Compared to what? What's the number for people who die within 30 days of not having medically necessary surgery? I'm pretty sure people consider the risks pretty carefully before opting for surgery.
And yes, spending more money generally correlates with improved outcomes, but if it's not quantitative then it's not telling us anything new.
I find it very puzzling that civilization can't seem to break out of the false dichotomy in the global warming 'debate'.
The argument that nothing, nor nothing remarkable, is happening with climate is absurd. Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
At the other extreme is a long chain of increasingly dubious inferences, from definite known science, to predictions of varying degrees of certainty, to highly speculative government interventions, finally ending with a theoretically feasible but politically impossible taxation and regulatory solution that seems suspiciously unimaginative and bureaucratic. So the specific solutions proposed are rightly met with skepticism.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
The sheer volume of advertising exists primarily because the overwhelming majority of advertising is not targeted well enough.
That's logical, but it's the opposite of what we see in reality. Targeting is obviously better than in the past, even if the advertisers are over-estimating the reliability of it, but the volume of advertising has exploded, demonstrating that the strategy is clearly quantity and not quality, and giving the industry their own tragedy of the commons problem, but at a cost to me in time and opportunity.
Advertising is already morally dubious, and no-one has an expectation that an advertisement is unbiased, but there's at least a minimum of transparency if they can only rely on directly available information and not on guesses that are only marginally better than random.
I would like to challenge you all to find some empathy in your heart
It is not a virtue to have more empathy for parents who experience modest intellectual discomfort because of their own wilful ignorance than for the victims who suffer physically because of the former's irresponsible choices.
If you judge everything by your feeling of empathy for one particular person without 1) considering impacts on others, and 2) considering impacts in future as well as impact in the present, then your value system is seriously deficient.
Do you really think that corporations that wreck your privacy at every turn, even invent an "internet of extremely insecure things" for this very purpose, care whether you get diabetes
Of course they do - that whole class of prescription medications is highly profitable.
I find 'personalized' adverts to be morally wrong, profoundly so.
Aside from violating my dignity as an individual who can make my own choices, the sheer volume of advertising guarantees that I will block them out, either mentally or technologically, which means they are misrepresenting the value of the services to the businesses buying the advertising. So two strikes against them on the question of morality.
But more often than not I am finding them to be factually wrong, in the sense that whatever guess their algorithm is making about me is wildly inaccurate. For example a few Google searches for the price of an object is far more likely to mean that I have made a purchase of one than it is that I will be highly motivated to make new purchases daily for the following six months.
Or their inference is so exact and narrow as to be transparently absurd. E.g. Local women seeking 53-year-old!
And then there's the ones where I try to find a restaurant in a city I'm going to visit and I can't block out adverts for restaurants for the area where I live (you know, the one place I'm guaranteed not to physically be in any time I travel).
I'm conflicted. I think if the goal was 90% then it would come across as vastly more realistic-sounding. But if a leader is moving in the right direction it's better that they aim high and come up short than aim low and come up short.
Yes, some things make vastly more sense to do with a pointing device, just like things like text input really only make sense using a keyboard. I was thinking of operations where the user interface provides keyboard- and mouse-based alternatives, and the user learns the more visual and intuitive but less efficient one, and then never makes the effort to learn the other. Mastering a software application should mean knowing all the possibilities and using the more effective one in a given moment. I've seen people using something like Excel who could increase their productivity 10 times if they weren't intellectually lazy.
The mouse is more intuitive for the person who is unskilled at the software they are using. The keyboard is more efficient for everyone else, sometimes substantially so. It's astonishing how much software intended for repetitive data entry is not designed better around the keyboard.
Why are people so bad at learning to use a product they spend so much money acquiring? Would you buy a car and then signal turns manually because you couldn't be bothered to learn to use the lever that operates the turn signals?
I think Lucas, for all his flaws, had a genius for making toy commercials that worked as movies. As far back as Return of the Jedi, there was actual story-telling that was only minimally compromised by marketing objectives, and that movie is popular with fans and a commercial success. The Phantom Menace was weak on story-telling and overall writing quality but was successful as a children's movie. In contrast The Last Jedi didn't even have a pretense of telling a story.
I despise fake outrage over alleged sexism accusations coming from people who don't understand statistics. I also despise Oracle. So...
I'm very curious about the validity of the claims, which unfortunately the fine article doesn't not elaborate on. It's not even possible for a 33.1% discrepancy in stock value to be a result of bias, unless they actually mean something else. A 13.2% difference in bonuses could be more interesting - it's very easy to see a discrepancy due to, for example, differences in work-life balance choices, but it could also be a result of subjective factors which opens the door to at least the possibility of bias. Further investigation seems on the surface to be a reasonable response.
A 3.8% difference in pay, if it truly is for equal work (not 'similar', equal), is hardly a crisis of systematic discrimination, but it is too high to dismiss as random variation or differences in negotiating styles, and so would definitely constitute an employment standards violation. If true I hope Oracle gets every legal penalty that's coming to them.
I guess 3.8% doesn't make for a glamorous and shocking headline.
Slashdot Mirror
I found Twitter confusing as a medium for discussion.
Then I realized that it's just a text-based MMORPG.
Compared to what? What's the number for people who die within 30 days of not having medically necessary surgery? I'm pretty sure people consider the risks pretty carefully before opting for surgery.
And yes, spending more money generally correlates with improved outcomes, but if it's not quantitative then it's not telling us anything new.
I find it very puzzling that civilization can't seem to break out of the false dichotomy in the global warming 'debate'.
