Bryan's son, Tristan, offers a chart to help resolve this problem:
Another attempt to solve the problem comes from analyzing poll data:
Maybe there's a little chance to start using this language in a few more of our papers. But probably not.
Results show that humans have a comparable nutritional value to those faunal species that match our typical body weight, but significantly lower than a range of fauna often found in association with anthropogenically modified hominin remains.Author of the study stated,
“When you compare us to other animals, we’re not very nutritional at all,” says study author James Cole of the University of BrightonThis means,
... motivations behind hominin anthropophagy may not have been purely nutritionally motivated. It is proposed here that the comparatively low nutritional value of hominin cannibalism episodes support more socially or culturally driven narratives in the interpretation of Palaeolithic cannibalism.Early cannibalism wasn't a health thing, it was a social/cultural practice.
Factor I was labelled as Extroversion by the developers of the IPIP-BFFM. Factor I is sometimes given other names, such as Surgency or Positive Emotionality.
Individuals who score high on Factor I one are outgoing and social. Individuals who score low tend to be shut ins.
Factor II is labeled as Emotional Stability. Factor II is often referred to by other names, such as Neruoticism or Negative Emotionality (in these two cases interpretations are inverted, as Neruoticism and Negative Emotionality can be though of as the opposite of Emotional Stability).
Factor III is labeled as Agreeableness. A person high in agreeableness is friendly and optimistic. Low scorers are critical and aggressive.
Factor IV is labeled as Conscientiousness. Individuals who score high on this factor are careful and diligent. Low scorers are impulsive and disorganized
Factor V is labeled as Intellect/Imagination. This factor is also often called Openness to Experience.
People who score low tend to be traditional and conventional.
According to Canada’s Competition Act, it is illegal to “prevent or unduly lessen competition or to unreasonably enhance the price of a product.Unduly? Unreasonably? I'm just hoping that these are words are stand-ins for the economic textbook definitions, rather than some dude guessing what seems reasonable based on his intuitive judgement. "Hmm, I don't know, $1.75 for a loaf of bread just doesn't seem fair".
"So, I've seen this meme out there before and finally put in the effort to do a thorough debunking of it.
If you get your information from Reddit, you’re gonna have a bad time. It’s all cherry picked hyperbole.
So, off we go to the races.
“2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.”
- This is because the ISP was both a holdover telephone (a Title II classification) provider and an ISP (a consequence of ISPs being regional monopolies, which the NN Title II classification exacerbates). In total, 200 customers were affected, Vonage filed suit with the FCC, and a settlement was reached. End of story, no NN rules necessary.
“2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.”
- One can argue as to whether Comcast should have notified customers but 2005 was the height of p2p file sharing when media and music companies were on the backs of ISPs like horny monkeys to get them to stop people from “stealing” content. This was Comcast’s solution, perhaps ill guided, to the state created problem of IP. This is why you used to get emails from your ISP directly about complaints of pirating, because the IP holders kept looking at ISPs as facilitators and accomplices and threatened legal action if they didn’t do something to stop it. Luckily, with all the changes to media in the last few years, this practice has all but disappeared.
“2007-2009 AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn’t like there was competition for their cellphones.”
- This was a decision by Apple, not AT&T. The iPhone was just released in 2007 and you’ll notice there was not a version of Skype available on the Apple App Store for a long time. This was because Apple, not AT&T, was blocking it from being there and eventually allowed a Skype app there so long as it was wi-fi only (just like FaceTime would eventually be, more on that one in a bit).
“2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (Edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)”
- MetroPCS offered plans that explicitly stated they would block all streaming, so as to offer customers a bare bones data plan at a cheap rate. They sued the FCC because just before Christmas in 2010, the FCC passed Net Neutrality rules for mobile carriers restricting traffic discrimination. The FCC declared MetroPCS’s plans to be in violation (even though customers were able to choose full data plans) and MetroPCS sued the FCC because the FCC left a hole for “reasonable network management” to justify traffic blocking which is what MetroPCS claimed it was doing.
Verizon filed a joint suit with MetroPCS for the same reason. The verdict is at the bottom of this comment.
“2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. Edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace”
- That’s called competition, get over it. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality as it is about an APP, not about network traffic. To this day I don’t hear anybody bitching that Android Pay and Apple Pay are not available on the competing platform. I don’t hear anybody bitching about how Fox and CBS have exclusive NFL deals and how nobody else can air the NFL games without cable. These three companies were part of something called ISIS, which became known as Softcard (thanks to Middle East ISIS screwing up their name). Go figure…Softcard was shutdown March 31, 2015 and was replaced by Google Wallet (which became Android Pay) for all Android devices.
