Since most users have no idea what browser they are using, or that they are even using a browser, then just boycotting OKCupid period is the safest thang.
That's how stuff can backfire easily.
Why autism? There are any number of conditions that would then apply
The conditions that apply means there needs to be a solution AND it needs to be profitable.
You want a different example: cholesterol
That may have always been a medical problem but it was never a popular one until _after_ we developed profitable cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For ADD, Ritalin was used as a DIAGNOSTIC drug. If it solved your issues, then you had ADD. If not, then ADD was not your problem.
That's two examples.
I think it's rude to look people in the eyes.
I think that was also a norm in Asian and Native American cultures such as Japanese, Sioux and Arapahoe.
In fact, to examine the cultural bias effect, _if_ it is true (my memory may be off) that the Japanese have a bias against looking people in the eyes (considered hostile staring), then it seems you could compare America and Japan against various foods and vaccines and what have you.
Maybe "all" that is happening (I'm a parent and don't intend to diminish the anxiety of having a differently-abled child)
maybe all that is happening is that we are entering an era of more random mutations (for a variety of reasons) and some of the interpretations change between cultures. An added fact for that pov is that autism is not a single thing; the spectrum probably has multiple independent causes.
Being different is not a disease. Pathologizing deviance from the statistical norm is a piss-poor idea.
I agree that being different is not a disease, but I am flummoxed by the reasoning.
What is it we are supposed to determine deviance from if not the norm?
I like the left-handedness analogy.
There are far too many people who seem to assume evolution has a direction or goal instead of being a process of making completely random choices in order to be ready to survive in a completely random future.
It's hard to say if handedness is an advantage or not. Being ambidextrous is correlated with different brain wave patterns but that is correlation, not effect-cause or vice versa. What is caused by being left-handed, or "sinistral" is how society views you.During sword-fighting days when most folks practiced against right-handed fencing opponents a left-handed fighter was called "sinister."
The only good thing Reagan did was prove that deficits don't matter.
sarcasm: And apparently that has now been "disproven" by Tea Partiers, fundamentalist Libertarians and Texans (except for when they want their Federal handout).
The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.
If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.
Money is merely a tracking device. You can track items using pencils or pens or spreadsheets, but the stuff being tracked doesn't change regardless of how you wish to track it.
Money is not a commodity. That was actually the basis for the first revolt against the new American government of George Washington's.
They implemented a tax on corn liquor but jars of corn liquor were actually trade items--dollar bills if you will--because they didn't go bad
America essentially taxed you on the bills you used to pay. That's complete different than taxing your income or your net worth.
For anyone who thinks monetary policy matters globally or that the gold standard or bitcoin have any sort of control over economics, they haven't actually thought thru econ from basic principles.It is not part of any economics class whatsoever so don't be shocked.
1. First assume the total worth of everything in the world is 5 trillion dollars or be as accurate as you wish.
2. Next, assume the total worth of everything in the world is just 5 dollars.
3. Now explain how the trading situation between different resources is modified simply because we change our idea of what money itself is worth. Eggs aren't worth any different in relation to bacon and gasoline than they were before or after the monetary change.
Economics is based on biology. Lots of different organisms trade resources back and forth. In fact, if you don't trade and you can't find resources, you die.
Basic economics and it applies equally to protozoans, elm trees and human global civilization.
As far as money per se, that is an illusion or artifact of civilization. People who think credit or cash or the gold standard drives economics don't actually spend any time thinking about the concepts or limits. Consider--what is the total dollar value of everything in the world? Let's assume it is 500 trillion dollars.
Now assume it is only 5 dollars.
What actually changes about how people trade things or what things are traded for what other things? Nothing changes.
Money itself actually is just interpretation. It's a scorecard; not a driver.
Economics, according to Sowell is the how we value _scarce_ resources. That truly identifies most of the issues we have as a society. When clean air or water is plentiful, then there is no cost/value associated with it. When we pollute the water or air, now it becomes more valuable and as a society, we either say goodbye to clean air or figure out how to value it as an externality and pay for the use of it.
Still go nothing to do with money and everything to do with resource trading which is something all biological communities engage in.
Maybe it was an experiment on an anti-placebo effect. Give people a real drug but tell them it will only work if you really, really believe it will.
Then see if it fails at the same rate as most medicines and remedies do regardless of provenance.
Perhaps. Think of a restaurant. They probably have a specific number of glasses broken on average every year.
