hoopd

The tracking necessary to process payments is reasonable as-is but you could also pay cash for gift-cards that work just like credit cards. Either way that's nothing like the tracking that happens for targeted advertising.

A million things skew the labor market away from the theoretical: people are irrational, information is wildly asymmetric, wages are sticky, there aren't an "arbitrarily large number of firms", the factors of labor (people) aren't liquid or mobile, etc.

To pick 'price floor' from the long list of things that distort the labor market while ignoring the rest is strange enough that I chalk it up to politics any time I hear it.

When Google was picking up steam back in the early 2000's it seemed wonderful because there were so many immediate benefits. Now, 10-15 years later it's clear how much power we gave them and what opportunities we lost in doing so. Instead of "free" stuff we could have worked towards a model of privacy and reasonable subscription fees where user-tracking and advertising weren't the default business model of the internet. But we didn't look ahead, we just said "Give us that shiny new thing!"

I hope I'm wrong but Uber looks the same to me, it's that nagging feeling of somebody's gonna have to pay the piper.

That's the natural condition of a theoretical free market, real markets are not theoretical. As Keynes said, the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Also, poor people have more children than rich people.

> There's no particular reason that you've got to be able to build an isomorphism between a class of evidence and a numeric type in order for that evidence to be valuable and scientific.

As you hinted at, the experiment has been unofficially done many times and the evidence suggests the quantitative approach is better. That is the particular reason as far as I can tell. (Numbers may not be technically essential, but measurement and comparison are. That leads to things like everybody agreeing that a piece of metal in Europe is exactly one kilogram and everybody talks about mass in reference to that one object. It was a qualitative decision to choose which kilogram became the standard, but from then on measuring mass was quantitative and easily communicable. Fields that can't establish conventions for their observables in this way are generally not very scientific.)

My argument was that when holding the field constant puts qualitative and quantitative science on the same footing, it's a bad sign for that field. Take chemistry: when qualitative arguments were equal to quantitative it was called Alchemy. When quantitative approaches took over it changed the world.

> HTTP Error 400. The request is badly formed.

edit: google has it cached, it's a good read

I think it's hard to be a "healthy" losing player because there aren't many good reasons to keep doing something that's costing you money when the whole point of the activity is to win money. But I suppose if you're always within 5 minutes of a slot-machine that changes things a little.

Here in the U.S. gambling is heavily regulated so unless you live unusually close to Las Vegas, Atlantic City, a Native American reservation, or other small areas where it's legal it takes a lot of effort to get to a casino. I don't really know but I'd guess that most people here are an hour or so from the closest legal gambling, and there are even states with zero legal gambling.

edit: look at the map about halfway down this page, it's out of date but sums up gambling access in America pretty well: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/j...

It's hard to be a "healthy" semi-regular losing player, the ones I can think of off the top of my head are people with good jobs who hit the casinos a few times a month as a social event and lose what they would have spent at a bar anyway. They may drop $500 each per month, but the problem gambler may drop $10k in a week. It doesn't take many problem gamblers to get to 90% of the money coming in.

1) small p-values require larger n's which will price some real studies out of happening, 2) it only makes dishonest research marginally harder and a little more obvious, 3) a stricter p-value may increase the misconceptions about how important they are, we already have enough B.S. flying around because "P<0.05, it's scientific now!".

I haven't totally taken a side but I find the idea of dropping p-values altogether to be interesting as well: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/psycholo...

The current state of reddit includes a large group going around trying to be offended and then bringing the outrage back to home-base so the group at large can also get that outrage-dopamine kick. For their troubles the person who found the offensive comment or post gets some internet points and their group membership is solidified.

It's fascinating in the sense that it happens but I don't think it's reasonable to lurk in social groups you don't belong to and complain about the local norms.

In point (1) she basically just described how SRS operates...I doubt they'll be willing to use this to punish them, though.

Speaing of SRS, maybe it's time the community starts asking A) how many reddit employees are involved with SRS and B) how many other subs the anonymous* SRS mods also moderate.

*mostly anonymous. It's public knowledge one of their mods used to be a site admin.

Safe space used to be a term for a very small group of people who agreed to be positive and nurturing towards one another no matter what. This is important for sexual assault survivors, closet gays, the heavily marginalized, etc. to have a space in which they can actually speak with other human beings about their experiences. This is, in reality, a very important thing.

However, it doesn't scale well. Some people have thought, "Hey, I like these safe spaces...what if we make everywhere a safe space? Wouldn't that be great?" What they miss is there isn't one universal definition of safe space and you can't just force your definition upon others.

