Well, I do think there's a huge problem with widespread acceptance of stereotypes of male behavior. However that doesn't mean that examples of that behavior don't exist,or that they aren't more likely to be men than women. This just doesn't say anything about being a man per se. P(A|B) P(B|A).
Marketing studies of cryptocurrency show that speculation is dominated by men; some figures show men making up 97% of Bitcoin speculators. However that doesn't mean that all men who use Bitcoin are speculators, nor that even using Bitcoin is common among men as a whole.
Examples of the "crypto-bro" stereotype no doubt exist. This is tied to the greater emphasis for men in the gene-swapping market on social fitness, as opposed to the greater emphasis on physical fertility cues for women. Such men are no more typical of ordinary men than Instagram models are of ordinary women.
Let me make an important distinction here: there is a difference between moral reasoning ability and moral behavior. Personally I think that moral behavior is much, much harder to manipulate than moral opinions.
Why might a game like GTA improve moral reasoning ability? Well, let's look at one of the most important theoretical ideas in modern philosophical ethics, Kant's Categorical Imperative. The most widely known formulation of that is as follows:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Without going into the reasoning behind this, Kant argued that the following, lesser known formulation is logically equivalent:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
This is probably more useful to anyone who is creating some kind of test of moral reasoning ability. You evaluate someone's ability to understand how actions either treat people as things to be used vs. persons having intrinsic importance. So it's not inconceivable that GTA would help someone score higher on a score of moral reasoning. In the game you use everyone else as a means to an end (e.g., as an object of gratification or a tool in a more elaborate strategy) all the while conscious that these are not real people and that you are doing something which in real life would be morally reprehensible.
What is less clear is whether playing the game would have any effect on actual ethical behavior. But you could say the same thing for attempts to shape young peoples' moral character by, say, sending them to Sunday school. Sunday school imparts scriptural knowledge of virtues like temperance, charity and prudence, but it doesn't appear to affect attendees future behavior as much as it affects their opinions about other peoples' behavior. Likewise I wouldn't be surprised to see GTA affect players' reasoning abilities or even opinions (although not necessarily in a predictable way), but I'd be astonished if there were any kind of uniform and widespread effect on behavior.
Which is not to say there aren't outliers in either case; there's bound to be. However those outliers are set apart by their character independent of the thing in question.
It'd be more accurate to say automation creates some jobs and destroys others. For example "computer" used to be a human job title. Large companies before computers employed massive accounting departments, the majority of people in them were responsible for performing and checking arithmetic all day.
Introducing computers eliminated the jobs where you add up columns of numbers, but it allowed the creation of new jobs analyzing data. AI has the promise to replace some analytical jobs in the future, and it is likely in the short term that as computers take over the low hanging fruit, those analysts will be focused on tasks computers aren't good at yet. However you shouldn't expect that trend to continue indefinitely.
You can't just draw a straight line across a past trend and extrapolate it indefinitely. There are step discontinuities and changing circumstances in the future. One of the concerns you should have is the growing trend of income stagnation. This has effected people in the lower two income quartiles since the 80s, as median income has shown no growth at all even as *average* income has continued it's steady post WW2 rise. It's clear that the new, higher paying jobs created don't always go to the people losing jobs, and as automation gets more sophisticated we're going to see the line of stagnation rise higher up the social strata.
Well, nobody can control where you get your information from but you. There are certainly papers that suggest it is possible to have extreme ice-driven events are possible, but they don't ever say it's *going* to happen. If you checked what the scientists have to say you'd get a much different view of matters.. The pape you are talking about the 114 cm addition was the *upper range* of the *worst case*.
Also it helps to understand how science works. A single paper or study is never authoritative. This paper, which is written as an attempt to narrow the range of possibilities in the paper you're talking about. It will in it's own have get its conclusions attacked. Science doesn't arrive at truths, it builds evidence, particularly focusing on contrary evidence. That's exactly the opposite of the way people normally use information, which is what makes science useful. But you cannot make head or tails of science from sources like Fox News or the Heartland Institute.
