If you were given back those 40 mins, you could spend them on a 40 min bike ride in the woods.
If that's the absolute best way you can imagine spending those 40 mins, you don't lose the option to do that.
846 karma · joined April 7, 2021
If that's the absolute best way you can imagine spending those 40 mins, you don't lose the option to do that.
But that's not the reality of trauma for many people. Some people are never going to be quaffing wine in a fancy restaurant and reminiscing with their aged school-chums. Some people will suffer evident psychological harm that they may never fully recover from.
The four yorkshiremen's tales centre on a factual recounting, not touching upon feelings or harm done or how the situation was dealt with. [it was presented in this way with the effect of parodying this attitude.]
I think this deserves the pushback you are getting. It has damaged generations, to not be able to talk about their subjective experiences of objective harm.
I think your attitude is selfish (in the sense that you're making it about yourself). It does you no harm for people to tell their stories, in their own terms. Why not let folks be?
If everybody liked your hobby the same amount as you do, it wouldn't be your hobby.
The Monty Python "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch is 53 years old, a parody of old men apparently exaggerating their traumas.
(I don't recommend keeping those people in your life.)
If you are really applying attribute tags to individuals, you are not "grouping" them in the usually-understood meaning of stratifying.
In truth, you are still building an individual profile for each person, but describing it in a disingenuous way.
Everyone pays for their own household now, only because of general corporate scaremongering and specific lobbying to claim that the owner is liable for misuse.
I remain surprised there isn't a bigger movement and open source infrastructure for sharing connections locally.
If I was able to share a few connections with my apartment-neighbours, that would be cheaper and more reliable than my current setup.
But, relative poverty in this situation would mean that you don't have your own land, to do this.
Wikipedia comments that subsistence farmers typically have meaningful economic power in their community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture
Amazon are using their devices to get a lead on the competition, and in a way which consumers are unlikely to think is fair.
If a company approaches me wanting to put infrastructure in my house (that only benefits them and may incur charges to me), they should normally expect to pay rent.
Your last sentence quoted clearly describes people with inherited wealth. In my opinion, that's not describing a poor person, by almost any measure. It falls into the sibling commenter's category description of petit bourgeoisie.
I don't claim that paper reviews have to be or can be perfect - only that they could be held to a better standard than they are now.
We see plenty of avenues for publishing to a worse standard (self-publishing on an internet aggregator, for example). Let's see some avenues for a better standard.
Why isn't this a science in itself? We could trial some different standards and statistically compare them.
[It was not my claim that scientific papers must be understandable by laypeople, although I think this is an ideal case. If not, it should at least be understandable by people in an adjacent subfield - otherwise, it's just a small group of people talking amongst themselves]
My question was whether we have different definitions of poor - if you are distinguishing poor as everyone below middle class, and this is your definition of middle class, then you're simply claiming that everyone is poor.
Saying "poor people do X" now just boils down to "some people do X" [for example, the claim that poor people buy $1000 retail iPhones]. To me, that's not a very useful or interesting definition for this purpose.
Third-class passage was £8, approximately $1000 in today's currency, i.e. more expensive than an equivalent trans-atlantic flight today, and too expensive for poor people to typically consider.
> Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do.
"The median income of foreign-born households in 2016 was $53,200, compared to U.S. born resident’s median household income of $58,000."
That seems like middle class people to me.
Do we have different definitions of poor?
I understand this example to be of historical note because it was exceptional. Many people came over for the promise of farmland or gold or something that they could capitalise on.
Emphasis here is on the past tense.
There are several reasons to challenge this:
1. The USA had (and still has) unprecedented resources per population. Why is your claim not still the case?
2. Immigrants tend to be people with the means to immigrate. That's rarely people in relative poverty, unless you intended to mean slaves.
This is just Hacker News-level commentary passing for science.
I find this unconvincing evidence because: you already knew this (somehow) and found it an interesting piece of trivia to bring up at that time. It's unsurprising, then, that a YouTube channel also finds it interesting.
It's very likely that you were influenced to remember this piece of trivia because of something you observed, like (for example) subconsciously spotting an advert.