“2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn’t do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (Edit: they were fined $1.25 million over this)
- Correct, Verizon violated the terms of a contract they signed and they paid a fine for it. No Net Neutrality necessary (not to mention NN wouldn’t have stopped this since again this was a matter of manipulating the applications on the phone, not network traffic itself).
“2012 - AT&T tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.”
- Not true in the slightest. Up until June of 2012, Apple had restricted, via the application itself, FaceTime to WiFi only calling. In June 2012, Apple updated FaceTime to be able to use the wireless data network. Just one year prior, January of 2011, AT&T had lost their exclusivity of the iPhone but as a result of having that exclusivity for so many years still had more than 80% of iPhone users on their network. Their concern was that a flood of FaceTime users on their network would have unforeseeable consequences on network behavior, so they placed initial restrictions on FaceTime use on the data network. Specifically those restrictions were that if you had a capped data plan, you could use FaceTime (with the expectation that as someone with a capped plan, you will be conservative in your use of FaceTime compared with other apps that use data) and if you had an unlimited plan, you were still restricted to using FaceTime over WiFi only.
Over the next 6 months, AT&T was making changes and adapting to the traffic flow of FaceTime and in less than a year had opened FaceTime up on the data network to all users of all plans without any FCC interference.
“2013 - Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.”
- This stems from the case of Verizon v FCC where Verizon sued the FCC stating that the existing rules at the time applied only to Title II carriers and Verizon did not fall under that category.
“Verizon argued that the FCC’s order violated the company’s First Amendment right to free speech, claiming the company has the right to block, slow or prioritize content for a fee as it chooses. In response to a question from the judges about favoring some websites over others, Helgi Walker, Verizon’s lawyer, responded, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.””
The question is, are they wrong? Why should anyone get to tell a service provider what they will provide? We are back to “bake the cake” arguments. Should a newspaper be forced to publish every story, every advertisement that someone solicits them to publish? Should a book publisher not have the option to say “yes” or “no” to books of specific content?
The courts ultimately ruled in Verizon's favor."
- Sean Harcourt
We analyze these effects in the US separately for men and women using three different nationally representative longitudinal data sets that each link high school athletics participation with later-life outcomes. We do not find consistent evidence of individual benefits reported in many previous studies – once we have accounted for selection, high school athletes are no more likely to attend college, earn higher wages, or participate in the labor force. However, we do find that men (but not women) who participated in high school athletics are more likely to exercise regularly as adults. Nevertheless, athletes are no less likely to be obese.Maybe my gym membership was a result of the sports I played in school. Unfortunately, it seems my character was not.
in the first study, participants rated Fortune 500 companies in terms of how profitable they thought they were and how much they thought they engaged in bad business practices, such as operating at the expense of others with no concern for society. There was a clear pattern: the more profitable participants thought a company was, the more they assumed that it engaged in more bad business practices. In fact expert assessments of the firms shows the opposite pattern.In a way, this hardly needs to be studied. Want to know that profit is socially good? Pick up an economics textbook. Want to know that the public doesn't recognize this? Go outside. Talk to a person.
I think Trump’s election is a disaster. He has no plan, he’s dangerously trigger-happy, and his unilateralism threatens aid to developing countries, one of the most effective ways we currently help other people.I would add that Trump tends to personalize international conflict, he's anti-libertarian in all the wrong ways, he doesn't listen to economists on international trade, and his nationalism separates us from the rest of the world.
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.I looked at that quote at every angle trying to figure out how it's racist. The only thing I could come up with is that it mentions Mexico, and bad things like crime, and it's said by a Republican, therefore it must be racist! But then I read the words again... Nope, not racist at all.
Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.What makes it not racist is not the, "and some are good people, I guess" part. It's the, "Mexico is not sending their best" part. He's taking a subset of Mexicans, that is Mexicans that are coming here, and talking about them. It only makes sense to do that if you don't associate Mexicans with all those bad things.