So how do you use science? (1) Do not rely on opinion oriented media's hot take on second hand accounts of the papers (2) Read the actual paper abstracts, or accounts of the research written by the scientists themselves (3) Do not put too much store in any one study, wheter it predicts five meters of sea rise or finds Acai berries make fat melt away. (4) Do rely on pieces written by scientists to summarize the entire state of evidence, like systemic reviews or technical briefings like the IPCC report.
You start by not paying too much attention to any individual paper, particularly new papers, whether it is a paper saying sea level rise estimates are too low or that Acai berries are a superfood that will melt fat off. You go on things which evaluate the *preponderance of evidence*, like systemic review papers or technical reports by scientific advisory groups.
The single largest contributor to the 52-98 cm of sea level rise we are expecting is thermal expansion, which is not chaotic at all. The ice is a huge wildcard which is responsible for the 46 cm of uncertainty in that figure.
This represents the most evidence-supported estimate we have to go on; assuming ice will contribute 0 is also making an unnecessarily precise prediction. We should act up on the best estimates we have; it's no different than predicting the track of a hurricane three days in advance. That track prediction is almost certainly somewhat off, but it's certainly actionable.
They didn't take into account the possible breakup of Antarctic marine ice cliffs. It's not so simple as "it gets so warm that the ice in Antarctica melts"; we're talking about 2-4 degrees C on average, which is not enough to cause the ice there to melt. We're dealing with the consequences of a 2016 paper suggested that ice around the periphery of Antarctica could destablize. If those ice cliffs destablizied that would unlock ice stuck behind them, allow that ice to flow into the sea.
It's a dynamic process that involves the mechanical migration of still-perfectly-frozen ice from the land. Seriously, if we were talking about all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland actually melting, we'd be screwed on a scale nobody is suggesting likely. Far worse than the additional meter we were worried about on top of the meter we're almost certain to get.
This study does NOT say that that the total sea level will rise only 14cm. It's talking about the contribution of one single source of sea level rise: Antarctic Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI).
What happened was in 2016 a widely reported paper suggested that the IPCC's (rather gloomy) 2013 sea level projections needed to be revised upward by about 65-114 cm in the worst case because it didn't take MICI into account. Dr. Edward's paper suggests that MICI contribution would be closer to 45cm in the worst case, and only about 14cm in the most likely case. However this is still on top of the 52-98cm predicted by IPCC, most of which is due to highly predictable thermal expansion and not the chaotic behavior of ice systems.
Lots of ways. An invention can be something that *would* work, if you had something that doesn't exist yet like materials with properties unlike any existing one, or motors that are lighter and more powerful than anything available. An invention may be impossible to build, like Tesla's idea of a transit system consisting of a world girdling wall built on top of scaffolding that would get knocked own, leaving the wall suspended in the air. It is conceivable that a science fiction civilization could build such a thing.
But mostly inventions fail because they're not economical. Not enough people want them at the price, or they don't work as well as existing inventions.
There is another thing to consider, an uncertainty which inventors often forget: economics. If you take all the inventions ever made and discard the ones that simply wouldn't work, the successful ones would still be a tiny fraction of what's left.
Tesla's scheme seems to have been to use the entire Earth/atmosphere's electromagetic field as a kind of filter/transmission medium to transfer power from something like a gigantic Tesla coil. Leaving aside the inefficiency of passing a massive white noise signal through a bandpass filter, and assuming the transmission was effective as Tesla believed it would be, you still wouldn't be able to meter or regulate the power usage. Literally anyone with an antenna could use it.
I'm not sure whether the arguments for the system's physical infeasibility based on what is now known about *conventional* radio transmission really apply to what Tesla had in mind, which appears to be forcing the entire Earth's EM field to resonate on a global scale. Presumably it would take some time and a huge amount of energy to get to the point where someone on a distant continent could extract power.
Tesla was inventing by the seat of his pants; he has a basic engineering education and immense ingenuity, but he didn't have the theoretical foundation to judge the feasibility of his scheme; to some degree that knowledge didn't even exist yet, in fact some of it may still not exist. He was making an unjustifi8able leap of imagination from his lab near-field power transmission experiments, which he could see worked with his own eyes, to a global scale. Some elements of his scheme were pure wishful thinking, e.g. creating an ionized path from the ground to the stratosphere and losslessly transmitting power over it.
