VCs might like to know they likely have a blind spot when it comes to good investments. They might also like knowing that their fellow investors likely are undervaluing some companies based on entirely illogical criteria. As TFS notes, performance wise outside of VC funding, there's no difference. There are probably VCs who are only interested in investing in companies run by dudes, but I'm guessing there are probably some VCs who are more interested in making money than maintaining a gender imbalance.
If VCs don't care about making wise decisions with their money, they can. Looks to me like no one is suggesting otherwise. I don't think anyone is suggesting they shouldn't be able to put their balls in a blender either. It's their genitals and they can do with them what they want. Definitely.
Yes, like I said, There would still be bias, as families who were convinced their loved ones were suffering from brain damage would be more likely to say yes to being in the study. But that's likely NOT NEARLY as big a bias as what GP is suggesting.
Put another way, if researchers approached the family of a deceased individual and asked "can we cut their brain out now, within 72 hours of death, so you'll have to have a closed casket," many people would say no. They'd be more likely to say yes if they thought something was going on weird with the deceased person's brain.
GP was suggesting though the researchers said "Hey, we're looking for brains to study CTE," and then were surprised to find CTE. That's not the case at all.
The journal article itself can be found online, open access here.
The methods section (emphasis mine)
Study Recruitment
In 2008, as a collaboration among the VA Boston Healthcare System, Bedford VA, Boston University (BU) School of Medicine, and Sports Legacy Institute (now the Concussion Legacy Foundation [CLF]), a brain bank was created to better understand the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma experienced through contact sport participation and military-related exposure. The purpose of the brain bank was to comprehensively examine the neuropathology and clinical presentation of brain donors considered at risk of development of CTE. The institutional review board at Boston University Medical Campus approved all research activities. The next of kin or legally authorized representative of each brain donor provided written informed consent. No stipend for participation was provided. Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life. Playing American football was sufficient for inclusion. Because of limited resources, more strict inclusion criteria were implemented in 2014 and required that football players who died after age 35 years have at least 2 years of college-level play. Donors were excluded if postmortem interval exceeded 72 hours or if fixed tissue fragments representing less than half the total brain volume were received (eFigure in the Supplement).
It sounds like they selected from donated cadavers for people who had played football. This is quite different from football players who suspected they had brain damage from football donating their brains. There would still be bias, as families who were convinced their loved ones were suffering from brain damage would be more likely to say yes to being in the study. But that's likely NOT NEARLY as big a bias as what GP is suggesting.
Sure, less populated states back in the day had their covers for why it shouldn't be an outright democracy. It was still a hostage negotiation back then, not the best idea, and either way, it's completely broken now that it gave us president Trump.
I understand the excuses for it. It was in reality passed for political purposes, not for any higher philosophy. And, it's still saying "Your vote gets counted for less" to the majority of the population. Which is inherently anti-democratic.
On top of that, as of late, the rednecks with the outsized voices are proving themselves incompetent at making rational decisions, staying informed of the issues, getting educated, and not hating the majority of the country.
If you're spouting that nonsense about people shouldn't be ruled by cities as theory, that's goofy.
If you're saying it was right that in this past election that idiots in southern and flyover states outweighed New York and the majority of voters who recognized Trump is a national security disaster, then you're simply insane.
My sarcastic response is "tantrums and rioting?" I need to tone down the rhetoric? I'm the triggered one?
At least that's how it seems from over here on the right.
Sir, from here at the left of center, it's pretty clear that the left wing jumping off a bridge, instead of setting ourselves on fire, would meet with right wing disproval.
The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them.
Wait... wait... a political party... trying to get... people... to vote... FOR... THEM?
HOLDTHEFUCKINGPHONEOMGWTFBBQIJUSTSHITMYPANTS!!!!!
You've done it. I've soiled my pants and my heart has stopped and I ruptured my vocal cords screaming in shock at this upsetting insight. I'm literally dead and covered with feces. That's what the shock of what you just said has done to me. You need to introduce things slowly, you can't just drop "Political parties in democracies seek to get votes" on us like that.
They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle.
No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.
