Their actual fans know - the distortion comes in how they are portrayed in politics and thereby media. Politicians use them for propaganda purposes, and the media uses them as proxies for political party ideologies.
When people on assistance start working, they lose benefits often as fast, or faster, than the new money comes in - greater then 100% effective marginal tax rates. Makes no sense if you actually care about people. Makes plenty of sense to perpetuate the bureaucracy and put people on the voting plantation to keep it in power.
How are you going to give a 'universal basic income' to everyone without enslaving those who produce that wealth in the first place? They have a choice: until you send them to the inevitable gulags, they can say 'screw you' and stay at home instead of working.
People put up with taxes now. Why would removing the bureaucrats, regulations, and perverse incentives of the welfare state make them all decide to stop working?
More likely, people on the dole would start to be more productive when they no longer faced effective marginal tax rates greater than 100%.
I don't know about capitalism's fears (does an ism have fears?), but probably the two major free market economists in the 20th century were for a guaranteed basic income - Hayek and Friedman. Charles Murray recently came out with a book on it.
Ending the regulatory/welfare state is the greatest fear of government apparatchiks and central planners.
The problem with apologists for Islamist totalitarians is that they never look at the actual numbers. Go check the opinion surveys PEW research has done in Islamic countries. As an example, in Pakistan you get 80% approval for execution for apostates, adulterers, and blasphemers.
It is not a "fallacy" to point out that theocratic totalitarianism has widespread support in Islamic countries.
Yes, can't be bothered with those tedious little facts. Sam Harris, yes, what a mystery. Only comes up first in my google search.
samharris.org
What a mystery indeed.
Much too tiresome to do a google search. Much easier to ban self defense of law abiding citizens so they can live their lives in fear of criminals. But I guess you feel safe, so it's ok. I guess you're not planning on volunteering to personally protect people who live in fear of violent criminals. Not volunteering to take those 20 aggravated assaults for them either, I'll wager.
The thing with pro gun types - they know disarming law abiding citizens makes them less safe, not more.
"'When you get 800 résumés for every job ad, you need to weed them out somehow,' "
The goal is not to filter resumes. The goal is to find the best applicant for a given amount of search effort.
The problem is, companies are decidedly unserious about putting in the effort to find someone. For all the talk about how hard it is to find qualified applicants (let alone the best), companies are busy filtering resumes for typos, the currently unemployed, and past periods of unemployment.
Sam Harris has a violence FAQ, comparing violent crime rates versus homicides. The homicide rates are higher in the US, but for every extra US homicide, there are 20 extra UK assaults. Is that a good trade off?
Cities in California are going bankrupt. City services disappearing. City Attorney tells residents "lock your doors and load your guns".
So services are disappearing, while local governments are increasingly shaking down residents for money.
Anything that pulls in money gets resources, anything that actually serves citizens gets cut. Inspectors will show up to fine you. Police will run no knock raids, confiscate "drug money", and take anything that isn't nailed down as civil forfeiture. Good luck ever getting it back.
The functions of government are being collapsed to collecting money to pay government employees to take more money.
Barriers and costs to entry and exit are lower online, less committed people join, therefore you get more drops.
And yes, there are motivational advantages with a teacher standing there holding your hand. If you need your hand held, find someone to hold it.
I'd note that the other side of that pancake are the people who do better with the relative privacy of online learning. Some people with a relative lack of education or intelligence don't want to be put in a classroom setting displaying their relative lack of talents to all.
Alright, I'll bite. They aren't attacking science or the scientific method here, they're attacking the specific methods used here and the conclusions.
It's always bad science when runs counter to their preferred political narrative. Suggest that there are biological differences in intelligence, skill, or behavior between the sexes or races, and the villagers race out with their pitchforks. "Your science is impotent. You can't *prove* your claims." Suggest that we're all racist, sexist, homophobes based on some half assed psychology experiment, and it's "that's the way, uh huh uh huh, we like it, uh hu uh huh".
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say that.
Their actual fans know - the distortion comes in how they are portrayed in politics and thereby media. Politicians use them for propaganda purposes, and the media uses them as proxies for political party ideologies.
That's exactly the kind of thing I meant.
When people on assistance start working, they lose benefits often as fast, or faster, than the new money comes in - greater then 100% effective marginal tax rates. Makes no sense if you actually care about people. Makes plenty of sense to perpetuate the bureaucracy and put people on the voting plantation to keep it in power.
How are you going to give a 'universal basic income' to everyone without enslaving those who produce that wealth in the first place? They have a choice: until you send them to the inevitable gulags, they can say 'screw you' and stay at home instead of working.