Wait -- are we talking about the *existing* border fencing, or the "wall" which Trump wants to build?
If we are talking about a map of the *planned* route of the *new* wall, a map showing that wall through the facility would be a legitimate concern.
Like all good political slogans, the "wall" adjusts to fit the needs of the moment and audience. It can be an unbroken concrete barrier stretching from the Gulf Coast to the Pacific, or it can be a much more realistic patchwork of physical barriers and electronic surveillance (like Israel uses on its border with Lebanon). The president has even uttered the phrase "virtual wall" a few times, although now that Pelosi has announced willingness to consider such a thing it's probably off the table.
My experience with my kids is that schools, teachers, administrators really do care about kids, but (a) there's a lot of kids to care about, (b) there's a lot of pressure to prepare kids for high stakes testing, and (c) they're swamped with kids whose families have big time drama like domestic violence and drug abuse.
I once had to call in a lawyer who specialized in educational law to issue some threats to the local school administrators. They weren't ill-intentioned people, they just let a certain situation get away from, panicked, and tried to take some dubious short cuts.
You can't expect administrators and teachers to be saints; they're ordinary people who really do care about kids, but they screw up sometimes and like most people try to rationalize it or sweep it under the rug.
This, by the way, is the proper way to use a lawyer. You use a lawyer to stay out of the courts.
Yes... however in there's a difference. When you tip a waiter $10, you expect him to be $10 richer. You don't expect the restaurant owner to be $10 richer. Even if you think the minimum wage for waiters should be $15, it's not.
A tip is a contribution to the employee's standard of living, not the owner's. It's a fair bet that anyone who tips an Amazon driver thinks he's helping out a low wage employee, not Jeff Bezos.
Any business which steals employees tips, either directly or indirectly, deserves shaming.
Why, to transport Amazon nabobs from their pied-à-terres on in the East Village, of course!
$2500/month will get you a 1 bedroom apartment with kitchenette, plus access to hip neighborhood businesses catering to bohemian 1990s New Yorkers. It's almost as if EPCOT opened a New York pavilion.
Jobs created with, wait for it -- state funded incentives!
It reminds me of what my old bolshie Uncle Ivan used to say back in the 60s: "Kid, nobody believes in a socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's always 'socialism for me, capitalism for you!'"
You know, in the behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner's novel, Walden Two, he posited a society where people were paid *more* to do crappy jobs. That's actually the opposite of the real world where crappy jobs pay little and nice jobs tend to pay more.
This kind of addresses the problem where you (a) want to make sure everyone has enough to live on and (b) feel that everyone ought to do some kind of work as a matter of principle. There are jobs that nobody would do if they had any other choice, like the people who come to the houses of elderly people and give them baths and clean up after them. Yes, there are some saints who would do this because they are wonderful human beings, but in our country these jobs are done by immigrants *because they don't pay enough*. About one in four people who do "direct care" in the US are undocumented immigrants.
On the flip side, consider plumbing. Plumbing's a skilled trade, and for that reason it commands good pay and has job security. This attracts candidates to do a hard, dirty job *because the pay is good*.
As a thought experiment, imagine a world were everyone received basic housing, food and clothing, and then you reverse-auctioned unskilled or semi-skilled jobs to the lowest bidders. It is almost certain that some people will just opt-out. In a country with hundreds of millions of people, you've got at least one of every kind of person imaginable. But a *market* system puts a dollar value on the vague notion of the importance of work. If nobody does a job, it's because it'd be because it's literally not worth the trouble.
I think a lot of concerns with massive glaciers is exactly where the water is going. A comparatively small amount of water can have a big impact on glacier stability if it runs off along the ice/rock interface.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he was trying to avoid bank currency conversion fees, which run from 1% to 2.5% when converting US dollars to Canadian.
This is known as being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Well, I do think there's a huge problem with widespread acceptance of stereotypes of male behavior. However that doesn't mean that examples of that behavior don't exist,or that they aren't more likely to be men than women. This just doesn't say anything about being a man per se. P(A|B) P(B|A).
Marketing studies of cryptocurrency show that speculation is dominated by men; some figures show men making up 97% of Bitcoin speculators. However that doesn't mean that all men who use Bitcoin are speculators, nor that even using Bitcoin is common among men as a whole.