Anybody can endorse anybody with or without their consent. Did you know that the head of the US Communist Party endorsed Hillary, and Hillary never (as far as I know) “renounced” their endorsement? Does that mean Hillary is a Communist? Did you know that a leader of a murderous black supremacist cult supported Donald Trump and Trump said that he “loved” him? Does that mean Trump is a black supremacist? The only time this weird “X endorsed Y, that means Y must support X” thing is brought out, is in favor of the media narrative painting Trump to be a racist.Silence would have been good enough. You can't disavow every radical hate group. But Trump clearly separated himself in every possible way from the KKK, racism, and David Duke
This gets back to my doubts about “dog whistles”. Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.
And then you have to imagine some of the most brilliant rhetoricians and persuaders in the world are calculating that it’s worth risking exposure this taboo belief in order to win support from a tiny group with five-digit membership whose support nobody wants, by sending a secret message, which inevitably every single media outlet in the world instantly picks up on and makes the focus of all their coverage for the rest of the election.Please read SlateStar's You're Still Crying Wolf for a whole lot more. It's one of his best.
For evolutionary biologists interested in homosexuality there is one big puzzle: That it exists at all, although it should not exist according to the basic assumptions of this discipline. Only such genetic dispositions that increase the reproductive success and the genetic fitness of their carriers can succeed in the evolutionary struggle for existence. But the need to have sex with members of ones own sex is not a good recipe for childbearing.In the past I attributed the homosexuality/evolution puzzle to gayness being a byproduct of heterosexual sex. Evolution gave us heterosexual sex for survival and it accidentally gave homosexual sex too. There are lots of byproducts of evolution that don't contribute to fitness, like perhaps music or language, though you can ask Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky about that.
"Homosexuality is practically a form of sterilization", says psychologist Qazi Rahman from Queens College in London.Byproducts need to be survival neutral. They can't be antithetical to survival.
These figures represent a major challenge for any genetic theory, because a genetic trait that reduces the reproductive success would be mercilessly eliminated by natural selection, explains psychologist Edward M. Miller of the University of New Orleans.
A study by US-researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard reached a clear conclusion: With identical twin brothers of homosexuals, the probability that they are gay too amounts to 52 percent, with fraternal twins it is 22, with adopted siblings 11 percent.
So can we estimate the proportion of genetic influence on homosexuality? Only to a degree. The estimates range from 31 to 74 percent heritability in men and 27-76 percent heritability in women...
Nevertheless, the geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute in 1993 made a splash with the message that he had identified a “gay gene” on the X-chromosome which is inherited from the mother. Of 40 pairs of homosexual brother, 33 had five common markers in a section of DNA called Xq28.Like almost everything, there is at least a genetic component to homosexuality.
says psychologist Edward M. Miller: If the genetic merit of being gay would be the fitness increase in relatives, homosexuals would be better off by being completely asexual, and not to assume the risks and costs of the homosexual lifestyle.But there's an alternative explanation:
A man who carries a small dose of gay genes in his genome would, according to the theory, improve his success in the heterosexual mating game. That “certain something” that heightens sex appeal probably consist exactly of those essentials which make homosexuals different from heterosexuals in the first place. According to his theory, the alleged "gay genes" equip men who carry the heterozygous disposition with an above-average degree of feminine traits such as sensitivity, gentleness and friendliness. Gay genes therefore form a natural antidote against "hypermasculine" genes that turn men into rough machos.In other words, a tad of gay increases attractiveness to women, and creates fewer infections and miscarriages, thereby increasing fitness. Enough to counteract the counter-fitness of a lot of gay that makes a full blown homosexual.
Statistics show that young Americans are indeed oblivious to communism’s harrowing past. According to a YouGov poll, only half of millennials believe that communism was a problem, and about a third believe that President George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who killed 20 million. If you ask millennials how many people communism killed, 75 percent will undershoot.-100 years 100 million lives
My bias is that at its most fundamental it's economics. I think when the economics of something gets irresistible or regulations go away or they get loosened, that's not always true you could argue that it didn't work out for nuclear...Zach writes the Webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, it's excellent. He's a very smart guy, and it showed in the interview.
There's this question you might ask, "why don't we have a colony on the moon?" for example. To an Astronomer this might be a tough question. To an economist its obvious, there's no reason to go to the moon.
With fewer toys, participants had fewer incidences of toy play, longer durations of toy play, and played with toys in a greater variety of ways.From Infant Behavior and Development
In the same way, although dog whistles do exist, the dog whistle narrative has gone so far that it’s become detached from any meaningful referent. It went from people saying racist things, to people saying things that implied they were racist, to people saying the kind of things that sound like things that could imply they are racist even though nobody believes that they are actually implying that. Saying things that sound like dog whistles has itself become the crime worthy of condemnation, with little interest in whether they imply anything about the speaker or not.
