mrow84

This is shorthand for “the total wealth of the richest 0.1% of the population is greater than the total for the remaining 99.9%”, rather than the trivial “the individual wealth of each member of the richest 0.1% of the population is greater than that of each member of the remaining 99.9%”.

> The case emerged on July 20, when both organizations filed a complaint with the Belgian federal prosecutor against two members of the Israeli army’s Givati Brigade who were attending the Tomorrowland music festival with their military flags.

> The complaint accused them of direct involvement in war crimes and acts potentially constituting genocide in Gaza — specifically, indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, torture, and forced displacement.

Seems pretty clear?

All that bloodline stuff is real, but it’s a pretty small fraction of the population. Most people’s experience of class difference in the UK is economic, not hereditary (I think).

Your layman’s answer still doesn’t quite do it for me - if you had two masses in space, joined together by a wire, and you span them around their combined centre of mass, angular momentum would remain conserved even if we wound the wire in or payed it out. If I cut the wire, though, wouldn’t the masses immediately shoot off (roughly) in whatever direction they were travelling at the time? That is my interpretation of the “everything seems linear” perspective colordrops offered - it seems like you only get the apparent rotation because of all the other forces holding things together.

edit: I accept that the non-layman’s answer may hold, I just find the intuition a bit off.

“The argument is inescapable: Studies that are underpowered for the detection of plausible effects must occasionally return non-significant results even when the research hypothesis is true – the absence of these results is evidence that something is amiss in the published record. ”

This is a great insight.

That seems to be the author’s intent - to explain why we are having the discussion, rather than dismissing the cause as mere hysteria.

The claim wasn’t that there was an increase in control beyond that which you acknowledge (improved granularity) - it was about how that new power will be used.

It could be used to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing customers, as you suggest, or it could be used to improve the strength of utility companies’ positions in disputes. Perhaps both?

The sources I looked at (e.g. [0]) suggest a maximum temperature of 91 F with a humidity of maybe 72 %, equating to a wet bulb of 28.51 C [1].

Are you sure about those temperatures/humidities? 100 F with 99 % humidity equates to a wet bulb of 37.75 C [2], well above the commonly accepted theoretically survivable limit of 35 C.

[0] https://www.weatherwx.com/hazardoutlook/sc/fort+jackson.html

[1] https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wet-bulb?advanced=1&c...

[2] https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wet-bulb?advanced=1&c...

According to [0] there are more than 3.5 million births per year, so a bit more than 100 million since 1990. 1.5% isn’t insignificant, but I wouldn’t call it huge.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/195908/number-of-births-...

> Most people would probably agree the latest models generalize better than flatworms.

> Flatworms first appeared 800+ million years ago

Surviving for 800 million years seems to me like a pretty good indicator of meaningful generalisation.

I think you’re probably broadly right, because containers won’t be very useful, but in different circumstances things can be more complex than “a couple tiny shrimp and sightless fish”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_fall

I find your exposition difficult to follow, perhaps you could write out your proposed solution without the accompanying explanatory text, so that we can clearly see how it resolves the paradox.

You are conflating the quantity A, which is a label for the (unknown in the original formulation) amount in the chosen envelope, with the "smaller amount" - labelled x in the wikipedia article.

A=60 is the amount in our chosen envelope - we are given this information in the variant in this thread. What we still don't know is if that is the larger amount (and thus the other envelope contains 30, and therefore x=30), or the smaller amount (and the other envelope contains 120, and therefore x=60).

The error is (in step 7) to calculate the arithmetic expectation of those absolute values, because they do not exist "together". The correct arithmetic mean can be obtained by considering the different conditions in which those values do exist, as described in [0]. However, the ratios do exist "together" - the other envelope contains either double or half of 60 - so we could instead calculate the geometric mean, of either the ratios or the corresponding absolute values, and obtain the correct result:

    (2 * 0.5) ** 0.5 = 1
    (120 * 30) ** 0.5 = 60

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_envelopes_problem#Other_si...

edit: changed “first envelope” to “chosen envelope” for clarity.

In the variant under discussion A is defined as 60: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31574239

Inserting A=60 into the original line of reasoning (just to show that it doesn't immediately resolve the paradox):

1. Denote by A=60 the amount in the player's selected envelope.

2. The probability that A=60 is the smaller amount is 1/2, and that it is the larger amount is also 1/2.

3. The other envelope may contain either 2A=120 or A/2=30.

4. If A=60 is the smaller amount, then the other envelope contains 2A=120.

5. If A=60 is the larger amount, then the other envelope contains A/2=30.

6. Thus the other envelope contains 2A=120 with probability 1/2 and A/2=30 with probability 1/2.

7. So the expected value of the money in the other envelope is: 1/2(120) + 1/2(30) = 75

8. This is greater than A=60 so, on average, the person reasons that they stand to gain by swapping.

9. ...

edit: If anything, to me this obscures things further, because it makes it non-obvious that we are actually talking about ratios (i.e. 2A, 1/2A) rather than absolute numbers, and so the expectation calculated in step 7 is inappropriate - a geometric mean recovers the correct answer.