"How about we don't let huge corporations rule the country" maybe could be considered for the middle, but personally I think the average voter is far too stupid for that to catch on, so I'm almost more convinced it's just because it's a smart idea.
We have antitrust laws right now, but that's like saying "We have antibiotics right now, what do we need to develop new ones for?" We need new antitrust laws because banks, telecoms, and media companies are still getting too big and powerful compared to real citizens.
Worth pointing out to those Americans who seem to forget every time something good happens to the UK economy: Brexit has not happened yet. Lets discuss unemployment in the UK at the end of 2019 and see if everything is still so good it's a problem.
I have no idea if it will be, I'm not an economist. My main interest in Brexit was schadenfreude, and that only lasted a few months...
I'm sorry, I think we may have misunderstood each other. I think tax cuts are the last thing the US needs right now, tax cuts are a national security threat given how they've worked to increase the power of the wealthy and threaten to destabilize the middle class.
I thought you were going to try to tell me if we cut taxes, all those other things you mentioned would magically happen. That's what I was saying no to. Tax cuts solve the "problem" of the government being able to fund vital services and also the "problem" of social mobility and that's about it.
I think now you were assuming I was in favor of tax cuts. I was saying Trump and republicans want attention drawn away from the tax cuts they're trying to pass because everyone outside a few wealthy people should be protesting the tax cuts about as much as they're protesting the heathcare cuts.
But the fact is the majority of Americans _want_ the government to take a larger role in improving their lives. Trump played to that and the media played along and let him talk out of both sides of his mouth. Make no mistake, the Dems lost because they tried to have their cake (big money donations) and eat it to (populist left)
Those are good points, but I'd say you're missing the glue that holds it together is that the voters were stupid. Hillary came up with concrete, detailed plans that would help the populace. The voters ignored such boring things and voted for vague unrealistic one-line promises, first in the form of Obama, then almost in the form of Sanders, finally in the form of Trump.
I didn't hear much about big money donations, though maybe that was just because of the sheer volume of Trump related nonsense.
how would you respond to a tax cut on businesses and the wealthy if it also came with a remediation of the welfare system, strengthening of the middle-class
Gonna cut you off there.
No.
You're formulating a response. Before you get too far into it, lemme cut you off again.
If it were a plot, it would probably be Bannon coming up with it. And Trump doesn't need to do anything except mention he's super duper upset with sessions in an interview. This doesn't require much skill on the part of the puppet.
Against my theory, what would the motive be? There's little point to such distractions. Republicans might not come right out and say "We will not impeach Trump no matter what he said to the Russians" but he's clearly above the law with the current religious zealot support of the far right and congress. If the media isn't distracted by it and focuses on Russia... so what? Until tapes reveal he kissed a dude while in the oval office, he's not going anywhere.
At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions,
I'm not convinced that's a real thing. Sessions is part of Trump's core appeal to people who still think law and order are on the brink of breaking down, with drug-addled black lives matters activists plotting to murder us all.
The part of the right wing that hasn't completely abandoned reality recognizes crime is at a 50 year low., but there's a big contingent that doesn't believe evidence is important when dealing with crime.
Without Sessions focusing the right wing's fear onto the usual target of black men who use drugs, it might be tough to keep them distracted from questions about crimes inside the white house. Trump could easily be dumb enough to not realize that, but I have to think whoever of his allies he listens to realize it. That line in the interview was just part of the usual stream of consciousness coming out of the POTUS' mouth. He likely forgot he said it a minute later.
Furthermore, I'm skeptical how much Sessions actually recused himself. I have no proof he was or is meddling with the investigation, but why would we just assume anyone in the administration has done behind closed doors what they said they would? For that matter, even a more respectable administration, why would we just take their word for it?
Until Trump gets impeached and Sessions carries out whatever role he is supposed to play in the process, I'm going to remain convinced this whole "Trump and sessions breakup!?!?" is just another plan to distract attention from Russia, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the health care repeal.
Given how unreliable witnesses are compared to actual documented evidence, and given that the company in question is likely to attack the credibility of the witnesses based on the fact that "they said mean things about their former coworkers anonymously like the KKK!", why is the government so insistent on this?
