the common error of equating the selfish gene with selfish individualism. Life is more complicated than that.
Absolutely right. There is a tendency to hear "selfish" and immediately connect that to a whole host of sociopolitical ideas which have nothing to do with genetics.
because there IS NO ANSWER that is a: truthful and b: honest.
Not really. There have been norm of reaction studies for homosexuality using monozygotic twins, and it turns out that genes and environment both have a roll.
As I ask in my revisited post: If this is not done to be manipulative why is the adjective "exponential" only used when discussing profits, growth, etc.. and not done for costs, losses, or anything negative?
What you aren't getting is that whether or not terms like "exponential" have marketing value is a completely different question from whether or not a particular curve matches an exponential model.
Yes, fancy terms invoking rapid, continued growth have marketing value (i.e. are manipulative). If they were claiming, say, factorial growth then it would be obvious that they were lying or performing some kind of trickery to get that result. Instead they're claiming exponential growth, which has the virtue of being a correct model for past growth and good marketing copy.
Now, you're going to point out that firms report annually. Yes, they report annually. If you take those annual figures and graph them you get an exponential curve.
I don't think the article stated it correctly. The 20% "growth" number is volume, where dollar per click has been steadily decreasing. In other words, Google is having to sell more ads to make the same dollars. This is the trend that is scary for investors because Google's competition is doing better here.
+5 Informative, seriously. If this is true, it completely explains why investors would have been worried (since continued 20% revenue growth would actually be awesome).
Whether or not it's manipulative is totally orthogonal to whether or not growth at a fixed percentage over any time period is "exponential" (it is, period).
The parent posted a graph of Google and Facebook revenues over 5 years. Irrespective of any marketing value of the term "exponential," the curves drawn in the graph are (mathematically) exponential in character. If you're going to keep arguing that these specific curves are not exponential - despite the evidence of your own eyes - then I don't know what to tell you.
So by your strange view, anything with a positive yield could be called "exponential".
Anything with a positive yield which is a proportion of the current value. In other words, growth is "exponential" if it is proportional to t^n. For a 1% rate savings account, the value is proportional to t^1.01.
In addition to the obvious factual error, the long-term effects of conventional breeding (using radiologically or chemically induced random mutations) are far worse than recombinaton technologies (which create known variants).
It's an extremely unfavorable variation, with no hope of competition against regular fertile mosquitoes. If only 0.001 of of these mosquitoes can breed, and only 0.001 of their offspring can breed...well you see how long that gives the variation.
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?
Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed. The technique works by releasing a large number of sterile males which overwhelm the breeding population for one cycle, resulting in a massively smaller next generation. Those males die and by definition they have no offspring. Plus it's already been used internationally without such issues - TFA even mentions this:
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
What I intended with Welfare is actually the mass of solutions that people are provided with when they "need" assistance.
Why the scare quotes? Do you simply not believe that ~17 million Americans live with food insecurity and ~50 million have annual incomes under $12,000?
This used to be just "Welfare", "Food Stamps", and "Medicaid"
Unlike SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid, "Welfare" is not and has never been the name of a US aid program. Indeed, contrary to the commonly understood meaning of the term, there are no unconditional cash transfer programs in the US. Since existing programs are highly conditional / restricted lumping them together and implying they consist in UCTs seems misleading at best.
That's only if you interpret the poverty line in terms of individual discretionary income as opposed to a standard of living.
Not even then. The federal poverty line for a single person is $11,670, not $20,000. The poverty line for a five-person household is $27,910.
I'll grant you that things like health care and auto insurance would still be a problem, but that's because they're still broken.
I wont dispute that our health care system is broken, but...$100,000 per year is easily enough for auto insurance and Brone or Silver level subsidized ACA plans. If the five 20-somethings in the example somehow managed to file together, a Bronze plan would cost them ~$250 / mo. This is out of a monthly income of $8333 and includes all five individuals. Actually, if they filed separately, the Bronze plan would be free (estimated cost of $0 for 1 adult making $20,000).
Now, Medicaid (Medi-Cal here) provides free coverage to an individual making 133% of the poverty line or below ($15,521 or $37,120 for five people). At this level, the main barrier to receiving healthcare are knowledge of the process, transit time/cost and the local availability of Medicaid doctors, as opposed to direct health care costs.
Auto insurance is a different story in most places. But in California, the CCLA program provides very low cost insurance to people making less than 250% of the poverty line. For one person in San Francisco County, the annual premium is ~$265.
Slashdot Mirror
the common error of equating the selfish gene with selfish individualism. Life is more complicated than that.
Absolutely right. There is a tendency to hear "selfish" and immediately connect that to a whole host of sociopolitical ideas which have nothing to do with genetics.
because there IS NO ANSWER that is a: truthful and b: honest.
Not really. There have been norm of reaction studies for homosexuality using monozygotic twins, and it turns out that genes and environment both have a roll.
Have a look.
Why isn't this headline, "Game Theory Called Into Question for Failing to Predict Observed Examples of Cooperation?"
Unfortunately this test is all too often ignored.
Nature includes numerous examples of cooperative behavior...If extortion reigns, what drives these and other acts of selflessness?"