In very few cases are the glasses broken on purpose. They are all broken by accident.
Provide a plan for zero broken glasses at every restaurant in the U.S.
Once you've fixed that problem, then talk about how easy it is to prevent vehicle ACCIDENTS.
I still trip over my own two feet about once a year and tend to spill some liquid beverage of some kind about twice a year.
Please explain how to live a perfect, error-free life to the rest of us mortals.
Correlation is easier to infer than causation.
imo, it's exactly like drunk driving where the real statistics from actual actuaries are that drunk driving per se is _responsible_ for maybe 1.5-2% of accidents.
Those accidents would not have happened if the driver were not drunk.
Granted, maybe 40% of accidents involve drunk drivers but if 40% of all drivers on the road are drunk, then that's just straight up stats and no causation whatsoever kind of like saying 65% of all drivers have brown eyes and brown-eyed drivers are involved in 65% of all accidents
The old David Janssen commerical saying 55% of rush hour drivers in 1967 were drunk was supposed to get everyone M.A.D.D. and scared. At the time, 70% of accidents involved drunk drivers but most of the accidents were late at night when the rate of drunks was probably about 70%
Want more correlation? Over the years as we have cracked down on drunk driving and decreased the percentage of drunks behind the wheel, we have not actually decreased the number of accidents at all.
If 25% of all people driving are on the phone at any time and 25% of accidents "involve phone use," then that is to be expected. It isn't a problem, neither morally nor actually.
It isn't _some_ people who are below average--it is the fact that HALF of the people you meet are below average.
Any scale--weight, height, intelligence...
If I have to explain why, you're in the bottom half of the intelligence and understanding scale.
Fewer top-notch older programmers on the market.
That's an extension of Joel Spolsky's observation that the best programmers are rarely looking for work so if you only look for developers when you have an opening, your market for topnotch talent is more limited than if you look for good developers all the time.
Realizing the pool of available top-notch talent in fresh grads is larger than it is in any other age group is insightful.
... a third choice. Should the federal provide free open source software under federal core program. Software that is free, has been audited for quality and security,...
I'm sure the government already has folks who could write software like that.
NSA-approved software, to protect Americans against themselves.
Man, technology that tells me how to be gets me so angry I'd probably rip the damn iPhone out its socket and throw it out the window.
And that actually would settle me back down.
At least until I got a ticket for littering.
Manage your expectations. If the MOOC is truly massive, one percent is good.
If you have one class of 30 students and 2/3rds actually graduate, you get 20 graduates.
If you have 3000 students in a MOOC and "only" 1% completes, you get 30 graduates.
If you can't understand that difference in percentages, it's not worth talking about cost-effectiveness.
But having an experienced mentor is definitely an improvement for any kind of training.
Physics apparently wants one single gigundamous theory to explain "everything" meaning subatomic particles, atomic particles, and gravity, but without having to explain chemistry or physics.
That seems unlikely. We cannot even prove arithmetic from set theory, so proving all of the universe from a single starting point seems unlikely.
As far as predicting things, look closely at our Theory of Evolution.
In order to be valid, it must explain every species currently here or represented in the fossil record
but notice that it is not expected to predict the form of any new species at all nor predict the numbers or types of species extant in a million years from now (but expect cockroaches).
We want more from physics than we know we can get from math or expect to get from biology.
Managing user expectations is one of the most important pieces of a successful project.
From a mathematical perspective, expecting to derive everything from a single starting point seems unreasonable.
From an evolutionary perspective, if the current universe is one thing that might have happened but not necessarily would have happened, that doesn't seem to be enough of a criticism to discard the theory, not if you are honest about your basic assumptions and expectations. In biology, octopi did evolve but septopi and hectopi and quintipi did not but could have and perhaps still may occur.
_anything_ that is a second copy of your data is a backup, whether that is RAID or Tape or papyrus scrolls.
Usable backup means you can actually retrieve it, and that's always iffy regardless of medium.
"usable" backup means the ability to restore.
in my experience, it takes a lot of time to restore from tape so it isn't done so therefore your backup remains untested.
To test your backup, you should restore one or two random files from it every time you make one.
Tape backup of huge sets doesn't give you time to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Boycott OKCupid!
Since most users have no idea what browser they are using, or that they are even using a browser, then just boycotting OKCupid period is the safest thang.
That's how stuff can backfire easily.
What happened to live and let live?