These prosecutors act like spoiled children.
"You can't go into that door" "I DEMAND TO BE LET INTO THAT DOOR!!!"
"There's nothing in there! And if you open it, you'll let the dog out and I'll have to chase it down the street!
"NOWNOWNOWNOW!!!"
The new requirements include enhanced passenger screening at foreign airports, increased security protocols around aircraft and in passenger areas and expanded canine screening.
Still sounds like security theater. Measures which have no tested effect against non-existent threats.
Were there bombs that dogs could sniff out being loaded onto planes in the form of laptops? Because if not, guess what, it has as much effect as my magic rock that keeps away tigers.
Trump's temporary ban on immigration from certain muslim countries is controversial because it isn't based on specific intel.
Christians from those areas were exempt, and the people pushing the proposal were straight up calling it a muslim ban. So it's controversial not just because it's complete nonsense (AKA not based on specific intel) but also because it's outright promoting one religion and discriminating against another. A double whammy violation of the establishment clause, pandering specifically to christian islamophobes.
And there is no 'right' to be forgotten. The concept is indeed insane. Nobody has a right to erase a memory.
You're confused on the concepts here because of the poetic license taken with "forgotten." We're not talking about erasing memories from human brains, we're talking about removing personal data from the internet. From computers. Why on earth wouldn't a human have the right to have their data removed from the internet? What's so insane about it? I did it just today by deleting a facebook post.
You seem to think this is big government doing something evil rather than government trying to protect rights of citizens from big undemocratic greedy corporations. THAT is insane.
Slashdot Mirror
VCs might like to know they likely have a blind spot when it comes to good investments. They might also like knowing that their fellow investors likely are undervaluing some companies based on entirely illogical criteria. As TFS notes, performance wise outside of VC funding, there's no difference. There are probably VCs who are only interested in investing in companies run by dudes, but I'm guessing there are probably some VCs who are more interested in making money than maintaining a gender imbalance.
If VCs don't care about making wise decisions with their money, they can. Looks to me like no one is suggesting otherwise. I don't think anyone is suggesting they shouldn't be able to put their balls in a blender either. It's their genitals and they can do with them what they want. Definitely.
Yes, like I said, There would still be bias, as families who were convinced their loved ones were suffering from brain damage would be more likely to say yes to being in the study. But that's likely NOT NEARLY as big a bias as what GP is suggesting.
Put another way, if researchers approached the family of a deceased individual and asked "can we cut their brain out now, within 72 hours of death, so you'll have to have a closed casket," many people would say no. They'd be more likely to say yes if they thought something was going on weird with the deceased person's brain.
GP was suggesting though the researchers said "Hey, we're looking for brains to study CTE," and then were surprised to find CTE. That's not the case at all.
The methods section (emphasis mine)
Study Recruitment In 2008, as a collaboration among the VA Boston Healthcare System, Bedford VA, Boston University (BU) School of Medicine, and Sports Legacy Institute (now the Concussion Legacy Foundation [CLF]), a brain bank was created to better understand the long-term effects of repetitive head trauma experienced through contact sport participation and military-related exposure. The purpose of the brain bank was to comprehensively examine the neuropathology and clinical presentation of brain donors considered at risk of development of CTE. The institutional review board at Boston University Medical Campus approved all research activities. The next of kin or legally authorized representative of each brain donor provided written informed consent. No stipend for participation was provided. Inclusion criteria were based entirely on exposure to repetitive head trauma (eg, contact sports, military service, or domestic violence), regardless of whether symptoms manifested during life. Playing American football was sufficient for inclusion. Because of limited resources, more strict inclusion criteria were implemented in 2014 and required that football players who died after age 35 years have at least 2 years of college-level play. Donors were excluded if postmortem interval exceeded 72 hours or if fixed tissue fragments representing less than half the total brain volume were received (eFigure in the Supplement).
It sounds like they selected from donated cadavers for people who had played football. This is quite different from football players who suspected they had brain damage from football donating their brains. There would still be bias, as families who were convinced their loved ones were suffering from brain damage would be more likely to say yes to being in the study. But that's likely NOT NEARLY as big a bias as what GP is suggesting.
