This article is two years old, but goes into a good amount of detail on housing and rent in SF. A lot of the problem is due to people in various neighborhoods preventing, delaying, and increasing the cost of construction of new buildings.
The American craft beer scene is fantastic. America is making a lot of really good beer now (and still some shitty beer, sure). But the average American craft beer probably isn't any weaker than your average German beer, and may actually be stronger, with the trend of strong IPAs being so hot right now.
Vegas doesn't either, or at least it didn't a few years ago. Some places in Texas don't either, I think, or maybe the local police just never enforce them.
You are a) assuming I'm a guy, and b) stereotyping "guy stuff" and "girl stuff". Some people who live near glaciers are well off; some aren't. People who study the impacts of climate change on humans should care about clothesmaking; people who study glaciers generally don't need to.
It specifically complains that scientists are classifying, measuring, and mapping at all because this is supposedly a "masculine" way of doing science. Furthermore, I don't hate (most) feminists; I think the movement currently is spreading some misinformation and is misguided, but most of them have good intentions.
Don't get me wrong, at some point everything in science actually has to be brought into the standard, highly measured, statistically proven, format. But if you're trying to anticipate how climate change will affect a bunch of Afghani herders whose idea of literacy is learning to recite the Koran from heart, and whose idea of numeracy is being able to calculate complex fractions in your head really fast; the data they give you is not gonna start in a science-friendly format.
Sure, I agree with that. However, that isn't what the paper is complaining about.
I said the article points out the author's intentions; it does this by quoting him in an interview he gave.
My problem with them is actually precisely what you accuse me of: they have an ideological preconception that anyone using terminology they associate with their political opponents by definition has no point to make.
And this is a fine point in general; I don't think it's valid in this situation, but in general I agree.
I agree with ceoyoyo - it's a stretch to call Switzerland a pacifist country. They have mandatory male military service, a substantial portion of the population has rifles that could easily be made automatic, and they have tons of bunkers in their mountains. Some strategic bridges are even rigged to be easily and quickly demolished in the event of an invasion.
The US has kept Japan safe for decades. Being pacifist helped, because they couldn't meaningfully invade someone even if they wanted to, but the US has definitely helped keep Japan safe.
Pacifism is great when everyone does it; it's not so great when you have a large, increasingly aggressive neighbor.
No, they had competent officers. A lot of them joined ISIS, which is one reason why ISIS is doing as well as it is. As for carrier losses... The US would certainly feel the loss of a carrier, but the Chinese would feel it a lot more, given that they don't have nearly as many. Historically, the US hasn't folded under large attacks, it's only gotten angrier.
I didn't make it far enough into it to see some of these examples - thanks! The concept the author stated in an interview - making sure to look at how climate change and glaciers affect different groups - is fine, but this paper went about it in a ridiculous and counterproductive way.
Why would people who study glaciers care about clothesmaking? That aside, there are climate change studies that focus on smaller-scale, regional impacts - they just tend to not receive as much attention because they tend to only be relevant to a smaller proportion of the audience. You're also stereotyping what people find important based on their gender. Lastly, if this money is being spent by Western countries, shouldn't it focus on things the West considers to be important?
The paper complains about "Eurocentric knowledges", the fact that the relationship between gender and glaciers is "overlooked", and wants to "lead to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions." It talks about "marginalized knowledge", which could potentially be a valid point, but then says you need a feminist perspective because of the historical marginalization of women. It complains that men are doing a lot of glaciological research, and says the research has "manly characteristics", whatever those are. Oh, and it complains that scientists are using empirical evidence instead of asking local cultures for alternative narratives. And let's also not overlook that it complains that scientists are trying to "classify, measure, map" things. The horror!
FYI, the corresponding author is a man.
The article you're making fun of points out that the author is trying to analyze how climate change (and how it impacts glaciers) plays out for different groups of people. It also points out that the author is doing a spectacularly bad job of making this point, relying on a lot of buzzwords and non sequiturs instead of solid points.
