orange_tee

All the questions are related. I am aware that some people can make it work, but if you remove cheap meat, who do you affect? Poor people. My question is, can poor people also eat a plant based diet with minimal malnutrition risk? All the questions are in reference to that.

All I see about plant based diets say the same shit without answering the though questions. They always say, "it's possible to be a health vegan if you watch your nutrition". Well that says precisely nothing. It is a carefully crafted message to not upset militant vegans.

The impression I get from that message is that it is far easier to be healthy if you don't avoid meat. You don't have to watch your nutrition much. You just have to use common sense.

The question is how feasible it is? Is it a trivial change in lifestyle? Is it more expensive or cheaper? Can you make it work with the basic fare that you find everywhere, or do you need to shop around for plant products that are more exotic?

It could also be that fathers who had no sisters were more emotionally attached to their daughters, whereas fathers who grew up with sisters has less emotional attachment to their daughters and consequently were less affected by their horrible teenage years.

In reality daughters are getting all these ideas about how to behave from their friends and from contemporary popular culture.

So actually what is happening is a struggle between parental advice, and outsider influence.

Now I find it interesting how you immediately make the jump and accuse the father (and it's also interesting that you single out the father) to be the bad guy. Dare I say outsiders don't give a shit about the daughter and their influence over her is very likely much more negative?

The other findings are telling: Fathers who had sisters growing up, were less likely to face divorce. Families with immigrant background were more likely to face divorce.

All of what you say is true. One thing I want to add though, is that Ph.ds are abundant these days. Because of this, there are certain jobs in industry where you do something similar to research, that require a Ph.d.

On the one hand $700k is more than a lifetime of savings for many. On the other hand I sometimes get surprised by how cheap the most influential politicians in the world are. I guess this sort of thing is regular enough so it adds up?!

Regulations are part of the market.

To be honest, I do not want to speculate about the why and philosophize about the justifications, as the issue is very complicated and would needlessly deviate the discussion.

My comment was very matter of fact: because of the current lack of diversity in management, immigrants have virtually no opportunities to break into management, and because high compensation is almost entirely reserved for management, this means that immigrants cannot be deemed high-achievers in this business environment.

Of course, but the law is a joke in practice (which btw is something I found typical of German law). It is very hard to prove discrimination and no immigrant would have the money, time and energy to pick such a battle.

What most of them do instead, (which is smarter than trying to fight a German employer in a German court) is they use Germany as a stepping stone. They come here, get a couple years of experience and move to a more welcoming country afterwards. And German bureaucrats and employers wonder why retention is so low.

As always people on here bitching about the US. As an outsider one thing I find to be really good in the US is inclusion. Americans really don't know how backwards the rest of the world is.

For example, I currently live in Germany. Germany is currently importing boatloads of Latino and South East Asian STEM workers. Now if you look at the structure of German companies two things stand out:

1. there is a huge disparity between management and workers and this is reflected also in the salaries 2. all management are German (99.9% ethnic with maybe one 3rd generation ethnic Slav/Turk)

This situation is very likely true for most of Europe, except for maybe the UK.

So of course migrants in the US are more productive. In most countries immigrants are imported to fill a niche and the glass ceiling is held firmly just above that niche. And let's not even talk about entrepreneurial opportunities for immigrants.

Just worth pointing out that u/DFV analysis was ultimately not what got him rich. He was projecting small growth, and the internet turned the whole thing into a meme. He is rich because of the meme.

At this point we don't know if that small growth would have ever materialized if the meme never happened.

He is in prison. I presume the OP meant it as a joke.

I am not well versed into how these logical fallacies are supposed to be applied. Everyone is operating with imperfect information, so no implication will ever be 100% logically tight.

For example, using "appeal to authority", it is logically true that just because a group of Fields Medalists think your proof is wrong, does not necessarily mean that your proof is wrong. But in practice, there is a very high chance you are in the wrong.