Against this narrative, I propose a different one – politicians’ beliefs and plans are best predicted by what they say their beliefs and plans are, or possibly what beliefs and plans they’ve supported in the past, or by anything other than treating their words as a secret code and trying to use them to infer that their real beliefs and plans are diametrically opposite the beliefs and plans they keep insisting that they hold and have practiced for their entire lives.
I believe that it’s condescending to think that women and their claims can’t stand up to interrogation and can’t handle skepticism. I believe that facts serve feminists far better than faith. That due process is better than mob rule.Agreed.
In this paper we estimate consumer benefits from supercenter entry and expansion into markets for food. We estimate a discrete choice model for household shopping choice of supercenters and traditional outlets for food. We have panel data for households so we can follow their shopping patterns over time and allow for a fixed effect in their shopping behavior. Most households shop at both supercenters and traditional outlets during the period. Given a model of shopping behavior we estimate the compensating variation of household from the presence of supercenters. We find the benefits to be substantial. Thus, while we do not estimate the costs to workers who may receive lower wages and benefits, we find the effects of supercenter entry and expansion to be sufficiently large so that overall we find it to be extremely unlikely that the expansion of supercenters does not confer a significant overall benefit to consumers...
Wal-Mart offers many identical food items at an average price about 15%-25% lower than traditional supermarkets...
We estimate the average effect of the total the compensating variation to be 25% of food expenditure, a sizeable estimate...
Since we find that lower income households tend to shop more at these low priced outlets and their compensating variation is higher from supercenters than higher income households, a significant decrease in consumer surplus arises from zoning regulations and pressure group tactics that restrict the entry and expansion of supercenters into particular geographic markets.From MIT's economics department of Agriculture
First, vouchers + taxes/subsidies let the rich and poor participate in the same system...
Second, vouchers + taxes/subsidies balance the government’s interest in preventing mis-alignment with poor people’s ability to control their own lives. If I love soda, and it’s the only good thing in my life right now, and I’ve thought long and hard about how unhealthy it is, but I’d rather improve my health some other way and stick with the soda – I can. I can buy soda (at slightly higher price) and compensate by cutting back on something else – maybe Twinkies. If I’m stuck going to the government cafeteria which only serves healthy foods, I’m out of luck.
Third, under vouchers + taxes/subsidies, everyone could eat in their own kitchen, with their own family, on their own time. Under a public option, rich people could eat in the privacy of their own home, but poor people would have to go to the centralized cafeteria.SlateStar provides examples of government subsidizing the least healthy foods (High fructose corn syrup and pizza) and restrict production of the healthy ones. He also provides examples of government spreading misinformation about a healthy diet.
Given our existing government, it shouldn’t be let within a light-year of getting to determine anybody’s diet.SlateStar then transitions into the public choice argument,
Because the whole “public food” argument hinges on a giant case of double standards.
Presented with evidence that corporations do bad things, it concludes that the inherent logic of capitalism demands badness.
Presented with evidence that governments do bad things, it concludes that if we just put some nice people in power, everything would go great.
Why is that? Could someone with the opposite bias propose that Coca-Cola Inc would be fine if it just got a socially responsible CEO? But that the inherent logic of government demands that people who focus on electoral demagoguery and bureaucratic empire-building will always outcompete the altruistic public servants?The best defense of the private sector is an attack on government. David Friedman would be proud.
Citation counts are one very common measure of how “important” a scholarly publication is. When others cite one’s work they are usually acknowledging its importance and drawing on its ideas. More citations, more influence and importance.
Now consider the storybook image of the scientist as someone who strives for objectivity. If it were true, studies of comparable scientific quality will be similarly influential, even if they produce different outcomes, because they both have comparable claims to reveal something true. But this is not the case. Papers in my home discipline of social psychology that can be used to craft narratives advancing social justice are generally cited far more than papers of equal or even higher scientific quality that contest those narratives. Here are two concrete examples.
When a paper finds stereotype bias, it gets nearly 1,000 citations but when a failed replication of that same study gets published, it gets 30.
When a paper reporting a single study finds evidence of bias against women in STEM it gets 600 citations; when another paper reporting five studies finds gender bias favoring women, it gets 70 citations.
See this paper for several other examples.