Lastly, your implication that people with different political views than you are less intelligent ("for lack of a term a reason.com reader would understand", "therefore I don't know what they mean") is incorrect. There are both intelligent and stupid people in almost any political view you care to name. Reason has some good articles and some poor articles, much like any other site.
Apple isn't preventing the government from accessing it. The government has it in custody. What they aren't doing is creating new tools for the government, which, in my opinion, is perfectly fine and justified. Naturally, other people disagree, which is also perfectly fine.
Let me first say that I'm not a fan of Trump. However, it's disingenuous to claim that he "wants to ban Muslims from entering the US". This Politifact article gives some more details.
Hang on - your source says it's cost $1.7T + ~$0.5T in benefits. GP said those programs (not including Medicaid or other public assistance programs) cost $1.7T/year. Therefore, two years of public assistance is more than the war. You shouldn't include interest payments on the war unless you do on public assistance as well, which won't really change the picture.
I spoke decent French in high school, and then started learning German. I had the same problem as you - it only really went away when I got much better at German than I was at French (my French now is, of course, terrible, since I haven't been working on it). I'm glad someone else understands that problem though!
Monty Hall was confusing to me until I read this explanation:
An intuitive explanation is that if the contestant picks a goat (2 of 3 doors) the contestant will win the car by switching as the other goat can no longer be picked, while if the contestant picks the car (1 of 3 doors) the contestant will not win the car by switching.
It's a weird one though, and a great explanation for why statistics is important, because "common sense" often leads people astray.
As a current biomedical PhD student, we really don't get enough stats education. Part of the problem seems to be that biology - to some extent - attracts people who want to do science but weren't that strong in math. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but there are a shocking number of people in the field who really don't care about doing the right stats, modeling things properly, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This article is two years old, but goes into a good amount of detail on housing and rent in SF. A lot of the problem is due to people in various neighborhoods preventing, delaying, and increasing the cost of construction of new buildings.
No, it's not, but that was in direct reference to the GP's assertion that it's "lightly colored water". Obviously.
The American craft beer scene is fantastic. America is making a lot of really good beer now (and still some shitty beer, sure). But the average American craft beer probably isn't any weaker than your average German beer, and may actually be stronger, with the trend of strong IPAs being so hot right now.
Vegas doesn't either, or at least it didn't a few years ago. Some places in Texas don't either, I think, or maybe the local police just never enforce them.
You are a) assuming I'm a guy, and b) stereotyping "guy stuff" and "girl stuff". Some people who live near glaciers are well off; some aren't. People who study the impacts of climate change on humans should care about clothesmaking; people who study glaciers generally don't need to.
It specifically complains that scientists are classifying, measuring, and mapping at all because this is supposedly a "masculine" way of doing science. Furthermore, I don't hate (most) feminists; I think the movement currently is spreading some misinformation and is misguided, but most of them have good intentions.
Don't get me wrong, at some point everything in science actually has to be brought into the standard, highly measured, statistically proven, format. But if you're trying to anticipate how climate change will affect a bunch of Afghani herders whose idea of literacy is learning to recite the Koran from heart, and whose idea of numeracy is being able to calculate complex fractions in your head really fast; the data they give you is not gonna start in a science-friendly format.
Sure, I agree with that. However, that isn't what the paper is complaining about.
I said the article points out the author's intentions; it does this by quoting him in an interview he gave.
My problem with them is actually precisely what you accuse me of: they have an ideological preconception that anyone using terminology they associate with their political opponents by definition has no point to make.
And this is a fine point in general; I don't think it's valid in this situation, but in general I agree.
I agree with ceoyoyo - it's a stretch to call Switzerland a pacifist country. They have mandatory male military service, a substantial portion of the population has rifles that could easily be made automatic, and they have tons of bunkers in their mountains. Some strategic bridges are even rigged to be easily and quickly demolished in the event of an invasion.
The US has kept Japan safe for decades. Being pacifist helped, because they couldn't meaningfully invade someone even if they wanted to, but the US has definitely helped keep Japan safe.
Pacifism is great when everyone does it; it's not so great when you have a large, increasingly aggressive neighbor.
