HN user
blind to the history
of scientific racism
Interestingly, the many slave rebellions of antiquity (and after) by and large did not seek to abolish slavery, only to switch who's a slave, and who's a slave holder.
From the quoted article:
- "modern Europeans and East Asians apparently inherited about 2% of their DNA from Neanderthals"
- "African individuals on average had [...] more Neanderthal DNA than previously thought—about [...] 0.3% of their genome."
So the article seems to confirm a 10x difference in Neanderthals DNA, which might be significant. It's also unclear what they mean by "Africans, did the same include, e.g. Egyptians of Greek descent?
What credibility do the RAINN numbers have?
The Wikipedia article [1] leads to [2], a RAINN page which links to itself (quote: "Please visit https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system for full citation."), and also (Footnote 1) to the following 'three' alleged data sources [3, 4, 5]. Note that [4, 5] are exactly, letter for letter, the same (!) in [2]! Why? Does that sound like serious science to you? Anyway, the RAINN page [2] then claims: "This statistic combines information from several federal government reports. Because it combines data from studies with different methodologies, it is an approximation, not a scientific estimate.". Let's look at the methodology in [3], starting on Page 17:
"The NCVS is a self-report survey that is administered from January to December. Respondents are asked about the number and characteristics of crimes they have experienced during the prior 6 months [...] . The survey collects information on threatened, attempted, and completed crimes. Te survey collects data on crimes both reported and not reported to police. Estimates in this report include threatened, attempted, and completed crimes."
Of particular interest is the subsection "NCVS measurement of rape or sexual assault", starting on page 19. I cannot see any meaningful attempt at scientific rigour here. Can you explain to me why such figures should be taken seriously? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! There is no evidence in any meaningful sense here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape,_Abuse_%26_Incest_Nationa...
[2] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
[3] Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010-2016 (2017).
I think this is https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf
[4] Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2016 (2017);
[5] Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2016 (2017);
I completely agree with you.
That's why publicly saying "you are wrong" is so powerful (and so dangerous). The powerful are not used to be challenged in public. They typically respond by a combination of
- reframing, changing the subject
- attacking, belittling you
You can see this in action in stand-up comedy with hecklers. If you anticipate this reaction, you can turn this around very effectively in a professional context (not in standup-comedy though): "I note you are NOT answering my question, instead ...".
With great power comes great responsibility.
Praise in public, criticize in private
- Powerless praises publicly and criticises privately: criticism will be ignored, praise will be milked.
- Powerless praises privately and criticises publicly: if played right, this is working, since the powerful cannot brush aside the criticism, but this is likely to lead to retaliation!
A way of making public criticism more digestible is to make it very constructive: "You are wrong because XYZ, I recommend ABC instead because <reasons>". Ideally the <reasons> align with the organisation's goals, e.g. "ABC is clearly in the interest of our shareholders / voters / students / environment because <other reasons>.
Make of this what you will.
Classical music is fine as it is, no need to change.
Why should being based on improvisation and unique personal expression be the be-all-and-end-all of analysis? Not everybody wants to play / hear improvised music.
The OP didn't suggest she had better data, the OP said that there is no consensus. in another post the OP said that is no serious, solid research.
To paraphrase Brecht:
Who fights for XYZ must be able to fight and not to fight,
to say the truth and not to say the truth,
to render and to deny service,
to keep a promise and to break a promise,
to go into danger and to avoid danger,
to be known and to be unknown.
Who fights for XYZ has of all the virtues only one:
that he fights for XYZ.
There is an interesting related paper "Copy and Paste Redeemed" [1] that is based on the assumption that a lot of copy/paste happens (and discusses why this is not necessarily a bad thing). [1] investigates how copy/paste can be auto-detected, how similar pieces of code can automatically be merged together, and how abstractions can be automatically created from copy/paste code.
I have not used the tool myself, so I cannot comment on how well it works in practise. But I found the idea intriguing.
[1] K. Narasimhan, C. Reichenbach, Copy and Paste Redeemed http://creichen.net/papers/cpr.pdf
Interesting. Have you got an 'official' link for Calacanis' proposal?
I'm curious: why and how do you think Exterior Algebra will have such an impact on programming in general? What programming constructs that EA capture that are currently not well-abstracted (apart from graphics/linear algebra)? And can EA not be expressed anyway in modern languages with expressive typing systems such at Haskell/Scala which even have higher-kinded types?
You keep ignoring the elephant in the room: that she was wrong (in the charitable interpretation). Why?
I'd appreciate it if you could state clearly whether you think
- F. got it wrong, or
- she knew/assumed early on that it was a helix, but lied about it?
Thank you.
