fdsaaf

Right: either the coup loses quickly or Turkey enters an extended civil war, with the military divided against itself. There's still enough military support for the coup to bomb the parliament building into dust as I write this comment.

Stereotypes are accurate, though. People are good pattern-recognizers, and the characteristics that we use to form stereotype do convey useful information.

Pretending that stereotypes are factually bogus is wrong. It creates resentment. It's much better to accept that stereotypes exist for a reason, but emphasize that it's a grave injustice to let stereotypes hurt our evaluation of people who defy these stereotypes.

> skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping

Current HR policies go beyond requiring fair treatment of individuals as individuals. Every sane person supports doing that. HR demands that we silence truths about the natural world go unstated. HR demands that we make untrue statements about the world. That's anathema to anyone technically-minded.

> I should ignore results from the fields of psychology or sociology for the foreseeable future

Yes, you should. The problem is that some of these bad results have become key political tenets. Try voicing skepticism about the reality of stereotype threat and see how long it is before HR finds some excuse to fire you.

If you haven't noticed, there are powerful social pressures in the Bay Area to go along with certain kinds of reality denial. The more reality suggests that dominant Bay Area social beliefs are false, the louder supporters reiterate these beliefs and the greater the ferocity with which they punish dissent.

It's obvious what narrative the media is trying to push. If the media succeeds, it'll set back the progress of technology that will save numerous lives.

Maybe humans don't deserve this fucking planet.

Do you agree that taxation is a legitimate lever with which to effect economic and social policy? Vice taxes, for example, are much saner than outright bans for everyone involves, and tax incentives can drive the adoption of things like solar panels.

> Why should.... merchant [] share the details of the purchase beyond the total amount paid

Because the government has a legitimate interest in taxing different goods at different rates.

This proposal is moot. Whether or not it's a good idea, the EU is technically unable to effectively regulate bitcoin. Sure, you can place rules on exchanges, but since anyone with bitcoin can send it to any other person, identified only by one of an infinite number of wallet IDs, the EU will never be able to stop peer-to-peer bitcoin sales.

If you define legitimacy so that it perfectly coincides with the law, there is little legitimate reason to use Bitcoin. But do you really think the law has always been just?

A Tesla Model S is about the furthest possible thing from a "crappy car".

Your small-group drug study would have reported zero incidents in this instance.

First of all, given the number of miles Teslas have driven before this incident, any study would have seen zero accidents. Second, drug studies are also too cautious, and many useful drugs are denied to the public on the basis of rare and tolerable side effects. (For example, look at weight loss drugs.)

> Since when is caring about Engineering standards became Luddite?

Since you impose unrealistic standards on progress in an attempt to bolster your own moral position

I prefer to talk about real utilitarian tradeoffs instead of putting I imaginary, arbitrarily virtuous angels against computers. Every day you delay automation of automobile traffic is another batch of lives lost.

Are you more interested in saving lives or in expressing the short sighted and sanctimonious outrage of a Luddite?

You didn't answer the question.

> hey do the check frequency is low. why can't it be high?!

Because that makes it less useful. I am a Tesla owner. I am an adult capable of monitoring the car and taking control when autopilot gets confused. My hand being on the wheel at all times is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for verifying that I am paying attention and am ready to take over control.

> One death is too many.

I am sick and tired of absolutist statements about risk. Why do you allow cars on the road at all? Why allow cars to have cupholders? Why are drive-through restaurants legal? You make utility-risk trade-offs all the fucking time.

> replace an attentive driver

It's unrealistic to assume that human drivers are attentive all the time. Autopilot never gets tired, never eats, never applies makeup, never sneezes, and never gets distracted by screaming children.

You have to compare autopilot to realistic humans, not your platonic ideal of what a driver should be. I'm sick and tired of people making statements about road transit predicated on the idea that real humans pay attention to the road with 100% fidelity at all times.

Exactly what standard do you hold beta features before release? For the sake of the future of humanity, we can't get into a situation where nothing new is allowed so long as someone, somewhere might get hurt.

I'm really not looking forward to the moralistic haranguing that's going to happen over the next few days. One commentator complained that the tech community is adapting an "acceptable losses" posture. I don't see a problem with this attitude --- anything else is unrealistic and is an argument against technological progress.

If our ancestors had adopted the attitude that we could do nothing not perfectly safe, we'd have never left the damn savanna. We'd have certainly never allowed aircraft to fly.

So what? Linux, today, has a full bytecode interpreter

Where the set of "bad things" gets bigger and bigger, and increasingly detached from reality, every year.

You have to express leftist sentiment, at least in public, because expressing other views is very bad for your career. And you'd be surprised how big the "public" space is for people who'd like to ruin you for thinking the wrong way.

