awptimus

middle man increases uncertainty, which is your friend

someone failed thinking 101

God called one of his angels back to heaven

I have an acquaintance whose main method of argument is shouting out names of logical fallacies without pointing out to the person he's arguing with where and how it applies.

This list is helpful as a guide to spot errors in reasoning. It is not helpful as a tool to facilitate discussion.

If you use this reference, do us all a favor and discuss how the fallacy applies in the current discussion, and treat the person with some respect at least.

https://evans.uw.edu/sites/default/files/NBER%20Working%20Pa...

minimum wage earners lost $125 a month due to cut hours.

Because...

That QM is random to us is no more correct on its face than a dice roll being random. A dice roll follows rules of classical physics and given enough information about the state of the system we can accurately predict /exactly/ how the die will land. It ceases to be random as we increase knowledge.

That QM has a limit to the knowledge we can acquire within the confines of our observations does not indicate some philosophical "true randomness."

Did he just assume their gender? Did I just assume his gender?

Didn't read the article. But the answer is yes.

I ain't try any trick yo

"Crazy" suffices to say that the behavior set is far outside of regular norms as to be unworkable with normal reason. It doesn't have to imply the actor is schizophrenic or anything.

It doesn't matter if the actor, behaving rationally towards his ends, has ends that are absolutely incompatible with ours, or if he's acting irrationally. [edit: I mean it doesn't matter from a defense of his behavior standpoint. It's fine to call him "crazy" if his ends are absolutely unacceptable]

I agree with the critique of the piece - no one thinks North Koreans are inferior as human beings. We think they've been fed a ubiquitous dose of propaganda their entire lives. We think that a dictator, so very isolated through years of behavior that necessitates (and invites) it, lacks any sense of acceptable end-states for his country.

I also agree that it's misguided to dismiss him as actually crazy. One must treat him as a rational actor - moves you make will have moves he makes. There is rationality involved. May be shitty rationality, may be myopic rationality, but it's rationality. You move warships towards North Korea he's not going going to launch Rubber Ducks at you. That'd be crazy. He's not going to poop his pants and eat the feces on live television and announce he's a little princess.

And it's mediocre because?

And this single line you plucked out of Atlas Shrugged is mediocre because?

Give one example of a "mediocre idea."

bump

Yes, the characters are intended to be one dimensional. You'll notice all the characters have differences from each other in important ways, because they are meant to show how certain beliefs (and contradictions in beliefs) interact and have consequences.

Dagny and Rearden have internal contradictions, and it's not the point to find relation to them as people, but how their contradictions affect them.

The one sided villains aren't meant to be rich characters full of life, but people who carry out principles you here uttered in real life to their extreme conclusions.

The purpose is to take people at what they claim their values are and illustrate their implications.

I love articles like these because it's nothing but regurgitated BS by people who don't get Rand, about people who aren't really 'devotees'.

Writing caricatures of people and ideas and how those caricatures of people ideas relate to each other is great.

Here's an honest sentence "Paul Ryan, who has never really done anything the protagonists of Rand's novels would, is said to have liked the book a lot"

Bahahaha. That's funny. ESPN's entire business model is based on being just popular enough that any cable company not carrying it would go under so they can demand something on the order of $6.50 per subscriber when the majority of subscribers don't watch ESPN.

If they ever offered an individual subscriber deal they sure as hell wouldn't do it for $6.50 per sub per month.

You should always trade by specifying your own limit.

It's not even controversial to anyone who knows math. It's a consequence of the intermediate value theorem.

What if Bigfoot is dressed in a burka? Under your assumptions your system is logically sound and under the system you can conclude, but in broader context you assume that which you would like to prove. You started with no one saw bigfoot, and add it as a necessary condition for bigfoot's existence. It's not a necessary condition.

If your assumptions are false, then so is your conclusion, in the end.

Other people don't factor into this. Proving to them is not necessary. Once an event occurs, it occurred. Your knowledge of what that event or the total state of that event might be uncertain, but the event's occurrence is no longer probabilistic.

Not true. Given a hypothesis "there exists" the first observed instance is proof of the positive. The inverse however, again, requires you to sample the entire population and collect all data.

It's just missing the better alternative. It's much more correct and useful to say "given all evidence the probability there are yeti is almost zero" correctly doesn't rule it impossible and correctly asserts that we shouldn't behave as if they do. I mean, if we're fine when the entire physics community go nuts with excitement when we make a mistaken measurement of a neutrino going faster than light, why worry about a person who thinks they saw a yeti try to find a yeti?

This is an unnecessary. "You can't prove a negative" isn't a statement about logic, it's a statement statistical evidence (incorporating logic). You need to observe the entire population in order to reduce a probability to zero.

This article demonstrates the danger of thinking statistics is logic - you can only use statistics with the analytical framework firmly set up...not as a replacement.

The United States is just that - United. States. 38 mass shootings, however defined, means there is /less than one per State/. Guess what? That makes Finland's two /much/ higher. That's...statistically significant!

Explaining how completely incapable frequentist statistics are at describing anything at a low sample size doesn't mean that something succumbs to "random fluctuation." There is nothing random about a person deciding to take arms and shoot lots of people. Not only that, this data is based on a full population sample - it's not a survey of 5,000 people extrapolating to the whole population - it IS the full population.

And he removed the idea that the original chart was designed show - lack of data that shows compelling evidence that more restrictive gun laws prevent either mass shooting incidents or mass shooting deaths.

He should step away from the statistics - it's a loaded gun and he's not trained to use the weapon properly.

One of the co-authors has been writing about this extensively. http://wmbriggs.com/post/15337/

Reminds me of this cartoon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F2OOrtU2VE

Complaint 1 isn't a problem with free-trade, it's a problem with a treasury issuing debt. If the treasury ceased to issue new debt, then this "problem" with free-trade goes away. This "problem" is not bidirectional. It does not affect both sides identically. If it did, the "problem" would cancel out. So don't blame free-trade for increased debt issuance. Just because they raise your credit card limit doesn't mean you need to max your your card.

Complaint 2 is also not a problem with free-trade. If China undervalues its currency -- by printing money as the comic states -- to make its products cheaper and therefore not play "fair," imagine the converse: the US starts printing money out he wazoo. Nope. Not a good idea. No one would suggest that, and everyone would warn against it. It would lead to increased inflation, which is not good. So if it's a bad idea for the US but a good idea for China, what is the explanation for that? There isn't one. China is engaging in an enormous monetary scheme that's almost certainly not beneficial in the long run, to change a statistic (current exchange rate) and coax the US into buying cheap goods for a while. Imagine if China maxed this idea out: just gave us everything for free. Yea, doesn't do them any good, and comes at a huge cost for them. This is a very poorly thought out comic.

Complaint 3 is just very odd. It doesn't even attempt to show what is meant by if the "business" goes to Guatemala. How does the math change? If comparative advantage maths say A should make X and B should make Y, what on earth does an organizational structure and trademark name have to do with the production? What in blazes? Is A no longer able to make X because the Y business moved to where B lives? I'm done wasting my time with this.