Examples of the "crypto-bro" stereotype no doubt exist. This is tied to the greater emphasis for men in the gene-swapping market on social fitness, as opposed to the greater emphasis on physical fertility cues for women. Such men are no more typical of ordinary men than Instagram models are of ordinary women.
Let me make an important distinction here: there is a difference between moral reasoning ability and moral behavior. Personally I think that moral behavior is much, much harder to manipulate than moral opinions.
Why might a game like GTA improve moral reasoning ability? Well, let's look at one of the most important theoretical ideas in modern philosophical ethics, Kant's Categorical Imperative. The most widely known formulation of that is as follows:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Without going into the reasoning behind this, Kant argued that the following, lesser known formulation is logically equivalent:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
This is probably more useful to anyone who is creating some kind of test of moral reasoning ability. You evaluate someone's ability to understand how actions either treat people as things to be used vs. persons having intrinsic importance. So it's not inconceivable that GTA would help someone score higher on a score of moral reasoning. In the game you use everyone else as a means to an end (e.g., as an object of gratification or a tool in a more elaborate strategy) all the while conscious that these are not real people and that you are doing something which in real life would be morally reprehensible.
What is less clear is whether playing the game would have any effect on actual ethical behavior. But you could say the same thing for attempts to shape young peoples' moral character by, say, sending them to Sunday school. Sunday school imparts scriptural knowledge of virtues like temperance, charity and prudence, but it doesn't appear to affect attendees future behavior as much as it affects their opinions about other peoples' behavior. Likewise I wouldn't be surprised to see GTA affect players' reasoning abilities or even opinions (although not necessarily in a predictable way), but I'd be astonished if there were any kind of uniform and widespread effect on behavior.
Which is not to say there aren't outliers in either case; there's bound to be. However those outliers are set apart by their character independent of the thing in question.
It'd be more accurate to say automation creates some jobs and destroys others. For example "computer" used to be a human job title. Large companies before computers employed massive accounting departments, the majority of people in them were responsible for performing and checking arithmetic all day.
Introducing computers eliminated the jobs where you add up columns of numbers, but it allowed the creation of new jobs analyzing data. AI has the promise to replace some analytical jobs in the future, and it is likely in the short term that as computers take over the low hanging fruit, those analysts will be focused on tasks computers aren't good at yet. However you shouldn't expect that trend to continue indefinitely.
You can't just draw a straight line across a past trend and extrapolate it indefinitely. There are step discontinuities and changing circumstances in the future. One of the concerns you should have is the growing trend of income stagnation. This has effected people in the lower two income quartiles since the 80s, as median income has shown no growth at all even as *average* income has continued it's steady post WW2 rise. It's clear that the new, higher paying jobs created don't always go to the people losing jobs, and as automation gets more sophisticated we're going to see the line of stagnation rise higher up the social strata.
Well, nobody can control where you get your information from but you. There are certainly papers that suggest it is possible to have extreme ice-driven events are possible, but they don't ever say it's *going* to happen. If you checked what the scientists have to say you'd get a much different view of matters.. The pape you are talking about the 114 cm addition was the *upper range* of the *worst case*.
Also it helps to understand how science works. A single paper or study is never authoritative. This paper, which is written as an attempt to narrow the range of possibilities in the paper you're talking about. It will in it's own have get its conclusions attacked. Science doesn't arrive at truths, it builds evidence, particularly focusing on contrary evidence. That's exactly the opposite of the way people normally use information, which is what makes science useful. But you cannot make head or tails of science from sources like Fox News or the Heartland Institute.
So how do you use science?
(1) Do not rely on opinion oriented media's hot take on second hand accounts of the papers
(2) Read the actual paper abstracts, or accounts of the research written by the scientists themselves
(3) Do not put too much store in any one study, wheter it predicts five meters of sea rise or finds Acai berries make fat melt away.
(4) Do rely on pieces written by scientists to summarize the entire state of evidence, like systemic reviews or technical briefings like the IPCC report.