It died. Moral Libertarianism isn't profitable enough to the folks who fund political campaigns.
Why autism? There are any number of conditions that would then apply
The conditions that apply means there needs to be a solution AND it needs to be profitable.
You want a different example: cholesterol
That may have always been a medical problem but it was never a popular one until _after_ we developed profitable cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For ADD, Ritalin was used as a DIAGNOSTIC drug. If it solved your issues, then you had ADD. If not, then ADD was not your problem.
That's two examples.
Isn't the incidence of bulimia and anorexia related to class status also?
I think it's rude to look people in the eyes.
I think that was also a norm in Asian and Native American cultures such as Japanese, Sioux and Arapahoe.
In fact, to examine the cultural bias effect, _if_ it is true (my memory may be off) that the Japanese have a bias against looking people in the eyes (considered hostile staring), then it seems you could compare America and Japan against various foods and vaccines and what have you.
Maybe "all" that is happening (I'm a parent and don't intend to diminish the anxiety of having a differently-abled child)
maybe all that is happening is that we are entering an era of more random mutations (for a variety of reasons) and some of the interpretations change between cultures. An added fact for that pov is that autism is not a single thing; the spectrum probably has multiple independent causes.
Being different is not a disease. Pathologizing deviance from the statistical norm is a piss-poor idea.
I agree that being different is not a disease, but I am flummoxed by the reasoning.
What is it we are supposed to determine deviance from if not the norm?
I like the left-handedness analogy.
There are far too many people who seem to assume evolution has a direction or goal instead of being a process of making completely random choices in order to be ready to survive in a completely random future.
It's hard to say if handedness is an advantage or not. Being ambidextrous is correlated with different brain wave patterns but that is correlation, not effect-cause or vice versa. What is caused by being left-handed, or "sinistral" is how society views you.During sword-fighting days when most folks practiced against right-handed fencing opponents a left-handed fighter was called "sinister."
I can't believe gmail is actually ten years old.
Is it finally out of Beta also?
The only good thing Reagan did was prove that deficits don't matter.
sarcasm: And apparently that has now been "disproven" by Tea Partiers, fundamentalist Libertarians and Texans (except for when they want their Federal handout).
The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.
If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.
Money is merely a tracking device. You can track items using pencils or pens or spreadsheets, but the stuff being tracked doesn't change regardless of how you wish to track it.
Money is not a commodity. That was actually the basis for the first revolt against the new American government of George Washington's.
They implemented a tax on corn liquor but jars of corn liquor were actually trade items--dollar bills if you will--because they didn't go bad
America essentially taxed you on the bills you used to pay. That's complete different than taxing your income or your net worth.
For anyone who thinks monetary policy matters globally or that the gold standard or bitcoin have any sort of control over economics, they haven't actually thought thru econ from basic principles.It is not part of any economics class whatsoever so don't be shocked.
1. First assume the total worth of everything in the world is 5 trillion dollars or be as accurate as you wish.
2. Next, assume the total worth of everything in the world is just 5 dollars.
3. Now explain how the trading situation between different resources is modified simply because we change our idea of what money itself is worth. Eggs aren't worth any different in relation to bacon and gasoline than they were before or after the monetary change.
Economics is based on biology. Lots of different organisms trade resources back and forth. In fact, if you don't trade and you can't find resources, you die.
Basic economics and it applies equally to protozoans, elm trees and human global civilization.
As far as money per se, that is an illusion or artifact of civilization. People who think credit or cash or the gold standard drives economics don't actually spend any time thinking about the concepts or limits. Consider--what is the total dollar value of everything in the world? Let's assume it is 500 trillion dollars.
Now assume it is only 5 dollars.
What actually changes about how people trade things or what things are traded for what other things? Nothing changes.
Money itself actually is just interpretation. It's a scorecard; not a driver.
Economics, according to Sowell is the how we value _scarce_ resources. That truly identifies most of the issues we have as a society. When clean air or water is plentiful, then there is no cost/value associated with it. When we pollute the water or air, now it becomes more valuable and as a society, we either say goodbye to clean air or figure out how to value it as an externality and pay for the use of it.
Still go nothing to do with money and everything to do with resource trading which is something all biological communities engage in.
Maybe it was an experiment on an anti-placebo effect. Give people a real drug but tell them it will only work if you really, really believe it will.
Then see if it fails at the same rate as most medicines and remedies do regardless of provenance.
People can be completely oblivious without being on the phone, too.