As always, when a conservative criticizes others, he describes himself.
Sure, less populated states back in the day had their covers for why it shouldn't be an outright democracy. It was still a hostage negotiation back then, not the best idea, and either way, it's completely broken now that it gave us president Trump.
I understand the excuses for it. It was in reality passed for political purposes, not for any higher philosophy. And, it's still saying "Your vote gets counted for less" to the majority of the population. Which is inherently anti-democratic.
On top of that, as of late, the rednecks with the outsized voices are proving themselves incompetent at making rational decisions, staying informed of the issues, getting educated, and not hating the majority of the country.
If you're spouting that nonsense about people shouldn't be ruled by cities as theory, that's goofy.
If you're saying it was right that in this past election that idiots in southern and flyover states outweighed New York and the majority of voters who recognized Trump is a national security disaster, then you're simply insane.
At least that's how it seems from over here on the right.
Sir, from here at the left of center, it's pretty clear that the left wing jumping off a bridge, instead of setting ourselves on fire, would meet with right wing disproval.
The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them.
Wait... wait... a political party... trying to get... people... to vote... FOR... THEM?
HOLDTHEFUCKINGPHONEOMGWTFBBQIJUSTSHITMYPANTS!!!!!
You've done it. I've soiled my pants and my heart has stopped and I ruptured my vocal cords screaming in shock at this upsetting insight. I'm literally dead and covered with feces. That's what the shock of what you just said has done to me. You need to introduce things slowly, you can't just drop "Political parties in democracies seek to get votes" on us like that.
They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle.
No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.
"How about we don't let huge corporations rule the country" maybe could be considered for the middle, but personally I think the average voter is far too stupid for that to catch on, so I'm almost more convinced it's just because it's a smart idea.
We have antitrust laws right now, but that's like saying "We have antibiotics right now, what do we need to develop new ones for?" We need new antitrust laws because banks, telecoms, and media companies are still getting too big and powerful compared to real citizens.
What's the problem with wealth accumulation?
(gestures broadly at recent political history)
Worth pointing out to those Americans who seem to forget every time something good happens to the UK economy: Brexit has not happened yet. Lets discuss unemployment in the UK at the end of 2019 and see if everything is still so good it's a problem.
I have no idea if it will be, I'm not an economist. My main interest in Brexit was schadenfreude, and that only lasted a few months...
Million dollar idea: an app that disables your phone's phone until you switch it off.
Judging from the words you used, you're not exactly a common user of MS paint.
I'm sorry, I think we may have misunderstood each other. I think tax cuts are the last thing the US needs right now, tax cuts are a national security threat given how they've worked to increase the power of the wealthy and threaten to destabilize the middle class.
I thought you were going to try to tell me if we cut taxes, all those other things you mentioned would magically happen. That's what I was saying no to. Tax cuts solve the "problem" of the government being able to fund vital services and also the "problem" of social mobility and that's about it.
I think now you were assuming I was in favor of tax cuts. I was saying Trump and republicans want attention drawn away from the tax cuts they're trying to pass because everyone outside a few wealthy people should be protesting the tax cuts about as much as they're protesting the heathcare cuts.
But the fact is the majority of Americans _want_ the government to take a larger role in improving their lives. Trump played to that and the media played along and let him talk out of both sides of his mouth. Make no mistake, the Dems lost because they tried to have their cake (big money donations) and eat it to (populist left)
Those are good points, but I'd say you're missing the glue that holds it together is that the voters were stupid. Hillary came up with concrete, detailed plans that would help the populace. The voters ignored such boring things and voted for vague unrealistic one-line promises, first in the form of Obama, then almost in the form of Sanders, finally in the form of Trump.
I didn't hear much about big money donations, though maybe that was just because of the sheer volume of Trump related nonsense.
how would you respond to a tax cut on businesses and the wealthy if it also came with a remediation of the welfare system, strengthening of the middle-class
Gonna cut you off there.
No.