The argument that nothing, nor nothing remarkable, is happening with climate is absurd. Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
At the other extreme is a long chain of increasingly dubious inferences, from definite known science, to predictions of varying degrees of certainty, to highly speculative government interventions, finally ending with a theoretically feasible but politically impossible taxation and regulatory solution that seems suspiciously unimaginative and bureaucratic. So the specific solutions proposed are rightly met with skepticism.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
The sheer volume of advertising exists primarily because the overwhelming majority of advertising is not targeted well enough.
That's logical, but it's the opposite of what we see in reality. Targeting is obviously better than in the past, even if the advertisers are over-estimating the reliability of it, but the volume of advertising has exploded, demonstrating that the strategy is clearly quantity and not quality, and giving the industry their own tragedy of the commons problem, but at a cost to me in time and opportunity.
Advertising is already morally dubious, and no-one has an expectation that an advertisement is unbiased, but there's at least a minimum of transparency if they can only rely on directly available information and not on guesses that are only marginally better than random.
...plus those citizens with legitimate medicals reasons not to vaccinate, or for whom the vaccination was less than wholly effective, etc.
You need to deal with that.
Take away that doctor's licence to practise.
I would like to challenge you all to find some empathy in your heart
It is not a virtue to have more empathy for parents who experience modest intellectual discomfort because of their own wilful ignorance than for the victims who suffer physically because of the former's irresponsible choices.
If you judge everything by your feeling of empathy for one particular person without 1) considering impacts on others, and 2) considering impacts in future as well as impact in the present, then your value system is seriously deficient.
Do you really think that corporations that wreck your privacy at every turn, even invent an "internet of extremely insecure things" for this very purpose, care whether you get diabetes
Of course they do - that whole class of prescription medications is highly profitable.
I find 'personalized' adverts to be morally wrong, profoundly so.
Aside from violating my dignity as an individual who can make my own choices, the sheer volume of advertising guarantees that I will block them out, either mentally or technologically, which means they are misrepresenting the value of the services to the businesses buying the advertising. So two strikes against them on the question of morality.
But more often than not I am finding them to be factually wrong, in the sense that whatever guess their algorithm is making about me is wildly inaccurate. For example a few Google searches for the price of an object is far more likely to mean that I have made a purchase of one than it is that I will be highly motivated to make new purchases daily for the following six months.
Or their inference is so exact and narrow as to be transparently absurd. E.g. Local women seeking 53-year-old!
And then there's the ones where I try to find a restaurant in a city I'm going to visit and I can't block out adverts for restaurants for the area where I live (you know, the one place I'm guaranteed not to physically be in any time I travel).
At high enough pressures and temperatures, anything with carbon will turn into light hydrocarbons.
But if it turns out that the math means this is practical, then this would be very cool.
She has no understanding of economics and this is despite having a degree in it.
So many economist jokes to choose from....
I'm conflicted. I think if the goal was 90% then it would come across as vastly more realistic-sounding. But if a leader is moving in the right direction it's better that they aim high and come up short than aim low and come up short.
wasn't blitzkrieg something that ultimately did well as a short term tactic but failed as part of a larger strategy
No, it succeeded as part of a larger strategy. That larger strategy, however, is a different matter.
England doesn't really want to lose whatever independence it still has.
England hasn't been independent since 1707.
that is incredibly racist.
you never mentioned race
Something isn't racist merely because it (possibly) has some correlation with race.
Misusing words like 'racist' makes fighting actual racism harder, not easier.
How can a story that starts out with an army of laser cats turn out to be so disappointing?
Yes, some things make vastly more sense to do with a pointing device, just like things like text input really only make sense using a keyboard. I was thinking of operations where the user interface provides keyboard- and mouse-based alternatives, and the user learns the more visual and intuitive but less efficient one, and then never makes the effort to learn the other. Mastering a software application should mean knowing all the possibilities and using the more effective one in a given moment. I've seen people using something like Excel who could increase their productivity 10 times if they weren't intellectually lazy.
The White House?
The mouse is more intuitive for the person who is unskilled at the software they are using. The keyboard is more efficient for everyone else, sometimes substantially so. It's astonishing how much software intended for repetitive data entry is not designed better around the keyboard.
Why are people so bad at learning to use a product they spend so much money acquiring? Would you buy a car and then signal turns manually because you couldn't be bothered to learn to use the lever that operates the turn signals?
There are such people in the world
Exactly.
I think Lucas, for all his flaws, had a genius for making toy commercials that worked as movies. As far back as Return of the Jedi, there was actual story-telling that was only minimally compromised by marketing objectives, and that movie is popular with fans and a commercial success. The Phantom Menace was weak on story-telling and overall writing quality but was successful as a children's movie. In contrast The Last Jedi didn't even have a pretense of telling a story.
I despise fake outrage over alleged sexism accusations coming from people who don't understand statistics. I also despise Oracle. So...
I'm very curious about the validity of the claims, which unfortunately the fine article doesn't not elaborate on. It's not even possible for a 33.1% discrepancy in stock value to be a result of bias, unless they actually mean something else. A 13.2% difference in bonuses could be more interesting - it's very easy to see a discrepancy due to, for example, differences in work-life balance choices, but it could also be a result of subjective factors which opens the door to at least the possibility of bias. Further investigation seems on the surface to be a reasonable response.
A 3.8% difference in pay, if it truly is for equal work (not 'similar', equal), is hardly a crisis of systematic discrimination, but it is too high to dismiss as random variation or differences in negotiating styles, and so would definitely constitute an employment standards violation. If true I hope Oracle gets every legal penalty that's coming to them.
I guess 3.8% doesn't make for a glamorous and shocking headline.
The Jedi needed oxygen underwater in The Phantom Menace.
How do you feel about the lava battle in Episode III?
I try but I can't get past the atmosphere having zero oxygen and being at a temperature of many hundreds of degrees.
And it's not like it's hard to do both.