No, they had competent officers. A lot of them joined ISIS, which is one reason why ISIS is doing as well as it is. As for carrier losses... The US would certainly feel the loss of a carrier, but the Chinese would feel it a lot more, given that they don't have nearly as many. Historically, the US hasn't folded under large attacks, it's only gotten angrier.
Yes, I'm sure the Japanese are very worried about the US invading them. /s
I didn't make it far enough into it to see some of these examples - thanks! The concept the author stated in an interview - making sure to look at how climate change and glaciers affect different groups - is fine, but this paper went about it in a ridiculous and counterproductive way.
Why would people who study glaciers care about clothesmaking? That aside, there are climate change studies that focus on smaller-scale, regional impacts - they just tend to not receive as much attention because they tend to only be relevant to a smaller proportion of the audience. You're also stereotyping what people find important based on their gender. Lastly, if this money is being spent by Western countries, shouldn't it focus on things the West considers to be important?
The paper complains about "Eurocentric knowledges", the fact that the relationship between gender and glaciers is "overlooked", and wants to "lead to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions." It talks about "marginalized knowledge", which could potentially be a valid point, but then says you need a feminist perspective because of the historical marginalization of women. It complains that men are doing a lot of glaciological research, and says the research has "manly characteristics", whatever those are. Oh, and it complains that scientists are using empirical evidence instead of asking local cultures for alternative narratives. And let's also not overlook that it complains that scientists are trying to "classify, measure, map" things. The horror!
FYI, the corresponding author is a man.
The article you're making fun of points out that the author is trying to analyze how climate change (and how it impacts glaciers) plays out for different groups of people. It also points out that the author is doing a spectacularly bad job of making this point, relying on a lot of buzzwords and non sequiturs instead of solid points.
Lastly, your implication that people with different political views than you are less intelligent ("for lack of a term a reason.com reader would understand", "therefore I don't know what they mean") is incorrect. There are both intelligent and stupid people in almost any political view you care to name. Reason has some good articles and some poor articles, much like any other site.
Yeah, I think if a tsunami makes it to the plant, the region around it has much bigger problems.
Fair enough - however, he has stated several times that his campaign website isn't up to date, and his views have changed.
Apple isn't preventing the government from accessing it. The government has it in custody. What they aren't doing is creating new tools for the government, which, in my opinion, is perfectly fine and justified. Naturally, other people disagree, which is also perfectly fine.
Huh. Maybe it's the scanned contracts then? Opera does look pretty impressive in that case though.
Let me first say that I'm not a fan of Trump. However, it's disingenuous to claim that he "wants to ban Muslims from entering the US". This Politifact article gives some more details.
I have 8 gigs on my PC at home, and I have way more than 20 tabs open (and in tab groups) at any given time.
Hang on - your source says it's cost $1.7T + ~$0.5T in benefits. GP said those programs (not including Medicaid or other public assistance programs) cost $1.7T/year. Therefore, two years of public assistance is more than the war. You shouldn't include interest payments on the war unless you do on public assistance as well, which won't really change the picture.
And this got +5 Informative? Come on, people...
You initially said "public assistance", not "welfare". I don't know how you wouldn't consider Medicare and Medicaid to be public assistance.
Only if you don't include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as "public assistance programs".
I spoke decent French in high school, and then started learning German. I had the same problem as you - it only really went away when I got much better at German than I was at French (my French now is, of course, terrible, since I haven't been working on it). I'm glad someone else understands that problem though!
An intuitive explanation is that if the contestant picks a goat (2 of 3 doors) the contestant will win the car by switching as the other goat can no longer be picked, while if the contestant picks the car (1 of 3 doors) the contestant will not win the car by switching.
It's a weird one though, and a great explanation for why statistics is important, because "common sense" often leads people astray.
As a current biomedical PhD student, we really don't get enough stats education. Part of the problem seems to be that biology - to some extent - attracts people who want to do science but weren't that strong in math. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, but there are a shocking number of people in the field who really don't care about doing the right stats, modeling things properly, etc.