> If you make tangential observations the conversation may move tangentially.

You (presumably) have agency, and could have chosen to answer the main question rather than labouring your misconstrual of the parenthetical.

> Areas of 2D shapes tend to represent some kind of quantity ...

They sometimes represent some kind of quantity, but here they don't, and despite my repeatedly asking you have been unable to provide any interpretation of what that quantity might mean. Lots of other people seem to be able to understand the graph just fine - perhaps you simply dislike the popularly stated inferences and are looking for holes to pick?

I didn't suggest that angular velocity is the same as linear velocity, I asked how you were interpreting the area and velocity, and parenthetically observed that the angular velocity was constant. You say that the area is impactful - what do you understand it as meaning?

The scale is not arbitrary, it covers the range of anomalies over the chosen period, in units of temperature change in degrees Celsius, and is labelled as such, with the anomaly reference period described in the text. If you were to use absolute values then the scale would similarly cover the range of absolute values over the chosen period - there is no "unbiased" choice of data range, except perhaps that which covers all of the data in question, which this does.

As I noted, the impact of the anomalies is with reference to "normal" temperatures - it is relatively easy for anyone to see that 1 C (/K) is quite a large temperature increase, relative to "normal" temperatures. Surely you can agree that if the largest anomaly shown was 0.01 C then the graph would have far less impact, and if it was 100 C then the graph would have far more impact?

In what way are you trying to interpret the area, or indeed the velocity (indeed the angular velocity is constant)? As I understand it, the intent of the visualisation is simply to make clear the temperature (anomaly) trend, which is encoded in the radius - that is all you need to consider to understand what is being shown.

Also, the fact that it uses anomalies isn't of much consequence, given that there is widespread understanding of "normal" temperatures, to which the anomalies can be compared - this is unlike many situations where readers might not have an understanding of usual absolute values, making the plotting of differences prone to being misleading. According to [0] the anomaly difference for 1890-1945 is 0.44 K, whereas for 1880-2021 it is 1.01 K, so presumably someone who was concerned by the former would be (approximately) doubly concerned by the latter.

[0] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Goods getting cheaper broadly means that supply is going up relative to demand - we call this deflation.

If the supply of money goes up relative to demand then we call that inflation.

It seems like you are conflating the two categories.

How do you use it, out of interest?

> In the symbolic regression approach, the solution would be limited by the number of different observable variables available to train the model on.

What do you mean here? Aren't all approaches limited by the number of observables available (except speculatively)?

Even if you believe that:

1. the wealth of such people corresponds solely to an increase in the pool of available wealth (as opposed to just redistribution from other people), and

2. that increase is solely attributable to them,

it remains true that the distribution of the wealth pool is an arbitrary social choice. Billionaires being billionaires deprives other people of resources, by definition.

One method is to drop variables with small coefficients in the top n principal components. This is feature selection, by your definition.

You are begging the question. If you start with the assumption that distribution must be organised solely by monetary exchange then of course any kind of collectivisation is going to appear as “theft” or “slavery”. However, there is no a priori reason to make that assumption, it is just a convenient one for certain interest groups.

This assumes a lot about the underlying process, particularly independence. Whilst assuming independence might hold reasonably well for low numbers of samples, the assumption might be increasingly (and dangerously) misleading. The intuition expressed by GP captures that.

From the “see also” on that page, this looks pretty incredible (to my untrained eye): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet

Only in a legal sense - that doesn’t change whether you did or did not commit the act in question.

Some vaccinated people still get severe disease, and others even die (both at significantly lower rates than for the unvaccinated, of course). The reasons why this happens in some cases and not others is uncertain, and, accepting the Bayesian interpretation of probability as I do, I would describe that as reducing the probability of disease (and also death). Put differently, you cannot tell a priori whether being vaccinated will definitely stop you dying, but you can observe that the a posteriori population level rate is reduced. You are correct that it also reduces the probability of transmission.

It reduces the probability of disease. It isn’t binary.

> it’s true that exaggerated claims have become the norm

This is a very strong claim, and it is incumbent on you to provide evidence - for example, has there been a notable increase in retractions of scientific work in the fields you mention?