When you read a sector from your hard drive and expect to get back what you wrote, you're citing a statistical prediction as fact.

Logically right, but emotionally wrong. I don't think you've appreciated the extent to which people publically oppose EU migration because it's politically incorrect to oppose Muslim migration, whether or not this UI indirection makes any sense.

I suggest reading through the blog I linked; Haidt is serious and well-respected. Alternatively, you can look at various impartially- (and usually government-) collected statistics that demonstrate group differences.

Most of these differences are too incendiary to link here (and I'd rather not attract the wrath of dang), but let me cite one example: men are, biologically, physically much stronger than women. 95th percentile in women is 5th percentile in men. See this well-sourced quora thead: https://www.quora.com/Are-men-generally-physically-stronger-...

I think it's pretty easy to corroborate the statistics with everyday experience. Muscular strength is a function of total number of muscle fibers. Look around you, if you're in a group of men and women: which group tends to have the thicker biceps and triceps?

Now consider that quite a few people, particularly in the more blue-tribe areas of the US, think that it's a grave injustice that women do not have more representation in occupations that depend to large extent on physical strength --- e.g., firefighting.

Think about how frustrating it must feel to point out the unreality of this accusation. Imagine how it must feel to fear that you'd be fired from your job and ostracized from your social group for pointing out what the statistics and your own eyes agree in the truth. Now imagine that you had an opportunity to anonymously vote against the people who make you feel that way.

Can you imagine this state of mind? If so, you've captured why Britain left the EU.

> My impression of Heterodox Academy is that it's more of the same but regardless, how about finding some more serious sources if you genuinely want to know?

One sad effect of the current political climate is that it's become very hard to find unbiased sources --- or at least sources everyone respects (which isn't the same thing).

I don't have that much confidence in my analysis. I'm an amateur.

I think that arguments for leaving the EU based on concerns about immigration are implicit calls for a rethinking of the EU social contract with respect to freedom of movement.

It's exactly this idea that discussions predicated on group identity are somehow outside the realm of legitimate politics that leads to the very resentment that made Britain leave the EU.

It's a shame, because if the EU had treated this issue as a political one, subject to compromise and regulation, they'd have been able to come up with a political solution. Instead, a lot of people treated this issue as a moral crusade and provoked a huge, destructive backlash.

God, homo sapiens is doomed.

It's possible to understand the nature and purpose of the European project and still, resignedly, vote "leave". People voting "leave" aren't opposed to peace and prosperity. They're saying that the EU is so badly run and so antithetical to their way of life that despite the advantages of the European project, the UK is better off without it.

So far, I've seen most commentators cast aspersions on the UK public for squandering an opportunity for peace and unity. I wish more people would entertain the notion that the EU was so badly run and so antithetical to the UK way of life that leaving was the right choice, however sad it was that the EU dream didn't become reality.

Well, since we have much more information about presidential elections (which happen regularly) than we have about brexit (which is mostly without precedent), you could argue that election 2016 forecasts are probably more accurate.

I don't think that's the case though. I predict a Trump victory on the basis of a very strong social desirability bias and an immense amount of silent resentment against current social justice orthodoxy, especially as it pertains to speech restrictions on campus and in the workplace.

> You say that as if it's assumed, but I don't agree and neither do very many others.

It turns out that stereotypes, however distasteful, usually do have a certain degree of accuracy: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/03/30/are-stereotypes-accur.... You may not want to live in the world where they do, but that reality is what it is.

When you ask people to deny the evidence of their own eyes, you're setting up a kind of resentment that can lead only to bad outcomes.

Of course, it'd be awful to be individually assumed to be a thief because you come from a group full of people unusually likely to be thieves. My point is that if it's a matter of fact that people of that group are more likely to be thieves, whatever the reason, and you tell people that, no, that group isn't full of thieves, and people are terrible for thinking so, then as soon as some demagogue acknowledges the truth, people will run to him no matter how bad his other opinions and no matter how ruinous his policies.

People hate liars, and even more, they hate being compelled by social forces of shame and ridicule to deny their true beliefs. It's better to have an honest conversation about these things than to repress them and create the kind of pressure cooker that explodes and makes a Trump president.

In an EU context, maybe it'd have been better to accept some restrictions on freedom of movement. Maybe it'd have been better to scale back centrally-imposed regulations on consumer goods (e.g., the EU banning traditional UK tea kettles).

Now we're going to see the EU damaged because well-meaning people tried to bring about the world they'd like to see by demanding everyone pretend it be so, and only children play pretend.

I think betting markets are prone to wishful thinking; there's no guarantee that errors of reasoning toward one side or the other will cancel out, since it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that errors in one direction are more common.