jsprogrammer

Yep, you're right.

I think people should be able to publish whatever they'd like. Honestly, I don't fully follow Fiske's argument. There are too many undefined phrases and an explicit unwillingness to use any examples.

I'd believe many engage in ad hominem arguments and abuse. I'd also believe that many engage in arguments of authority. I'd even believe that possibly most people who call themselves scientists make those arguments from time to time.

The thing about ad hominem and arguments from authority is that they are extremely easy to defeat. One simply needs to point out what is happening and continue going.

wyager actually introduced the word. You then said that Fiske used the term. I don't see the term anywhere in Gelman's article.

In fact, Gelman uses the term in a comment on the linked page:

>Frederic:

>I’m as bothered by anyone by trolls etc., and I’d’ve had no problem if Fiske had written an article about trolls, abuse of communication channels, etc. (ideally with some examples). But this has nothing to do with replication. These are two unrelated topics! What Fiske seems to be doing is conflating the replication movement, which she doesn’t like, with all sorts of “terroristic” behaviors which none of us like. I’d prefer for Fiske to write two articles, then I could say I agree with her article about bad behavior and I disagree with her argument about scientific criticism.

Gelman has lots of valid points. I just didn't see any real discussion on abuse...anywhere...and was wondering what was being discussed in regards to using and redefining the word.

I don't understand what methodological terrorism is, but I do see ad hominem arguments use. The words really should be defined somewhere for use to read, if they are going to be published. Also, examples of exactly what she is talking about would be really useful.

[We are in the thread about people just making shit up and publishing it, right?]

Funny, I don't even see the word "abuse" in Fiske's article.

Seems more similar to, "Jobs and Schmidt are emailing and we think it's about wages".

They are conflicted themselves; secretly (sources won't even reveal their identities) managing board relationships and deciding on compensation matters. The question is reasonable, the secrecy isn't. The question should be addressed openly.

Conspiracy to fix wages? Trafficking in insider information? And, the anonymous source doesn't give further details?

I don't know what Illuminati have to do with this post, but I'm sure compliance personnel, at least, would like to know what is said at remote, private discussions between high-level representatives of competing firms.

Where can I find the redefinition?

The message was determined not to be spam, but regardless, Facebook constructed and sent that message.

As far as I can tell from these documents, Power setup a Facebook event, then Facebook added it's own text (eg. "The Facebook Team") to the event message and sent it as an email to its own users. Then, Facebook took down Vachani based on those emails.

Is there a rolling window?

And high judges agree.

Facebook claimed[0] that emails it sent to its users were misleading, partly, because Facebook inserted "Thanks,\nThe Facebook Team" into messages it sent out as a result of Power.com's actions.

Facebook claimed[0],

    64.    The message, drafted by Power.com, is signed by "The Facebook Team", which is both misleading and false.

If the findings [1] of the higher judges are correct, then it appears that Facebook previously argued that it constructed false evidence against Power.com -- and used it in a legal attack that destroyed Vachani's life.

[0] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/2009010...

[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/1...

Facebook brought a malicious action under the CANSPAM act when it had no basis for doing so. That action, in part, resulted in the loss of Vachani's business and livelihood. Facebook will need to compensate for the loss they caused.

Power Ventures could probably start back up from the payout that will be coming from FB when things are resolved.

Harvard Corporation's charter[0] contains some restrictions, but yes, it can attempt pretty much whatever it wants.

[0] http://library.harvard.edu/university-archives/using-the-col...

Maybe you should read the Harvard Corporation's charter?

http://library.harvard.edu/university-archives/using-the-col...

Converted? Dividends are already paid from endowments in the form of grants to studying students.

Why would I buy invisible, non-smelling food?

The MIT license is not a copyright license (though, copyright is claimed). It is a license for unrestricted dealings in the software subject to certain conditions (no warranty or fitness, appropriate notices given, etc.).

In the US, you are free to collect any data you can observe (assuming you don't interfere with others' rights). You are also free to trade what you collect with others.

On what basis could someone bring a class-action lawsuit about sales of data that was lawfully collected by a third-party?

What is the problem with the MIT license and patents?

The MIT license grants explicit rights to deal in the software without restriction.

Science only asks, "Have I observed something contrary to my theories?" For non-deductive theories, the only real approach is to count the number of times you observed something agreeing with your theories vs. the total number of times you observed something (ie. p-value).

Could you please expand on the argument that governments were originally chartered to remove tent cities?

Plus, you'd be giving resources to News Corp.

>The problem is that the p-value gives the right answer to the wrong question. What we really want to know is not the probability of the observations given a hypothesis about the existence of a real effect, but rather the probability that there is a real effect – that the hypothesis is true – given the observations. And that is a problem of induction.

The problem of induction is real and unavoidable in the general case, but there is no such thing as "the probability that there is a real effect". Either there is a "real effect" or there is not.

It might be possible to find a "probability" that you observed a "real effect".

>The problem of induction was solved, in principle, by the Reverend Thomas Bayes in the middle of the 18th century.

The problem of induction is fundamentally unsolvable (hence, "problem"). The article just states that it was solved and never mentions it again. Is it a widely held view that induction was solved by Bayes? Does anyone know where I can read more detailed claims about how people believe Bayes solved induction?

One cannot simply pay more on average. The demand for good engineers is high and Facebook must compete for them.

I believe supply and demand with market rates is a much bigger factor on the average Facebook engineer salary than the quality of the engineer. For one, we are only dealing with a discrepancy on the order of 40-50%. Is a good engineer only 40-50% better than an average engineer?

Simple supply and demand analysis shows that goods command higher prices when supply is lower.

Every job requires concentration, so the company interrupts everyone?

So, $55M in profit.

That is a different situation. Mylan says they did nothing wrong, but are transferring $465M anyway. In return, the government will no longer consider the matter in a lawful court.

In a plea bargain, one admits to guilt.

Why would your wife need to finish projects if you do that part?

Isn't she just preventing a pipeline stall?