"With p-hacking, the larger the data set, the greater the probability of identifying background noise as significant patterns."
The root cause is, once again, "correlation does not mean causation". And stock traders are very keen to that fallacy: "I got five quarters in a row of profits for my customers, therefor you should trade with me". These systems are very good finding patterns *in the past*, does this mean those patterns will reproduce *in the future*? Heck, no, and the larger the data set, the more probably they won't re-appear in the future (because they were just casual noise).
"Makes sense - the average human adult male is approximately 60% water and the average adult female is approximately 50% so an 80 kg male will become quite a few kilos of ashes (I'm assuming some weight besides water is lost up the chimney)."
Make sense... are you sure?
Apart from water, an organic body is mostly made of four elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen (and traces of a lot others). All C,H,O,N can, and will, under highly enough temperatures and time "gas away", so you end up with very little weight of "unburnable" (under usual conditions) ashes.
"That's not the gambler's fallacy, it's the sunk cost fallacy."
Both.
"We are not going to stop now after that much investment" -that's the sunk cost fallacy part.
"Because we "know" we are going to win the jackpot -aka the magic unbreakable DRM if only we push long enough" -thinking that a losing strategy somehow will make us win just because wishful thinking, that's the gambler's fallacy part.
"I don't know about the USA, but in Germany repealing unconstitutional laws is the job of the Federal Constitutional Court."
That's a different beast of a law: an unconstitutional law is one that never should have risen to law to start with because it lacks a technicality (abide to the constitution, in this case), just like a law would be repealed if, let's say, there were a mistake counting its votes for approval but wouldn't be known till later or something like that.
"Many industries have spoken. They want employees with a broad-based industry knowledge."
No, they don't. For the most part, when they are looking for a "DBA expert with solid knowledge on Oracle RAC 10g", they will take nine times out of ten somebody that can show some work with Oracle RAC 10g, even is he's a freshman, than a "solid DBA" which happens not to have worked explicitly with Oracle RAC 10g. And then, nine times out of ten, the job request will be "with technology A (or B or C)" instead of "professional knowledge and experience on field A (or B or C)". Which ends up being that 99 times out of 100 the "specialist on paper" will be chosen over the "seasoned professional". Compound it with the fact that the "specialist on paper" will accept lower pay and more bullshit and you are done.
"Although it would be nice to allow the market (aka the people) to make that decision."
It's been shown time and again that market, aka the people, is notably bad at taking decisions with long time impact. We see time and again that the product with a lower price tag wins, no matter what its total cost of ownership is.
So if it happened that electric cars were more expensive to build and so more expensive to buy, people wouldn't buy them even if they were cheaper in the long run. For lower impact goods, it's just their money, but if it also happened that electric cars really were a better option for the environment (and I'm not saying any of those two things to be true, I'm just saying *if*) then they would be a good target for specific legislation. Contrary to standard USA thinking, in EU we know "the invisible hand" is not an almighty God, and "communism" is not a rude word either.
"in Europe legislation can easily survive for centuries."
And that has been modded "insightful"?
Of course it *can* survive for centuries. But also it *can* be repealed by the next government with the same ease.
I'd say you have (by this criterion) three kinds of laws: 1) Merely utilitarian: they tend to be there for ages, sometimes even far beyond its utility timespan. They doesn't rise political concern and no one takes the hassle to deal with them. I.e.: legislation on some technical regulation. 2) Hidden partisanship: they are very contested by the opposition when proposed, because they need to appease their electorate but, either because they really make common sense or because of political corruption, when the former opposition rises to government, they "forget" about those laws. I.e.: regulations on abortion or divorce, big-corps control/no-control. 3) Laws fully driven by political agenda. They tend to vary on a country by country level, but those are the ones that get heavily changed whenever the government changes party colors. In my country, for instance, those related to education.
This regulations on ICE looks to me to be either on 2 or 3, and that they go beyond the current party in government depends heavily on it. In any case, my point stands: any regulation meant to be enforced by future governments can obviously also be repealed by future governments, so no point on too much fanfare when approving them.
"Who cares? By 2030, most of these politicians will be out of office, so dealing with the consequences will be someone else's problem."
Not only they won't be there to deal with consequences; they won't be there to enforce their rulings either.
In a democracy, any "ruling" that goes beyond the election cycle (much more if it's meant to *start* beyond the election cycle) is basically nothing more than words in the wind.
"I'm suggesting that racism might be an evolutionary trait"
Probably no need to resort to racism as evolutionary advantage as it looks to me to be too "refined". Ours is a social species, and social cohesiveness provides an obvious survival advantage to the individual. It's also that our intelligence is developed around prejudicing categorization (simplifying a lot: this movement on that bush is a lion that will eat me or is a gazelle I can eat? No, sorry, no time to gather further evidences -and if you fail too often, you either starve or will serve as predators' dinner).