Logical fallacies are binary, but the world is more stochastic, so I may be wrong, but I think these logical fallacies do not actually apply to reasoning about the real world. They only work when applied to thought experiments.

But I am no philosopher so I do not know for sure.

ML uses almost entirely applied math and stochastics: optimization, numerics and statistics. Besides that, just because they won't have faculty researching pure math, doesn't mean they cannot have applied math guys teaching pure math classes.

Personally as a math graduate, I think it is better that they focus on areas they are good at. I assume the pure math department is not doing much. It is also good for the students who might want to study math and end up at studying at a university that does not do pure math very well.

Moments like this make me realize how much of a joke the whole economy is. The fact that a person like Musk can have so much influence that he can print money by posting a single word tweet. The fact that there are Musk worshipers who pour their life savings into whatever Musk tells them to. Hypothetically, Musk could make or break a publicly traded company with a few remarks. And you know what? Wall St is paying attention and I bet it won't be long before we see public influencers for securities.

And to realize that this market that behaves in this way is the backbone of the most advanced economy on earth.

I think this falls more in the category of "being rich is actually better than being poor", of which there are an equal number of articles that routinely pop on the frontpage.

So everything is at it should be. People who cannot afford to risk big, should not risk big. It is a simple fact that being wealthy allows one to risk more, financially. Even if you gave poor promising candidates free money with no strings attached, they would still be better of going into a stable career path with stable growth, rather than try to start a startup because of the opportunity costs.

And, why should smarts and entrepreneurship be correlated, anyway?

And who are they going to sell them too? The people who buy Teslas are Tesla fanbois not generic EV customers. And a car company like Honda cannot generate the kind of hype theater that Tesla can, especially not in the US.

Other car manufacturers cannot replicate Tesla's success because their customers are different and generic EVs are not a good value preposition for most of these customers.

Right. This article is about what is called low-dimensional topology.

Christianity and Protestantism in particular have historically been sources of antisemitism and this was true up till well within the 20th century. The fact that hardcore American Christians have now been converted to pro-Israel fanatics, makes the whole thing much weirder, if anything.

The implication is obvious that they are comparing to the richest EU cities. It's already a huge difference. To compare it to some city in Romania. That would be insane. What is that like, about 10x the salary?

What difference does this make in practice? Are there limitation on what you can do with the shares you are given?

It is my belief that society should not be dependent on the goodwill of free entities, and free entities should not be pressured to do "good" even when it goes against their interests. I do not hold it against them that they decided to profit out of their opportunity. Why shouldn't they?

This is something I am interested and considering as a possible future for my career, coming from a math background and starting to dip my toes into ML. One thing I am afraid of is how useful is it actually going to be to create a rigorous mathematical framework? I am afraid it might end up like mathematical physics, where they are almost a century behind theoretical and experimental physics and playing catch-up. What does anyone else think?

Two stroke might look bad if it is burning too much oil but in terms of health affects it is nowhere near as bad as leaded petrol.

When I learned this a while back it blew my mind. Why are people allowed to dump lead on habited areas for a hobby? I understand if it were allowed for some commercial use, but to allow it for some random Joe who just wants to dick about in the sky. It seems wrong. I think there would be an outrage if it was something well known. I was also curious how much damage it is causing and found this article which says 16 million Americans are potentially affected, those living close to airports. [1]

In Europe all new training aircraft are using diesel(-like) engines now which run on jet fuel or even straight diesel. It's not exactly hard to make the switch.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-...

Are you sure about that? Why would Tesla want to compete with Toyota and VW to produce the bottom tier of cars? When at that point they are competing with the best of the best at making the most affordable cars at the largest volumes?

They could also maintain their brand image and sell their mid range luxury models achieving less volume at a higher profitability margin.

Sanity restored, now back to waging war overseas!

You completely missed the point. Article is not about trade nor free markets. Article is about the metaphorical elephant realizing it could break its chains. It is about a change of mindset about individual destiny and how this change of mindset was the birth of capitalism.

And just to be clear, economics <> capitalism <> free markets <> trade