These are common advertisements. You only noticed them the next day because you talked about them the previous day.
It's not that difficult, at least in science and science-adjacent fields. The scientific method still follows the same principles.
If you are used to reading papers, you can tell when someone has elided important detail, or not included the evidence for their claims - or, if someone [or a whole subfield] is using technical language to obfuscate their work.
The current requirement for academic publishing is peer-review, i.e.:
"Colleagues in my field looked over it briefly and said it's ok [because it doesn't challenge their work]"
This inevitably leads to whole fields of science being corrupted and biased in ways that we can't easily identify.
Science publishing standards could be improved in any number of ways: e.g. original data must be shared in an open format, publish your hypotheses before doing the research, publish the code, standardise the setting out of methods and statistics and results so that other scientists in and out of the field have a hope of following them.
Nobody in the industry is motivated to change this, and hides behind the romantic ideal of a scientist pushing the boundaries and breaking the rules to discover novel theories.
If such a scientist exists today, we can't identify them against the background of noise.
Turns out that it's much quicker to scan the back of the label for Coca-Cola trademarks than it is to scour the nutritional information.
People report feeling good despite taking a depressant, and self-medicate their depression with alcohol.
But, it's easily possible for democratic representation to result in a set of contradicting laws without any dishonesty.
Suppose laws A, B and C are incompatible, but any pair is reasonable.
35% of representatives fundamentally support A and B [and not C];
35% support B and C;
30% support A and C.
All three such laws will pass with majority support, with everyone holding true to their represented beliefs - but the system is still at fault.
It wasn't, not really. And this is exactly my point:
Most countries have successfully legislated abortion law. The USA's federal legislature failed to do so directly and left it to their supreme court to decide something from their ambiguity: as is their job.
This decision can still today be written clearly into law, in either direction, by representatives. So, it's an ongoing failure of the legislature.
I'm not sure. Physics teachers often have to deal with absolute laws of physics, e.g. "you can't make a perpetual motion machine".
You can't ever demonstrate that something doesn't exist (philosophy of the black swan/inviting disproof by counter-example), so it's challenging for teachers to communicate this as a fact to curious students: the result is sometimes teachers appearing scornful.
One slightly-misunderstood law of conservation and you're suddenly a physics teacher who is scorning the truth.
I don't. But, they have to decide cases.
Part of the problem is that likely >>50% of people want some action to be taken to prevent climate change; and that likely >>50% of people don't support any particular specific action.
Democratically elected representatives (i.e. legislatures; and in particular two-party legislatures) have internationally failed to resolve this contradiction, and many have effectively passed both sides of this into law, in pursuit of votes.
Now, the judiciary must deal with this ambiguity.
If you don't want this to happen, then pay closer attention when politicians are playing for both sides of an issue, and challenge it more.
I'm unclear what you mean by 'sorted out' - there must ultimately be some outcome, as the judiciary in this case has given us.
Don't like a judiciary's decision? The democratic option is to go back to your representative and work to change the legislation, so that it's no longer ambiguous.
I understood the headline figure to be suggesting that 750k people per year around the world are dying early, i.e. 10 years earlier than they would otherwise.
(Unlike you, I find it unsurprising and likely true to the point of not being headline-worthy: this is not very many people against the working age population)
The original article doesn't quite refer to that definition, but does say that 23.3 million Disability Adjusted Life-Years are lost per year, so it does seem to be working on an approximately equivalent basis.
Saying that everything around us "contributes" to death is pointless hyper-factualism. It's useful to have a scientific attempt to quantify how much each factor contributes.
My point was that the legislature is writing law which is in conflict with itself.
The quote "future generation" hasn't come from the judiciary - it is written into the law, for the judiciary to deal with the consequences.
The court's 'catchwords' summary here focuses on present-day injury to living children rather than the 'future generations' in the HN editorialised title.
I suggest the problem is that the legislature is filled with cognitive dissonance on this issue, prepared to say one thing [in law] - for the votes - and do another - for the votes.
That requires the judiciary to sort out the mess.
Through traffic is physically constrained in each case - due to them being islands or peninsulas or mountain villages.