Everything else are emergent properties of these two traits: even as toddlers, we seek for answers much more than *proper* answers, i.e.: religion: we just can't satisfy ourselves with an "I don't know" answer, much better "this noise? is the thunder God, you know, that is in rage". Science? No, sorry, I just can't stand myself with neither "I don't know" nor "I don't give a damn" I *need* an explanation about what the hell are those bright spots on the night sky and why they move they way they move.
Racism? Social categorization (us vs them) plus prejudice (if there are an "us" and a "them", one of those two sets *must* be better than the other -and it won't be "us", so it must be "them"). Racism is very easy, since allows to categorize "us" and "them" at first sight, even from afar. With time and social sophistication, racism becomes more subtle too: black vs non-black is just too easy, what about jews/non jews or arian vs non-arian?
And did you see what I did here? A very nice rationalization instead of just saying "well, I have no idea".
"They build super ingenious bugs that require your best developers to find and fix."
But we are in DevOps land right now! and full stack development too!
This means that devs get more responsibilities at arch and ops... I just went out of one and a half month of work rethinking and refactoring a piece of functionality already deployed on production, which should have taken me two-three days to build a new -and that took a half a dozen people team about two weeks to develop first time. Now it works, will work in the future and will be able to adapt for the times coming.
They are basically nice guys, mind you, young, enthusiast and not that dumb so they, more or less, know how to do it, but they lack the ability to know what to do and why, and that shows on their designs.
Of course, for mid management, it is me the one quickly becoming the old curmudgeon that doesn't adapt and is not a nice team-player.
"If you go to the DisruptJ20 website and look around a bit, you'll see that they distribute publications that include how to fight with riot police and armored vehicles"
I'm no expert on USA Constitution, but wasn't that at least on its spirit? Isn't the ultimate reason for a "well regulated militia" to be able to overcome government when need arises? Or is fighting riot police and armored vehicles the exclusive privilege of the government? On top of that, isn't this kind of things what free speech is all about?
"You're correct though, IBM charges a premium price and isn't delivering a premium product. As more businesses figure that out IBM's death spiral becomes faster and faster."
And yet, just today, one of biggest 50 banks in the world announced a strategic partnership with IBM to bring "innovation and transformation".
"I know a lot of people will use the knowledge of the local store to find out about a product (or even try it on in the case of clothes) and then buy online because it saves them money"
Exactly that.
The solution is obvious... and it's not going to be implemented because the way capitalism works.
There are a lot of products you'd better see before you buy -if you can, that is.
Online vendors should negotiate with local retailers to be their window displays and prescriptors instead of making them paying in advance for their goods and then letting them figure how they'll cover the fix-ups, cost of business, decent profits, etc. But they won't: in the short term, they already work as displays; in the long run, of course, they'll fold and vendors probably will end up with less overall sales and quality will be hurt (when you sell based on photographs and astroturfing, there's no incentive to produce high quality items) but, who worries about tomorrow?
"Don't carry crap. Carry the best products with the best reviews at good prices(There are many times that I would drive a few minutes and pay a few extra $ for the convenience of having it Now)"
Yes, there are. The question is: are those times many enough as to cover for the store's overhead and profit? Probably not. And even then, if you go to the store is because you are in a hurry: why having the highly regarded (and probably a bit more expensive) items, when you will probably end up buying the crap at the same price tag (remember, you are in a hurry) giving me a better margin?
"Any asteroid? Regardless of size? How about Ceres, 500+ miles in diameter? I'll bet that wipes out all humans and every animal species larger than a rat."
Yeah, what about Ceres? How much of a threat of impact it supposes?
You know, we have quite a grasp on newtonian mechanics. When did you say the 500+ miles of Ceres are going to be anywhere near to Earth?
Jupiter is even bigger than Ceres, you know... how great a threat of impact do you think Jupiter poses?
Right. I think you are starting to understand now.
Slashdot Mirror
"With p-hacking, the larger the data set, the greater the probability of identifying background noise as significant patterns."
The root cause is, once again, "correlation does not mean causation". And stock traders are very keen to that fallacy: "I got five quarters in a row of profits for my customers, therefor you should trade with me". These systems are very good finding patterns *in the past*, does this mean those patterns will reproduce *in the future*? Heck, no, and the larger the data set, the more probably they won't re-appear in the future (because they were just casual noise).
"Makes sense - the average human adult male is approximately 60% water and the average adult female is approximately 50% so an 80 kg male will become quite a few kilos of ashes (I'm assuming some weight besides water is lost up the chimney)."
Make sense... are you sure?
Apart from water, an organic body is mostly made of four elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen (and traces of a lot others). All C,H,O,N can, and will, under highly enough temperatures and time "gas away", so you end up with very little weight of "unburnable" (under usual conditions) ashes.