Any individual benefits of altruism aside, the potential for cooperation improving the fitness of a species is clear.
In this case, "annual" means year-over-year - it's a standard usage in (at least) American English.
As I ask in my revisited post: If this is not done to be manipulative why is the adjective "exponential" only used when discussing profits, growth, etc.. and not done for costs, losses, or anything negative?
What you aren't getting is that whether or not terms like "exponential" have marketing value is a completely different question from whether or not a particular curve matches an exponential model.
Yes, fancy terms invoking rapid, continued growth have marketing value (i.e. are manipulative). If they were claiming, say, factorial growth then it would be obvious that they were lying or performing some kind of trickery to get that result. Instead they're claiming exponential growth, which has the virtue of being a correct model for past growth and good marketing copy.
Now, you're going to point out that firms report annually. Yes, they report annually. If you take those annual figures and graph them you get an exponential curve.
I don't think the article stated it correctly. The 20% "growth" number is volume, where dollar per click has been steadily decreasing. In other words, Google is having to sell more ads to make the same dollars. This is the trend that is scary for investors because Google's competition is doing better here.
+5 Informative, seriously. If this is true, it completely explains why investors would have been worried (since continued 20% revenue growth would actually be awesome).
Yep - although another poster did make an amusing joke about progressively fitting higher order polynomials to "prove" it's not actually exponential.
If you believe this is not to be manipulative,
Whether or not it's manipulative is totally orthogonal to whether or not growth at a fixed percentage over any time period is "exponential" (it is, period).
The parent posted a graph of Google and Facebook revenues over 5 years. Irrespective of any marketing value of the term "exponential," the curves drawn in the graph are (mathematically) exponential in character. If you're going to keep arguing that these specific curves are not exponential - despite the evidence of your own eyes - then I don't know what to tell you.
So by your strange view, anything with a positive yield could be called "exponential".
Anything with a positive yield which is a proportion of the current value. In other words, growth is "exponential" if it is proportional to t^n. For a 1% rate savings account, the value is proportional to t^1.01.
In your view, is extreme interest rate volatility good for capitalism?
In addition to the obvious factual error, the long-term effects of conventional breeding (using radiologically or chemically induced random mutations) are far worse than recombinaton technologies (which create known variants).
It's an extremely unfavorable variation, with no hope of competition against regular fertile mosquitoes. If only 0.001 of of these mosquitoes can breed, and only 0.001 of their offspring can breed...well you see how long that gives the variation.
Rather, it's the implication of their mistake.
anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
The difference is that at a certain level of their 'church' hierarchy, the Scientologists know exactly what is going on - and who they're taking from.
Not my choice of words...but their meaning is clear.
I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.
Why assume? This particular version of the sterile insect technique has already been applied to great success in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.
to infect humans
With male mosquitoes? (Hint: they can't bite).
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?
Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed. The technique works by releasing a large number of sterile males which overwhelm the breeding population for one cycle, resulting in a massively smaller next generation. Those males die and by definition they have no offspring. Plus it's already been used internationally without such issues - TFA even mentions this:
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
What I intended with Welfare is actually the mass of solutions that people are provided with when they "need" assistance.
Why the scare quotes? Do you simply not believe that ~17 million Americans live with food insecurity and ~50 million have annual incomes under $12,000?
This used to be just "Welfare", "Food Stamps", and "Medicaid"
Unlike SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid, "Welfare" is not and has never been the name of a US aid program. Indeed, contrary to the commonly understood meaning of the term, there are no unconditional cash transfer programs in the US. Since existing programs are highly conditional / restricted lumping them together and implying they consist in UCTs seems misleading at best.
dozens of additional programs today
192 programs IIRC.
And $4.50 per day for cheeseburgers.
50 units at a cost of $2.5 million taxpayer dollars
How much do you think a large building should cost per unit?
Yeah, entice is the wrong word, it's definitely "put."
There are also a lot of cities that buy Greyhound tickets to San Francisco, specifically, which is what I meant to refer to.
That's only if you interpret the poverty line in terms of individual discretionary income as opposed to a standard of living.
Not even then. The federal poverty line for a single person is $11,670, not $20,000. The poverty line for a five-person household is $27,910.
I'll grant you that things like health care and auto insurance would still be a problem, but that's because they're still broken.
I wont dispute that our health care system is broken, but...$100,000 per year is easily enough for auto insurance and Brone or Silver level subsidized ACA plans. If the five 20-somethings in the example somehow managed to file together, a Bronze plan would cost them ~$250 / mo. This is out of a monthly income of $8333 and includes all five individuals. Actually, if they filed separately, the Bronze plan would be free (estimated cost of $0 for 1 adult making $20,000).
Now, Medicaid (Medi-Cal here) provides free coverage to an individual making 133% of the poverty line or below ($15,521 or $37,120 for five people). At this level, the main barrier to receiving healthcare are knowledge of the process, transit time/cost and the local availability of Medicaid doctors, as opposed to direct health care costs.
Auto insurance is a different story in most places. But in California, the CCLA program provides very low cost insurance to people making less than 250% of the poverty line. For one person in San Francisco County, the annual premium is ~$265.