As to whether the X-rays should have been seen by Crick/Watson, The research was publically funded. Publically funded research should be open and transparent. Or do you disagree with transparency of taxpayer money? Would it have even been legally possible for F. to refuse the communication of her tax-payer funded results?
The section you cite does not mention that F. explicitly campaigned against the helix model for a while. Why? If we exclude the option that she deliberately lied about it and publically spoke against the helix model so as to mislead others (which would be a major breach of scientic ethics) -- and we should: "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" -- then she failed to see what others did see. To use the vernacular:
she got it wrong.Might this criticism have been politically motivated?
For a while she actively campaigned against DNA being a double helix, see e.g. her 'obiturary' for the double helix [1] which preceeds Watson and Crick’s paper. Might her insistence that DNA is not a double helix have misled Wilkins and others?
[1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/files/201...
Adultery is a reason for divorve. The "bad times" refers to calamities beyond the partner's control like illness, accidents. The marriage contract is only valid as long as both parties stick to it. Adultery is a voluntary choice and automatically invalidates the (conventinal) marriage contract.
Nobody says that house etc should automatically go to the husband. It should go to those who put the work in to build/buy the property. There are cases, alas rare as of 2015, where this is the wife. In this case, the house should go to the wife. However, as you know well, in the vast majority of cases, this is the husband. Staying at home is not really work. So de facto the contemporary practise of US divorce courts massively violates husbands' rights. As simple fix would be to institute (1) no fault = no alimony, and (2) shared 50/50 custody as norm. Anything else is sexism and cannot legitimately be defended.
And child support mainly takes into account who's the parent of whom
One of the few crimes
Yes they do.
I take you, ..., to be my husband and I promise before God and all who are present here to be your loving and faithful wife, as long as our lives shall last. I will serve you with tenderness and respect, and ...
you promised to take care of your wife
Safe havens are about saving babies’ lives, not their parents.
Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood
Still they make less money,
bear the cost/burden of child birth,
are more likely to care for children,
are more likely to be physically abused by their partners,
more likely to be killed by their partner,
Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids
The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered.
Once a kid is there
Once a kid is there
conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy
Let's look at the facts!
The original Marshall plan was worth 5.2% of German GDP (of 1952). Greece has already received 185% of its GDP, in other words, other countries have given Greece already 36 Marshall plans!
Sinn, Hans-Werner, "The Greek Tragedy", CESifo Forum 16 Special Issue 2015 (June), 2015, 5-35, downloadable from
https://www.cesifo-group.de/de/ifoHome/publications/docbase/...
I wonder what the EU expected.
The Euro was primarily a (french) political project to weaken Germany following reunification. This is strongly reflected on the ECB's board, where Germany has the same number of votes as Malta! In order to sell the Euro to conservative Germans who feared a "Transfer Union" (where they would perpetually have to bail out certain states that shall remain anonymous with a reputation for fiscal improbity) some vague promises were added about debt levels. But the promises were not accompanied by any enforcement mechanisms and soon fell by the way-side.
I used to ridicule Eurosceptics, seeing them as dinosaurs who are on the wrong side of history. But to my consternation, I have to accept now that most of their worst fears have come to pass.
As a historical aside, it is noteworthy that about a century ago a similar scenario played out: Greece (and others) crashed the Latin Monetary Union [1], a 19th-century attempt to unify several European currencies into a single currency that could be used in all the member states, at a time when most national currencies were still made out of gold and silver. It was established in 1865 and disbanded in 1927.
If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions.
Your money went mainly to your Banks, via Greece.
your Banks
The transfers to greece of the last few years were to a large extent a way of transferring private debt of german and french banks to the general EU populace.
Moreover, taking on Greek debt is a massive gift to Greece, for this money no longer needs to be paid back, hence is a gift.
All the arguing about whether "women have more rights than men" is part of the problem
You are not addressing the issue.
We are discussing whether men or women have more rights. The ability that women have to force men into parenthood is a clearcut example of women having more rights than men, regardless of whether one agrees with the the existence of this right or not. Moreover, the critical cases here have nothing to do with "bodily autonomy", that's a smoke screen. They have to do with alimony. A woman can rape a man, get pregnant that way and the biological father has to pay alimony [1]. A woman can steal a man's sperm, get pregnant and the biological father has to pay alimony [2]. That's outrageous! What are you doing to redress this injustice?
As an aside, referring to "misogynist assholes" is rarely helpful.
[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/5...
[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/...
Vasectomy is not 100% reliable. Even after a successful vasectomy about 1 in 2,000 men will become fertile again at some point in the future.
Moreover, having to engage in genital mutilation so as to avoid being tricked/lied/forced into fatherhood is hardly progressive.