Math error on universe, the answer is actually 42.
"That's not the gambler's fallacy, it's the sunk cost fallacy."
Both.
"We are not going to stop now after that much investment" -that's the sunk cost fallacy part.
"Because we "know" we are going to win the jackpot -aka the magic unbreakable DRM if only we push long enough" -thinking that a losing strategy somehow will make us win just because wishful thinking, that's the gambler's fallacy part.
"I don't know about the USA, but in Germany repealing unconstitutional laws is the job of the Federal Constitutional Court."
That's a different beast of a law: an unconstitutional law is one that never should have risen to law to start with because it lacks a technicality (abide to the constitution, in this case), just like a law would be repealed if, let's say, there were a mistake counting its votes for approval but wouldn't be known till later or something like that.
"Many industries have spoken. They want employees with a broad-based industry knowledge."
No, they don't. For the most part, when they are looking for a "DBA expert with solid knowledge on Oracle RAC 10g", they will take nine times out of ten somebody that can show some work with Oracle RAC 10g, even is he's a freshman, than a "solid DBA" which happens not to have worked explicitly with Oracle RAC 10g. And then, nine times out of ten, the job request will be "with technology A (or B or C)" instead of "professional knowledge and experience on field A (or B or C)". Which ends up being that 99 times out of 100 the "specialist on paper" will be chosen over the "seasoned professional". Compound it with the fact that the "specialist on paper" will accept lower pay and more bullshit and you are done.
"KDE works just fine if you have enough RAM... typically 32G or more"
KDE works just perfect on 4GB RAM.
I know: that's what my desktop has. And it also runs quite a bunch of services without problems.
"Although it would be nice to allow the market (aka the people) to make that decision."
It's been shown time and again that market, aka the people, is notably bad at taking decisions with long time impact. We see time and again that the product with a lower price tag wins, no matter what its total cost of ownership is.
So if it happened that electric cars were more expensive to build and so more expensive to buy, people wouldn't buy them even if they were cheaper in the long run. For lower impact goods, it's just their money, but if it also happened that electric cars really were a better option for the environment (and I'm not saying any of those two things to be true, I'm just saying *if*) then they would be a good target for specific legislation. Contrary to standard USA thinking, in EU we know "the invisible hand" is not an almighty God, and "communism" is not a rude word either.
"in Europe legislation can easily survive for centuries."
And that has been modded "insightful"?
Of course it *can* survive for centuries. But also it *can* be repealed by the next government with the same ease.
I'd say you have (by this criterion) three kinds of laws:
1) Merely utilitarian: they tend to be there for ages, sometimes even far beyond its utility timespan. They doesn't rise political concern and no one takes the hassle to deal with them. I.e.: legislation on some technical regulation.
2) Hidden partisanship: they are very contested by the opposition when proposed, because they need to appease their electorate but, either because they really make common sense or because of political corruption, when the former opposition rises to government, they "forget" about those laws. I.e.: regulations on abortion or divorce, big-corps control/no-control.
3) Laws fully driven by political agenda. They tend to vary on a country by country level, but those are the ones that get heavily changed whenever the government changes party colors. In my country, for instance, those related to education.
This regulations on ICE looks to me to be either on 2 or 3, and that they go beyond the current party in government depends heavily on it. In any case, my point stands: any regulation meant to be enforced by future governments can obviously also be repealed by future governments, so no point on too much fanfare when approving them.
"Who cares? By 2030, most of these politicians will be out of office, so dealing with the consequences will be someone else's problem."
Not only they won't be there to deal with consequences; they won't be there to enforce their rulings either.
In a democracy, any "ruling" that goes beyond the election cycle (much more if it's meant to *start* beyond the election cycle) is basically nothing more than words in the wind.
"I don't know. England has been known to make a few nice cars."
Yes, nice cars, yes.
Reliable cars, on the other hand...
Sharknado 8 - the director's cut.
There you have something!
"if there are an "us" and a "them", one of those two sets *must* be better than the other -and it won't be "us", so it must be "them""
Obviously I meant the other way around.
"I'm suggesting that racism might be an evolutionary trait"
Probably no need to resort to racism as evolutionary advantage as it looks to me to be too "refined". Ours is a social species, and social cohesiveness provides an obvious survival advantage to the individual. It's also that our intelligence is developed around prejudicing categorization (simplifying a lot: this movement on that bush is a lion that will eat me or is a gazelle I can eat? No, sorry, no time to gather further evidences -and if you fail too often, you either starve or will serve as predators' dinner).
Everything else are emergent properties of these two traits: even as toddlers, we seek for answers much more than *proper* answers, i.e.: religion: we just can't satisfy ourselves with an "I don't know" answer, much better "this noise? is the thunder God, you know, that is in rage". Science? No, sorry, I just can't stand myself with neither "I don't know" nor "I don't give a damn" I *need* an explanation about what the hell are those bright spots on the night sky and why they move they way they move.
