Frompo

For the example given I am not primarily interested in controlling how many results I get: when filtering by price I want to filter by the precise amount money I am willing to spend.

Putting in weird non-linear mappings between slider position and slider value is ok if the slider value is in some meaningless units, but if I am to filter by something that has meaning to me, I usually want to control it predictably...

Yeesh, that guy never heard of Paul the Octopus...

And the magical, "subjective", idea of talking to the voters to gauge support that would solve everything? That's what polls __are__, does he not know?

Yeah, but "science" is not something they put in the name of their departments.

Nor will you find something like a "planetary protection engineer" among their open positions.

Not for the first launch we won't. They might get something a cut over an rc car with an iphone taped to the top, but with the time line suggested there is no way to slap together something that will do anything new: the trip will be purely to show the trip can be done, and not contribute very much for science.

What are you talking about? First off, your point was that reports of domestic violence was almost always involved in child dispute cases, which I remarked was not true.

Secondly, the calls for assistance is basically reports to the police, and they (8 per 1000 in Kentucky and 5 per 1000 in California [ACS 2008 estimate]) are close to the divorce rate in the respective states (13 per 1000 in Kentucky and 8 per 1000 in California). Overestimating by saying that all divorces are settled in court (some numbers say that ~ 4 % are), the 60% of cases involving domestic violence means that there would be 7.8 per 1000 domestic violence divorce cases. As this is the same amount as the number of calls for police assistance (8 per 1000), your claim that the rate of domestic violence reported is orders of magnitude greater in court is pure falsehood. The case in California is even worse, with estimated 3.2 per 1000 domestic violence cases versus 5 per 1000 calls about domestic violence.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/Evalua...

Um, there is a bit of a difference between how you use Windows and how you use iOS.

Notably, there is no real notion of long running process in iOS.

Well, in Logan, Walker, Jordan, and Horvath (2002) 40% of cases in Kentucky over a two year period did not mention violence (and the court ruling was largely insensitive to the presence or not of violence allegations).

Using the number "Domestic Violence-Related Calls for Assistance" as reference on how to scale from Kentucky to California, ~60 % of divorce cases will have no mention of violence.

(In 2004 Kentucky had 800 calls per 100 000 inhabitants and California had 500; the assumption is that number of allegations in hearings scale with the calls of assistance).

https://aifs.gov.au/publications/allegations-family-violence...

https://oag.ca.gov/crime/cjsc/stats/domestic-violence

http://www.ncdsv.org/fortcampbell/I-12_Kentucky%20DV%20Facts...

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2004/tables/N...

No way they will be able to plan, make, and test any interesting instruments if they start now. With the proposed time line it is guaranteed to be a pure put trash on Mars mission.

Yeah, verbifying von Braun doesn't make something with a clear meaning.

Yeah! Lets get the two top posts to be links to the same thing!

This is a depressingly simplistic tracker, they simply average on the latest polls, discarding some outliers first.

Given how poor pollsters have performed recently they could just as well average over all polls that shows the "stay" side wins, would at least been more fun.

Look, all I want is that you clearly state if you think the sandy hook school shooting is kind of like the Northeast blackout of 2003.

Also, of the 12 deaths wikipedia reports as "contributed to" by the blackout, one is someone falling off a roof while trying to break into a store, and another is some guy taking the stairs and dying of a hearth attack.

No other US blackout listed on wikipedia mentions any deaths, including the article about the 1977 blackout with widespread looting, but I'm sure you have a good reason to say deaths are frequent.

The point of an analogy is to illuminate some point of an issue by drawing parallels with an aspect of a more easily understood, unrelated issue.

For an analogy to be helpful it crucial that the two aspects being related share characteristics, and school shootings don't share many aspects with blackouts. A school shooting is highly localised, even if the location my vary; blackouts need to happen over a very wide area over an extended period of time to be of importance. A school shooting is an active act of killing, a blackout only increases the lethality of already present dangers.

Also, the concept of "negatives that legislation would attempt to prevent" describes things like racial discrimination, poor quality control of seatbelt manufacturers, improper handling of meat and chemical weapon sales to dictatorships as per your "the scale of the concepts doesn't necessarily have to match". Good luck getting much out of the analogy between the Northeast blackout of 2003 and selling weapons to Saddam Hussein.

Man, top grade data presentation here!

So, is it the Stockton schoolyard or 101 California Street shooting that you liken to a blackout? I guess its a pretty dramatic blackout since at least 5 people dies...

You also neglect the detail that the police response was of little consequence as the hacker had committed suicide before they police was at the scene.

