yes_really

10 years ago, if someone said that "woke" people got control of institutions and are censoring science that goes against their ideology, I would think that person is crazy. Right now, they even publish manifestos explicitly stating they will be censoring science if it goes against (woke) advocacy groups' ideologies.

Now the crazy person is not the guy denouncing the woke people marching through institutions. It is the guy that sees all this madness in the world and pretends it is not happening.

IQ research is the one area in social sciences that does not suffer from reproducibility crisis. You're clearly not against it because of reproducibility; you are against it because it goes against your ideological worldview.

> Second, research results in population group differences are social poison. They are memetic viruses that fuel violent extremism.

We had a full summer of violent riots because of the "Black Lives Matter" ideology. Are we going to ban research that studies police treatment of different races too?

> But the fact remains that women and minorities are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to just about all aspects of life.

- 90% of homicide victims are male.

- 80% of homeless people are male.

- 90% of people in prison are male.

- 80% of suicide victims are male.

And there are many, many more issues that men face. But I won't even touch on them because you are clearly against discussing them.

> What I haven't seen is people being passed over for not being diverse enough on a first hand basis. The people that claim it happened to them, are generally better at complaining than they are at their job.

How do you have that information? Do you know of multiple people saying they were passed over for not being diverse enough and you have personal knowledge that those people are bad at their jobs?

If that's not the case, then stop offending people you disagree with.

> Seems to me that about half your population no longer has an inalienable right to bodily autonomy.

You are more than a century late. The government has prohibited people from putting drugs in their bodies for a long time. Alcohol, illegal drugs, pharmaceutical drugs rejected by the FDA... There is no serious interpretation of "body autonomy" that gives the government the right to ban alcohol/drugs but doesn't give it the right to stop women from killing fetuses.

It does not sound like OP wants a parent at all.

> Setting cost aside for a second, is there any reason not to do something like this?

The cost would be so massive that, even if the answer to that question is "no", we shouldn't do it.

> The theoretical complexities are:

> - For list: O(n)

> - For vector: O(n)

> Surprisingly enough, the vector version is almost 90 times faster than the list version for 8K. How can we explain this big difference?

That does not contradict the theoretical complexities at all. The article didn't show any "practical" complexities contradicting the theoretical ones.

I do not mean to offend, but it looks like the author doesn't even understand what the O() notation means. The notation does not imply that all O(n) functions take the same amount of time. Multiple functions can scale linearly and still be different. In fact O(n) = O(1,000,000*n).

Note: I'm not saying there isn't caste bias. I'm saying that articles like these are shamelessly lying about what happened.

The real reason why Google canceled the talk is because the speaker has a long history of anti-hindu rhetoric and multiple employees complained about the talk to HR.

That Washington Post article is lying (or being extremely disingenuous) to take advantage of outsiders without context of the situation.

A big part of that is because houses are seen as an investment rather than a utility. They are also hugely subsidized by the government.

Honestly I'd rather have developers build 1,000,000 luxury houses than 100k luxury + 900k "affordable" houses. In the long term high-income people will live in the best houses, and if there aren't enough luxury houses, then they will just live in simple houses and those houses will increase in price because of all the demand of high-paying renters/buyers and the good school districts.

That's what we have in the Bay Area - $3,000,000 houses in Mountain View that working class people used to live a few decades ago. And now working class people are priced out of even those simple houses. Nobody wins.

It's honestly bizarre that there is such a thing as a "sex offender" register. It seems it comes much more from a desire to further punish people than to actually protect the population.

I would be much more afraid of an ex-felon convicted of murder than of an ex-felon convicted of having sex with a 15 year old. Yet it's the latter that gets put into a register.

There have been men that were added to the register for urinating in public, and now their lives are ruined because of some stupid laws and politicians praying on people's paranoia against "sexual predators".

The ironic thing is that James Damore was fired from Google for publishing a milquetoast memo on gender distribution in tech, yet the convicted felon (and registered level 2 sex offender) is being protected from "discrimination".

I'm not saying that the ex-felon should be rejected, but it's absurd that people and institutions had so much vitriol against Damore for his memo, yet are just ignoring the ex-felon.

The most revolting part of the US medical system IMO is the complete lack of transparency in prices.

In the ideal case, people would know what they would pay in each hospital when they are still deciding where to go.

> EDIT: I would just like to add, if you feel that the streets of NYC are a safe place at night for women, children, or whomever, then I really feel like your opinion is very dismissive of people who have been seriously injured or killed.

