating these concerns then do that. But the discussion about any given issue often ends up being primarily about how the issue will be perceived, and everyone's perception of the subject is then colored by what commentators think people will think about it, leaving no room for actually discussing the issue honestly and trusting that people are generally smart enough to take in both sides and make their own decision, not because one side had better strategy, but because they heard someone actually discussing the issue and not some meta-concern about how the issue should be discussed. Yes I realize the irony in this comment.

If nothing else, MKBHD reviews are 10 minutes of 4k video showing the phone from every angle

It would help if you said explicitly what language you think is better in this respect. Having Data Frames in Python at all requires importing Pandas afaik, so criticizing R for requiring an extra data-manipulation package wouldn't make sense from a Python perspective.