I'm unsure what the web panel remark can mean concretely, exactly what did the children at Sandy Hook Elementary do to cause a "blackout"?

Indeed, another example of this is how NBA basketball players are worse than all the amateurs on the streets!

And lets not forget how the cousin of your boss that enthusiastically read some tutorials on the net is a much better programmer than you.

Or maybe the argument magically only applies in the realm of gun use?

There is an important negation missing from the above.

I get the feeling that this is a discovery well known in the art world: that you really need to study the subject you intend to draw to even get the most basic details right.

Well, if you read the description, the first task actually includes tacking on the bits of frame you think are missing.

So with all the subjects rising to your level of pedantry crowding out the other people, the drawing task should have much lower error rates than the multiple choice test. However, it seems many people got so outraged by the wrong slant on the seat tube in the stick figure drawing they didn't draw a frame at all!

(but did draw the chain and pedals in the correct place, presumably because the insult of the seat tube did not taint all of the bike)

Most of which was originally developed to fulfil some government tender; space flight is not exactly the paragon of commercial innovation.

This concern is only relevant if you think that the only thing preventing the regulators from changing the signs is the technological hassle of doing it. If you rather believe than the signs change based on the need to accommodate a film crew for a few days like in LA, the this is a neutral change.

In any case, analog signs are changes from time to time anyway, so the objection is not new in principle. The simplest solution is then use whatever method was used previously to resolve this.

Some of the charities mentioned are clearly advocating for policy change (lifting copyright and restructured tax schemes), and I think that generally all charities must decide how to relate to the current structure of the world because whatever the ill you are campaigning against preventive measure are most effective at preventing suffering. So one question is if you see any natural limit for when something goes from a charity to a political campaign and vice versa. For instance, imagine the bizarre scenario where a presidential candidate pledges a significant increase to foreign humanitarian aid by taking from the foreign military aid budget. Will make that candidacy a worthwhile charity (supposing the bizarro candidate has reasonable probability of winning)?

An unrelated question is: why do you think there are so few investment opportunities that are truly concerned with being ethical? The GiveWell founders seems like they could have made an investment fund dedicated to growing local companies in the poorer parts of the world. Direct cash transfers are among the best ways of helping the poor, but stable financing with modest return expectations seems like it could be pretty good too, with the benefit of slightly growing the capital available to help. Or you could imagine getting a significant amount of shares in Shell and turn up at shareholders meetings and make them repair their pipelines properly and such things.

Then it goes on to say that his peers makes too much money and gosh, that must be frustrating for the poor hairdressers and that's just how it goes in this, the best of all worlds. But now this app will change that quite a bit for, isn't it great that I'm investing?!

In an initial reading it strongly implies Mayvenn thinks its customers don't know that checks can be redeemed for normal money. There is also a bit of a scale jump from "pay your rent, your car" to "your shoes". But I guess it is implied its $200 shoes.

Since this indeed seem like a pretty insulting way to address a business owner, maybe a more reasonable explanation is that Mayvenn earlier paid commissions in store credits and not actual money? An alternative would be that they pay in some sketchy way that can eventually be turned into normal money. Both alternatives would create a need to reassure prospective clients that they will indeed get real money at the end of the day.

More significant I guess is how excited the author manges to be over these coincidences. Maybe a word of caution is needed: Overly generous interpretations is how things like Nostradamus or the hidden code of the bible retain their credibility with parts of the population.

And frankly, if you think that stock market \approx thermometer is insightful, you should probably be kept away from positions of responsibility.

Also of note is that the airplane pictured in the original article (a F-35) is not used in combat yet, nor is it likely that the limited numbers delivered by now will be rated for combat any time soon unless the US gets into a serious peer fight and actually need all their planes.

This was very confusing, and a prime example of the horrors of popularisation.

Watch this talk about the firewall paradox instead, more technical but at least it makes sense!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEtt4A7WsDg

Do you mean this in a sense different from corruption? The loose enforcement of regulation is a very common goal of bribes, as famously depicted in mafia movies for instance.

Or do you talk of instances more like where the "good citizen" gets off with a warning despite breaking a rule that the "bad citizen" would be punished for?

The latter case seems more like sociology or ethnography to me, economists tend to not think so much of people as people after all.

On the web Google is in the ad business, and their business is collecting personal information about anyone that touches them as a means for selling more expensive ads.

Historically Google was also a big group of people many of which are engineers who were quite free to direct their work. Lately it is mostly the first description that applies.

And isn't it ironic, don't you think?

To ask for facebook shares of your privacy praise

It's the good advice that you just didn't take

Who would've thought... it figures