The vast majority of homicide victims are male. In the US, the number is 78%. In the whole world, it is 79% [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender

A big problem is a lot of companies make changes for changes' sake instead of a real business reason. It might be due to internal incentives too: it's easier for designers and managers to justify their existence by launching new designs than by saying "all looks good, no need to change."

> The richest man in the world is a simple minded moron that acts like a 16yo in the middle of a sugar rush.

Weird how that "simple minded moron that acts like a 16yo in the middle of a sugar rush" became the richest men in the world and revolutionized the rocket-launching and car industries. I wish I acted like that when I was a 16yo and had a sugar rush!

Keep in mind most of that difference is probably not a consequence of the 4 year degree, but just a selection bias of people getting degrees generally also being the people that earn more.

> Is this even a debate about whether or not it is a reasonable policy? Why would you allow uninspected products to feed your most vulnerable population?

They are inspected products. They are inspected by an European country.

> Any America-hating entity could capitalize on this attack vector, if they knew we would bypass our security controls. Is it likely? I don't know, but I do know that suspending your security in response to a crisis is dangerous.

It is not likely at all. The chance of e.g. the UK/France/Germany attacking the US via formula is close to 0%.

You need a threshold higher than 100k. With a threshold of 100k, the middle class is split in both groups earning <100k and >100k. The comment I replied to said "rich white socialite in New York". These people vote overwhelmingly democrat, often finance democrat causes, and support far-left rhetoric on social issues (at least openly, but not necessarily in their own families).

> Why is that? How much of a connection does a rich white socialite in New York have with a poor custodian from an immigrant family? Sure, their representative may be trying to bring money into their district, but beyond that is it really possibly to represent both of their interests?

Both of those vote Democrat. The middle class vote Republican.

What about the "poor and marginalized" students that were falsely accused and expelled from university over Title IX kangaroo courts?

> When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: “It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused.”. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations’ “fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence,” but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)

> Of course, the real solution here should just be free public college + clampdowns on cost overruns so that it's practical to fund. Less money on nice dorms and endless administrators and whichever sports lose money. We used to have cheap college, and it's possible to get back there. Find what changed over the decades and cut back.

Agree in theory, but then we should really be sure that the "clampdowns on cost overruns" will be effective before giving the government carte blanche to spend our tax money on this. The government is not even able to build rail without huge cost overruns and delays. I don't trust it to run universities.

> Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups

But what the article calls "equality" is discriminating against men, whites, asians and other groups. It's pretty obvious this discrimination harms those groups.

> The Office of Admission considers each student holistically within the context of their setting to build a dynamic University community. Given this, data points such as overall admission rates and average SAT scores shouldn’t influence a prospective student’s decision about whether to apply to Princeton.

But of course they should influence it. Data points of overall admission rates and average SAT scores are one of the best data for deciding to apply or not. It's weird how Princeton affirms they should not even "influence" it. It's a celebration of ignorance.

If you cheat on your partner you are also a "shit person". Do you think employers should reject candidates if they know they cheated on a romantic relationship?

> Which economy? Certainly not the ones that are getting destroyed by "biggest ever recorded" tropical cyclones.

The literature is mixed on whether climate change is really the cause on these recent natural disasters and, if it is, on how it impacts those disasters (e.g. reducing the frequency of the disasters, changing their location, etc).

> Maybe he meant Sweden finally being able to grow and export bananas?

Your example of Sweden is a rich country, but most of the increases in crop production would take place on developing countries - and that is a big deal for them.

For people that are lost on how climate change could be positive: it causes higher crop yields, and increases the temperature in cold regions (saving people from freezing to death and saving huge amounts of energy in heating).

Economists have performed many analyses on these and the conclusions indicate the consequences of climate change are much more mild that what the media, NGOs and politicians propagate. It's revolting that institutions have kept this scientific analysis away from the general population and have been feeding us political hysteria instead. The fact that even educated, rational, successful engineers in Hacker News are not aware of these data is another argument for why Twitter shouldn't be censoring ads in this political way.

I have a feeling that "contradict science on climate change" will only go one way. For example, economists agree that effects of climate change would be very small (compared to the world's economy) or even positive. David Friedman even thinks that climate change might be a *net positive* for the economy [1][2]. Is Twitter going to ban ads that say climate change will be a catastrophe?

[1] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/09/david_friedman_9.ht...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euL39f1kins