Racism? Social categorization (us vs them) plus prejudice (if there are an "us" and a "them", one of those two sets *must* be better than the other -and it won't be "us", so it must be "them"). Racism is very easy, since allows to categorize "us" and "them" at first sight, even from afar. With time and social sophistication, racism becomes more subtle too: black vs non-black is just too easy, what about jews/non jews or arian vs non-arian?
And did you see what I did here? A very nice rationalization instead of just saying "well, I have no idea".
"They build super ingenious bugs that require your best developers to find and fix."
But we are in DevOps land right now! and full stack development too!
This means that devs get more responsibilities at arch and ops... I just went out of one and a half month of work rethinking and refactoring a piece of functionality already deployed on production, which should have taken me two-three days to build a new -and that took a half a dozen people team about two weeks to develop first time. Now it works, will work in the future and will be able to adapt for the times coming.
They are basically nice guys, mind you, young, enthusiast and not that dumb so they, more or less, know how to do it, but they lack the ability to know what to do and why, and that shows on their designs.
Of course, for mid management, it is me the one quickly becoming the old curmudgeon that doesn't adapt and is not a nice team-player.
"So these people want to eliminate the government, and replace it with an organization empowered to coerce people into following a set of rules."
No.
"If you go to the DisruptJ20 website and look around a bit, you'll see that they distribute publications that include how to fight with riot police and armored vehicles"
I'm no expert on USA Constitution, but wasn't that at least on its spirit? Isn't the ultimate reason for a "well regulated militia" to be able to overcome government when need arises? Or is fighting riot police and armored vehicles the exclusive privilege of the government? On top of that, isn't this kind of things what free speech is all about?
"Are they? Leftists are collectivists. TFA says these people are anarchists, which is the polar opposite of collectivism."
These are not the anarchists you're looking for.
By the way, collectivist anarchism*1 predates anarcho-capitalism*2 by how much? a whole century?
*1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
*2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"You're correct though, IBM charges a premium price and isn't delivering a premium product. As more businesses figure that out IBM's death spiral becomes faster and faster."
And yet, just today, one of biggest 50 banks in the world announced a strategic partnership with IBM to bring "innovation and transformation".
"There is no need for such deals: reviews can include video and for many products they can be found on youtube"
If you think video is a good substitute for having the item at hand, you are not for quality, so I'm not talking to you, so to say.
"including unpackaging and usage giving a lot of insight on the product"
Payed astroturfing is still payed astroturfing even when videos are involved.
"Furthermore a good return policy like the EU mandatory 14 days return no-questions-asked "
Except the return is on customers' dime.
"I know a lot of people will use the knowledge of the local store to find out about a product (or even try it on in the case of clothes) and then buy online because it saves them money"
Exactly that.
The solution is obvious... and it's not going to be implemented because the way capitalism works.
There are a lot of products you'd better see before you buy -if you can, that is.
Online vendors should negotiate with local retailers to be their window displays and prescriptors instead of making them paying in advance for their goods and then letting them figure how they'll cover the fix-ups, cost of business, decent profits, etc. But they won't: in the short term, they already work as displays; in the long run, of course, they'll fold and vendors probably will end up with less overall sales and quality will be hurt (when you sell based on photographs and astroturfing, there's no incentive to produce high quality items) but, who worries about tomorrow?
"Don't carry crap. Carry the best products with the best reviews at good prices(There are many times that I would drive a few minutes and pay a few extra $ for the convenience of having it Now)"
Yes, there are. The question is: are those times many enough as to cover for the store's overhead and profit? Probably not. And even then, if you go to the store is because you are in a hurry: why having the highly regarded (and probably a bit more expensive) items, when you will probably end up buying the crap at the same price tag (remember, you are in a hurry) giving me a better margin?
"If the creator does not want you to use his creation for whatever reason â" or even without reason â" you should not use it."
If the creator does not want you to use his creation for whatever reason -or even without reason, all he has to do is not making it... ahem... PUBLIC.
Once it's public, it's public.
"Any asteroid? Regardless of size? How about Ceres, 500+ miles in diameter? I'll bet that wipes out all humans and every animal species larger than a rat."
Yeah, what about Ceres? How much of a threat of impact it supposes?
You know, we have quite a grasp on newtonian mechanics. When did you say the 500+ miles of Ceres are going to be anywhere near to Earth?
Jupiter is even bigger than Ceres, you know... how great a threat of impact do you think Jupiter poses?
Right. I think you are starting to understand now.
"Who is Ernst Schroedinger? Do you mean Erwin SchrÃdinger?"
Both.
At the same time.