People put up with taxes now. Why would removing the bureaucrats, regulations, and perverse incentives of the welfare state make them all decide to stop working?
More likely, people on the dole would start to be more productive when they no longer faced effective marginal tax rates greater than 100%.
I don't know about capitalism's fears (does an ism have fears?), but probably the two major free market economists in the 20th century were for a guaranteed basic income - Hayek and Friedman. Charles Murray recently came out with a book on it.
Ending the regulatory/welfare state is the greatest fear of government apparatchiks and central planners.
So that Janet Jackson should have notified people in advance of her wardrobe "misfunction"?
The problem with apologists for Islamist totalitarians is that they never look at the actual numbers. Go check the opinion surveys PEW research has done in Islamic countries. As an example, in Pakistan you get 80% approval for execution for apostates, adulterers, and blasphemers.
It is not a "fallacy" to point out that theocratic totalitarianism has widespread support in Islamic countries.
Yeah, because when terroristic theocratic nutbags have their demands for blasphemy executions granted, they'll never ever go to that well again.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
- Sir Winston Churchill
People in the army have families.
East to kill people - not so easy to keep others from killing everyone you care about.
Yes, can't be bothered with those tedious little facts. Sam Harris, yes, what a mystery. Only comes up first in my google search.
samharris.org
What a mystery indeed.
Much too tiresome to do a google search. Much easier to ban self defense of law abiding citizens so they can live their lives in fear of criminals. But I guess you feel safe, so it's ok. I guess you're not planning on volunteering to personally protect people who live in fear of violent criminals. Not volunteering to take those 20 aggravated assaults for them either, I'll wager.
The thing with pro gun types - they know disarming law abiding citizens makes them less safe, not more.
And indentured servants (H1Bs) for technical jobs.
Much better to have workers who don't have the full rights of citizens.
"'When you get 800 résumés for every job ad, you need to weed them out somehow,' "
The goal is not to filter resumes. The goal is to find the best applicant for a given amount of search effort.
The problem is, companies are decidedly unserious about putting in the effort to find someone. For all the talk about how hard it is to find qualified applicants (let alone the best), companies are busy filtering resumes for typos, the currently unemployed, and past periods of unemployment.
"citing 'destabilization' of the 'entire software industry."
They say that like it's a bad thing.
Wheeeeee!
But what's the rate of assault?
Sam Harris has a violence FAQ, comparing violent crime rates versus homicides. The homicide rates are higher in the US, but for every extra US homicide, there are 20 extra UK assaults. Is that a good trade off?
Many may leave before they get tenure.
After tenure, they don't leave until they leave in a box.
Moral of the story - use the personal and holiday time.
Thanks.
I hope you go back and consult for twice your previous wage+benefits.
Cities in California are going bankrupt. City services disappearing. City Attorney tells residents "lock your doors and load your guns".
So services are disappearing, while local governments are increasingly shaking down residents for money.
Anything that pulls in money gets resources, anything that actually serves citizens gets cut. Inspectors will show up to fine you. Police will run no knock raids, confiscate "drug money", and take anything that isn't nailed down as civil forfeiture. Good luck ever getting it back.
The functions of government are being collapsed to collecting money to pay government employees to take more money.
Feudalism? Sounds close.
Now go away or i shall taunt you a second time!
I did it a while back, so I can bitch and moan whenever I want. My voice counts!
The length of the wires isn't a useful metric - it's the complexity of the wiring that causes miswiring.
Barriers and costs to entry and exit are lower online, less committed people join, therefore you get more drops.
And yes, there are motivational advantages with a teacher standing there holding your hand. If you need your hand held, find someone to hold it.
I'd note that the other side of that pancake are the people who do better with the relative privacy of online learning. Some people with a relative lack of education or intelligence don't want to be put in a classroom setting displaying their relative lack of talents to all.
Life is full off trade offs.
How much of the IT market is government contracting?
Limited supply of skilled workers with bargaining power bad.
Alright, I'll bite. They aren't attacking science or the scientific method here, they're attacking the specific methods used here and the conclusions.
It's always bad science when runs counter to their preferred political narrative. Suggest that there are biological differences in intelligence, skill, or behavior between the sexes or races, and the villagers race out with their pitchforks. "Your science is impotent. You can't *prove* your claims." Suggest that we're all racist, sexist, homophobes based on some half assed psychology experiment, and it's "that's the way, uh huh uh huh, we like it, uh hu uh huh".