You're formulating a response. Before you get too far into it, lemme cut you off again.
NO.
If it were a plot, it would probably be Bannon coming up with it. And Trump doesn't need to do anything except mention he's super duper upset with sessions in an interview. This doesn't require much skill on the part of the puppet.
Against my theory, what would the motive be? There's little point to such distractions. Republicans might not come right out and say "We will not impeach Trump no matter what he said to the Russians" but he's clearly above the law with the current religious zealot support of the far right and congress. If the media isn't distracted by it and focuses on Russia... so what? Until tapes reveal he kissed a dude while in the oval office, he's not going anywhere.
At this point, and with the way Trump is treating Sessions,
I'm not convinced that's a real thing. Sessions is part of Trump's core appeal to people who still think law and order are on the brink of breaking down, with drug-addled black lives matters activists plotting to murder us all.
The part of the right wing that hasn't completely abandoned reality recognizes crime is at a 50 year low., but there's a big contingent that doesn't believe evidence is important when dealing with crime.
Without Sessions focusing the right wing's fear onto the usual target of black men who use drugs, it might be tough to keep them distracted from questions about crimes inside the white house. Trump could easily be dumb enough to not realize that, but I have to think whoever of his allies he listens to realize it. That line in the interview was just part of the usual stream of consciousness coming out of the POTUS' mouth. He likely forgot he said it a minute later.
Furthermore, I'm skeptical how much Sessions actually recused himself. I have no proof he was or is meddling with the investigation, but why would we just assume anyone in the administration has done behind closed doors what they said they would? For that matter, even a more respectable administration, why would we just take their word for it?
Until Trump gets impeached and Sessions carries out whatever role he is supposed to play in the process, I'm going to remain convinced this whole "Trump and sessions breakup!?!?" is just another plan to distract attention from Russia, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the health care repeal.
Given how unreliable witnesses are compared to actual documented evidence, and given that the company in question is likely to attack the credibility of the witnesses based on the fact that "they said mean things about their former coworkers anonymously like the KKK!", why is the government so insistent on this?
These prosecutors act like spoiled children.
"You can't go into that door"
"I DEMAND TO BE LET INTO THAT DOOR!!!"
"There's nothing in there! And if you open it, you'll let the dog out and I'll have to chase it down the street!
"NOWNOWNOWNOW!!!"
The new requirements include enhanced passenger screening at foreign airports, increased security protocols around aircraft and in passenger areas and expanded canine screening.
Still sounds like security theater. Measures which have no tested effect against non-existent threats.
Were there bombs that dogs could sniff out being loaded onto planes in the form of laptops? Because if not, guess what, it has as much effect as my magic rock that keeps away tigers.
You have no right to force anybody to erase those or any references to them.
Oh, well then you better tell the EU court that, because they seem pretty convinced you actually DO.
Trump's temporary ban on immigration from certain muslim countries is controversial because it isn't based on specific intel.
Christians from those areas were exempt, and the people pushing the proposal were straight up calling it a muslim ban. So it's controversial not just because it's complete nonsense (AKA not based on specific intel) but also because it's outright promoting one religion and discriminating against another. A double whammy violation of the establishment clause, pandering specifically to christian islamophobes.
The ban was only temporary if the airports listed actually made the changes to security that caused the ban in the first place.
Oh, so it's temporary because all the airports got those new magic rocks that keep away laptop shaped bombs. Got it.
You've never deleted anything from a computer without using magic? I guess they don't have many computers at Hogwarts. It's pretty simple.
And there is no 'right' to be forgotten. The concept is indeed insane. Nobody has a right to erase a memory.
You're confused on the concepts here because of the poetic license taken with "forgotten." We're not talking about erasing memories from human brains, we're talking about removing personal data from the internet. From computers. Why on earth wouldn't a human have the right to have their data removed from the internet? What's so insane about it? I did it just today by deleting a facebook post.
You seem to think this is big government doing something evil rather than government trying to protect rights of citizens from big undemocratic greedy corporations. THAT is insane.
I am not Obama, Obama is not the president, and Obama does not speak for me, so what's your point?