You start by not paying too much attention to any individual paper, particularly new papers, whether it is a paper saying sea level rise estimates are too low or that Acai berries are a superfood that will melt fat off. You go on things which evaluate the *preponderance of evidence*, like systemic review papers or technical reports by scientific advisory groups.
The single largest contributor to the 52-98 cm of sea level rise we are expecting is thermal expansion, which is not chaotic at all. The ice is a huge wildcard which is responsible for the 46 cm of uncertainty in that figure.
This represents the most evidence-supported estimate we have to go on; assuming ice will contribute 0 is also making an unnecessarily precise prediction. We should act up on the best estimates we have; it's no different than predicting the track of a hurricane three days in advance. That track prediction is almost certainly somewhat off, but it's certainly actionable.
They didn't take into account the possible breakup of Antarctic marine ice cliffs. It's not so simple as "it gets so warm that the ice in Antarctica melts"; we're talking about 2-4 degrees C on average, which is not enough to cause the ice there to melt. We're dealing with the consequences of a 2016 paper suggested that ice around the periphery of Antarctica could destablize. If those ice cliffs destablizied that would unlock ice stuck behind them, allow that ice to flow into the sea.
It's a dynamic process that involves the mechanical migration of still-perfectly-frozen ice from the land. Seriously, if we were talking about all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland actually melting, we'd be screwed on a scale nobody is suggesting likely. Far worse than the additional meter we were worried about on top of the meter we're almost certain to get.
This study does NOT say that that the total sea level will rise only 14cm. It's talking about the contribution of one single source of sea level rise: Antarctic Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI).
What happened was in 2016 a widely reported paper suggested that the IPCC's (rather gloomy) 2013 sea level projections needed to be revised upward by about 65-114 cm in the worst case because it didn't take MICI into account. Dr. Edward's paper suggests that MICI contribution would be closer to 45cm in the worst case, and only about 14cm in the most likely case. However this is still on top of the 52-98cm predicted by IPCC, most of which is due to highly predictable thermal expansion and not the chaotic behavior of ice systems.
It would be *impossible* to prepare the kiddies for a future career in STEM without corporate support and branding.
Oh, there's plenty of "around" around. Just not much solid ground.
Lots of ways. An invention can be something that *would* work, if you had something that doesn't exist yet like materials with properties unlike any existing one, or motors that are lighter and more powerful than anything available. An invention may be impossible to build, like Tesla's idea of a transit system consisting of a world girdling wall built on top of scaffolding that would get knocked own, leaving the wall suspended in the air. It is conceivable that a science fiction civilization could build such a thing.
But mostly inventions fail because they're not economical. Not enough people want them at the price, or they don't work as well as existing inventions.
There is another thing to consider, an uncertainty which inventors often forget: economics. If you take all the inventions ever made and discard the ones that simply wouldn't work, the successful ones would still be a tiny fraction of what's left.
Tesla's scheme seems to have been to use the entire Earth/atmosphere's electromagetic field as a kind of filter/transmission medium to transfer power from something like a gigantic Tesla coil. Leaving aside the inefficiency of passing a massive white noise signal through a bandpass filter, and assuming the transmission was effective as Tesla believed it would be, you still wouldn't be able to meter or regulate the power usage. Literally anyone with an antenna could use it.
I'm not sure whether the arguments for the system's physical infeasibility based on what is now known about *conventional* radio transmission really apply to what Tesla had in mind, which appears to be forcing the entire Earth's EM field to resonate on a global scale. Presumably it would take some time and a huge amount of energy to get to the point where someone on a distant continent could extract power.
Tesla was inventing by the seat of his pants; he has a basic engineering education and immense ingenuity, but he didn't have the theoretical foundation to judge the feasibility of his scheme; to some degree that knowledge didn't even exist yet, in fact some of it may still not exist. He was making an unjustifi8able leap of imagination from his lab near-field power transmission experiments, which he could see worked with his own eyes, to a global scale. Some elements of his scheme were pure wishful thinking, e.g. creating an ionized path from the ground to the stratosphere and losslessly transmitting power over it.
The site is in a saltmarsh estuary, on a narrow spit of sand. There isn't much "around" the launch pad to build anything without being in the muck.
Wait -- are we talking about the *existing* border fencing, or the "wall" which Trump wants to build?