In a very general sense, at the reddit scale, "safe space" means protecting those who need protecting. That means protecting the disempowered, the marginalized, the minorities, etc. from the ignorance and violence of the masses. Protecting them from the hegemonic power of the majority, which means the patriarchy in general and if we're being honest white males in particular.

It sounds good in principle but who is "empowered" and who is "disempowered" isn't an easy question to answer. To make things worse the tools of enforcing a safe space are so powerful that the people fighting against oppression often become oppressors themselves. In the case of reddit there are many members who are openly abusive and believe it's morally justified because they're "punching up" and it's only real abuse when you hurt people lower on the social ladder than you. (As an aside, this a big reason to claim victimhood: once you're a "victim" you get to do things you otherwise wouldn't.)

I'm sure I was somebody's september as well.

Reddit pretty much ended the period of my life where I read books because that's where my reddit time came from. Since we're talking about years of my life that's a pretty big regret.

Victimhood is almost always relative and I've spent my entire life hearing about how society victimizes females as compared to males, you can't just rewrite the history of the movement when it's convenient.

In fact if you listen to them these evil MRAs are saying the exact same thing you are right now, that all the victim playing of feminism is disrupting any societal discussion of men's problems. The day feminism stops caricaturizing men in order to talk about female victimhood is the day you get to complain about MRAs entering the conversation. If you think feminism doesn't misrepresent men then you're part of the problem being fought against.

And when I suggested you read comments more charitably it's because I thought you weren't and it was causing you to miss the point. It wasn't just to hurt your feelings, this isn't reddit.

Pure FUD; those fields have unusually low levels of empiricism. Rule of thumb: as a science has greater trouble gathering enough data to settle disputes the scientists of that field become more and more like philosophers. They decide what's true based on arguments or personal feelings and in the worst cases they fabricate data to fill the vacuum. The problem is that the core element of science, that of rigorous experimentation, is missing from the process.

The question is if a field is only able to follow the aesthetics of science but unable to adopt the rigor to what extent should we consider it science?

I don't know the individuals from the article but I've witnessed what he's talking about and I think he described it accurately.

It sounds like his version of French culture is less savage? He was saying he found the American hackerspace to be extremely violent. It's no surprise he feels this way, some radical lefties feel it's important to make examples of people for breaking social norms to the extent of running people out of town. I've also seen social punishments for not participating in ostracizing the wrongdoer, like if you don't help shame them maybe you don't value your place in the community.

This looks to be another philosopher airing out a personal grudge against science in general and Richard Dawkins in particular.

You don't get to hold a witch-hunt and then shrug your shoulders when the witch you were hunting fled town.

Solidarity used to mean that you look at the bigger picture and don't torpedo groups who are on the same side as you over personal feelings. For 16 years Eich fulfilled his own and his employees' contracts. For 16 years he was completely in line with Mozilla's inclusivity policy. For 16 years he fought for one of the most important social causes and he had that taken away from him because he felt that in supporting the personal beliefs of others he deserved personal beliefs of his own. Not only that, those of us who care about what he fought for had him taken away from us and I am yet to hear one good reason why.

It's impossibile to stand up for masculinity as being a natural and good thing without butting heads with THE group who says masculinity is an overvalued social construct that needs to be destroyed.

On victimhood, it's completely childish for a movement to spend 50 years talking about how victimized its members are and the moment somebody else starts using the same tactic it's "let's not talk about victimhood, it's sooo stupid!" It's a classic "learned it from watching you" scenario.

On who I blame, I don't have a group that I blame for everything. We live in a difficult world where survival is a challenge, there will always be things that are nobody's fault. People who have a default boogeyman use them in times of uncertainty: "the gays caused the earthquake", "the patriarchy caused me to miss that promotion", "I drink because of my ex-wife", etc.

But do I blame feminism for the things it's responsible for? You bet.

edit: I don't mind donwvotes, but I do take notice when something is downvoted in less time than it would take to read and reflect on the comment.

Feminism has gone so far as to brand the men's rights movement a hate group, they've gone out of their way to characterize men's rights books as rape-apologizing hate speech, and in some cases[0][1] have actively shut down talks given from what is basically the MRA viewpoint.

This is clearly coercion so I feel justified in saying feminism is attempting to "force" the men's rights movement to develop in a certain way.

Am I saying you're personally trying to force me to do anything right now? That wasn't my intention. As for your view that we should all get together and blame the patriarchy, allow me to rephrase myself for clarity: thanks, but no thanks.

[0] - http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protesters-shut-down... [1] - http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-move-...

The whole patriarchy critique is a biased philosophical position of a particular social movement. If you guys like it, fine, but you don't get to force it upon others.