The phone is not the cause of poor driving.
The majority of accidents are caused by stupidity
Perhaps. Think of a restaurant. They probably have a specific number of glasses broken on average every year.
In very few cases are the glasses broken on purpose. They are all broken by accident.
Provide a plan for zero broken glasses at every restaurant in the U.S.
Once you've fixed that problem, then talk about how easy it is to prevent vehicle ACCIDENTS.
I still trip over my own two feet about once a year and tend to spill some liquid beverage of some kind about twice a year.
Please explain how to live a perfect, error-free life to the rest of us mortals.
Correlation is easier to infer than causation.
imo, it's exactly like drunk driving where the real statistics from actual actuaries are that drunk driving per se is _responsible_ for maybe 1.5-2% of accidents.
Those accidents would not have happened if the driver were not drunk.
Granted, maybe 40% of accidents involve drunk drivers but if 40% of all drivers on the road are drunk, then that's just straight up stats and no causation whatsoever kind of like saying 65% of all drivers have brown eyes and brown-eyed drivers are involved in 65% of all accidents
The old David Janssen commerical saying 55% of rush hour drivers in 1967 were drunk was supposed to get everyone M.A.D.D. and scared. At the time, 70% of accidents involved drunk drivers but most of the accidents were late at night when the rate of drunks was probably about 70%
Want more correlation? Over the years as we have cracked down on drunk driving and decreased the percentage of drunks behind the wheel, we have not actually decreased the number of accidents at all.
If 25% of all people driving are on the phone at any time and 25% of accidents "involve phone use," then that is to be expected. It isn't a problem, neither morally nor actually.
It isn't _some_ people who are below average--it is the fact that HALF of the people you meet are below average. ...
Any scale--weight, height, intelligence
If I have to explain why, you're in the bottom half of the intelligence and understanding scale.
Fewer top-notch older programmers on the market.
That's an extension of Joel Spolsky's observation that the best programmers are rarely looking for work so if you only look for developers when you have an opening, your market for topnotch talent is more limited than if you look for good developers all the time.
Realizing the pool of available top-notch talent in fresh grads is larger than it is in any other age group is insightful.
I'm sure the government already has folks who could write software like that.
NSA-approved software, to protect Americans against themselves.
Man, technology that tells me how to be gets me so angry I'd probably rip the damn iPhone out its socket and throw it out the window.
And that actually would settle me back down.
At least until I got a ticket for littering.
People who get regular sex are happier and more productive.
Therefore, whores are the world's happiest and most productive people. Wonder why we've gotten that wrong for so many millennia.
Manage your expectations. If the MOOC is truly massive, one percent is good.
If you have one class of 30 students and 2/3rds actually graduate, you get 20 graduates.
If you have 3000 students in a MOOC and "only" 1% completes, you get 30 graduates.
If you can't understand that difference in percentages, it's not worth talking about cost-effectiveness.
But having an experienced mentor is definitely an improvement for any kind of training.
Physics apparently wants one single gigundamous theory to explain "everything" meaning subatomic particles, atomic particles, and gravity, but without having to explain chemistry or physics.
That seems unlikely. We cannot even prove arithmetic from set theory, so proving all of the universe from a single starting point seems unlikely.
As far as predicting things, look closely at our Theory of Evolution.
In order to be valid, it must explain every species currently here or represented in the fossil record
but notice that it is not expected to predict the form of any new species at all nor predict the numbers or types of species extant in a million years from now (but expect cockroaches).
We want more from physics than we know we can get from math or expect to get from biology.
Managing user expectations is one of the most important pieces of a successful project.
From a mathematical perspective, expecting to derive everything from a single starting point seems unreasonable.
From an evolutionary perspective, if the current universe is one thing that might have happened but not necessarily would have happened, that doesn't seem to be enough of a criticism to discard the theory, not if you are honest about your basic assumptions and expectations. In biology, octopi did evolve but septopi and hectopi and quintipi did not but could have and perhaps still may occur.
_anything_ that is a second copy of your data is a backup, whether that is RAID or Tape or papyrus scrolls.
Usable backup means you can actually retrieve it, and that's always iffy regardless of medium.
"usable" backup means the ability to restore.
in my experience, it takes a lot of time to restore from tape so it isn't done so therefore your backup remains untested.
To test your backup, you should restore one or two random files from it every time you make one.
Tape backup of huge sets doesn't give you time to do that.