My politics still lean to the left, just not quite so far, and now I view economic and political systems with an engineer’s eye, rather than in the stark colours of moral outrage.This line really sold me. Understanding needs to come first, then change. Filtering the world through a logical, descriptive mindset before setting off on an activist crusade is the difference between adolescence and maturity.
There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism.This part demonstrates what a non-rant this article is. She's systemizing the problem, breaking it down like an engineer. But also speaking with flourish and power. It's what happens when you get English major and humanities types combined with strong analytics. Not art vs. science. Art and science.
Anti-intellectualism is a pill I swallowed, but it got caught in my throat, and that would eventually save me. It comes in a few forms. Activists in these circles often express disdain for theory because they take theoretical issues to be idle sudoku puzzles far removed from the real issues on the ground. This is what led one friend of mine to say, in anger and disbelief, “People’s lives aren’t some theoretical issue!” That same person also declared allegiance to a large number of theories about people’s lives, which reveals something important...
Anti-intellectualism also comes out in full force on the anti-oppressive side of things. It manifests itself in the view that knowledge not just about what oppression, is like, but also knowledge about all the ethical questions pertaining to oppression is accessible only through personal experience. The answers to these ethical questions are treated as a matter of private revelation.The church of left wing extremism parallels the church of right wing extremism. If we don't want Trump to get reelected, the liberal side need to strongly disassociate itself with these kinds of people. When voters think "liberal" a picture of angry, anti-intellectual social activist can't come to mind.
I think the currently circulating versions of the tax plan are unwise. They increase the deficit too much, don’t have the right kind of distributional consequences to prove stable, and they might eliminate the Obamacare mandate without a planned stabilizing replacement. Those and other more technical reasons are enough to bring at least parts of these proposed laws back to the drawing board.
But when the critics allege that corporate tax rate cuts won’t boost investment, that’s going against basic economics.
Critical thinking course that would be informed about what we know cognitive illusions, in order to inoculate people against the kind of illusions and errors that our unaided mind left to its own devices would make.That seems to be what LessWrong, Braindebugging, Rationally Speaking, Overcoming Bias, and the entire rationalist blogosphere are all about.
7. Mild discipline, mechanically enforced, deters bad behavior far more effectively than harsh discipline, arbitrarily enforcedI remember us moving a new shelf into our home. Our 2 year old almost immediately tried to pick it up and move it. Of course, he couldn't but he tried again. Eventually he gave up, which is unfortunate because it was funny watching this little guy try to lift a bookshelf 4 time taller than him.
9. Expressing anger at your children is counter-productive. It undermines your authority and gives wayward children hope of besting you.I've known a lot of parents who treat their anger like it is parenting. Getting angry is like the punishment. Well I hate to tell you, it's really lousy punishment. The child doesn't care that you're mad. They can get mad too. It's not a trump card for them and it's not a trump card for you.
21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.125(b)(3)(iii) make it a federal crime to sell uncooked chicken without a picture of a skillet on the label.— A Crime a Day (@CrimeADay) 30 October 2017
21 USC §333, 21 CFR §139.140 & 139.110(c) make it a federal crime to sell wheat and soy spaghetti if it's not tube-shaped or cord-shaped.— A Crime a Day (@CrimeADay) 15 October 2017
21 USC §§610, 676 & 9 CFR §319.307 make it a federal crime to sell "spaghetti sauce with meat" if it's less than 6% meat.— A Crime a Day (@CrimeADay) 12 September 2017
Personally, I strongly favor blaming Republicans. I think 80% of the blame heaped on Republicans is justified. What mystifies me, however, is the view that Republicans are somehow uniquely blameworthy. If you can blame Republicans for lying about WMDs, why can't you blame alcoholics for lying to their families about their drinking? If you can blame Republican leaders for supporting bad policies because they don't feel like searching for another job, why can't you blame able-bodied people on disability because they don't feel like searching for another job?
First I believe something is true, and say so. Then I realize it’s considered low-status and cringeworthy. Then I make a principled decision to avoid saying it – or say it only in a very careful way – in order to protect my reputation and ability to participate in society. Then when other people say it, I start looking down on them for being bad at public relations. Then I start looking down on them just for being low-status or cringeworthy. Finally the idea of “low-status” and “bad and wrong” have merged so fully in my mind that the idea seems terrible and ridiculous to me, and I only remember it’s true if I force myself to explicitly consider the question.He makes reference to Chesterton's Fence, which Wiki describes as,
the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.