If we are talking about a map of the *planned* route of the *new* wall, a map showing that wall through the facility would be a legitimate concern.
Like all good political slogans, the "wall" adjusts to fit the needs of the moment and audience. It can be an unbroken concrete barrier stretching from the Gulf Coast to the Pacific, or it can be a much more realistic patchwork of physical barriers and electronic surveillance (like Israel uses on its border with Lebanon). The president has even uttered the phrase "virtual wall" a few times, although now that Pelosi has announced willingness to consider such a thing it's probably off the table.
My experience with my kids is that schools, teachers, administrators really do care about kids, but (a) there's a lot of kids to care about, (b) there's a lot of pressure to prepare kids for high stakes testing, and (c) they're swamped with kids whose families have big time drama like domestic violence and drug abuse.
I once had to call in a lawyer who specialized in educational law to issue some threats to the local school administrators. They weren't ill-intentioned people, they just let a certain situation get away from, panicked, and tried to take some dubious short cuts.
You can't expect administrators and teachers to be saints; they're ordinary people who really do care about kids, but they screw up sometimes and like most people try to rationalize it or sweep it under the rug.
This, by the way, is the proper way to use a lawyer. You use a lawyer to stay out of the courts.
The server is supposed to report his tip earnings.
Found the libtard.
I, on the other hand, am still looking for a Republican who can argue like a grown up.
Yes... however in there's a difference. When you tip a waiter $10, you expect him to be $10 richer. You don't expect the restaurant owner to be $10 richer. Even if you think the minimum wage for waiters should be $15, it's not.
A tip is a contribution to the employee's standard of living, not the owner's. It's a fair bet that anyone who tips an Amazon driver thinks he's helping out a low wage employee, not Jeff Bezos.
Any business which steals employees tips, either directly or indirectly, deserves shaming.
Why, to transport Amazon nabobs from their pied-à-terres on in the East Village, of course!
$2500/month will get you a 1 bedroom apartment with kitchenette, plus access to hip neighborhood businesses catering to bohemian 1990s New Yorkers. It's almost as if EPCOT opened a New York pavilion.
Jobs created with, wait for it -- state funded incentives!
It reminds me of what my old bolshie Uncle Ivan used to say back in the 60s: "Kid, nobody believes in a socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's always 'socialism for me, capitalism for you!'"
You know, in the behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner's novel, Walden Two, he posited a society where people were paid *more* to do crappy jobs. That's actually the opposite of the real world where crappy jobs pay little and nice jobs tend to pay more.
This kind of addresses the problem where you (a) want to make sure everyone has enough to live on and (b) feel that everyone ought to do some kind of work as a matter of principle. There are jobs that nobody would do if they had any other choice, like the people who come to the houses of elderly people and give them baths and clean up after them. Yes, there are some saints who would do this because they are wonderful human beings, but in our country these jobs are done by immigrants *because they don't pay enough*. About one in four people who do "direct care" in the US are undocumented immigrants.
On the flip side, consider plumbing. Plumbing's a skilled trade, and for that reason it commands good pay and has job security. This attracts candidates to do a hard, dirty job *because the pay is good*.
As a thought experiment, imagine a world were everyone received basic housing, food and clothing, and then you reverse-auctioned unskilled or semi-skilled jobs to the lowest bidders. It is almost certain that some people will just opt-out. In a country with hundreds of millions of people, you've got at least one of every kind of person imaginable. But a *market* system puts a dollar value on the vague notion of the importance of work. If nobody does a job, it's because it'd be because it's literally not worth the trouble.
That question, by the way, is actually a modern invention. There is no evidence it was ever debated by the Scholastics.
A reduction in wild insect biodiversity doesn't mean that, say, crop pests won't thrive.
This is evolution in action; as human impacts affect the biosphere more, you get a swing toward species that are well adapted to human disruptions.
Ever notice a "denier" makes a simple common sense statement, and then the AGW "priests" come along...
No. But I have noticed that denialists like to change the subject when confronted with facts.
I think a lot of concerns with massive glaciers is exactly where the water is going. A comparatively small amount of water can have a big impact on glacier stability if it runs off along the ice/rock interface.