c06n

Thank you!

R's data.table has that.

dt[1:50, -c('col1', 'col14')]

Here you can find more of it: https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanHumor/

You are completely ignoring philosophy. It was the ideas of freedom, of the possibility of liberty for all, of equality of men, that made the whole enterprise possible. China had the tools, sure. But not the incentives. Their emperor could not let lose a zoo of creativity, for fear of destruction of the empire.

It only takes up Co2 in its growth phase, not afterwards.

Unironic: I get more actual news from the world socialist website than from the Guardian. Aside, there is axios.com, or the news section of Wikipedia.

Another great quote: "It [the installation of a socialist government in East Germany] has to look democratic, but we must control everything."

I cannot trust an article (podcast) where people say the following:

Historian Judith Bennett notes that medieval women made about 1d./day while men made 1 ½ or 2d./day when doing similar work, like brewing, as men. 700 years later, women still make just 80 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

The statement "80 cts on the dollar for the same work" is a falsehood. Simple as that. If people cannot get these simple facts right, I will not trust the rest they are saying.

As a fellow European working in research, I agree with every point. I am not having a good feeling about the future here.

If you need to appeal to the goodness of people's hearts, you know you've lost.

The age of Enlightement and the idea of liberalism have been so powerful because they programmatically went against any kind of censorship. Their ideas helped to see how humans are truly all equal, that we all share what it means to be human.

Identity politics set out to destroy these ideas. It is the enemy of liberalism, of a free flow of ideas, of a will to see us all as equals. It divides us into groups, based on biological features like the color of our skin, our age and our genitals.

This insanity will not end well.

Good point, but I am not sure how much weight it carries. Safety in numbers? You are fine as long as you don't offend anybody?

Have we accepted censorship just like that? What is next, coded language to escape the thugs?

What's underground today? Genuinely curious.

I used to feel to belong to "The Left" (whatever that is) precisely because it did not do these things. Now it does, and sees it even as a moral imperative to do so.

I'm on the autism spectrum, as are many others around here. Social rules are hard in the best of times. Now they are impossible to follow, and breaking them is outright dangerous.

But I can keep to myself, I guess I'll be fine.

And fired from your job. And yelled at on the street. And prevented from working in your field ever again. And death threats.

So, blacklisting: check. Excommunication: check. I'd rather not wait till it goes down further.

Glad you found the reply helpful.

Regarding "but is it really mainstream": Difficult question. I believe the answer is a "yes" with many caveats and clarifications.

How to define "mainstream"? Maybe your definition is "among the entire US population, less than 10 % believe the 10-points" or something similar. I think McWhorter has another frame of reference: (non-right wing) media, (higher) education, (non-right wing) politics and a subset of economical organisations (think Silicon Valley). Within these organisations, you should not be surprised to witness an adherence to at least some of the 10-points, and receive punishment if you loudly oppose them.

A recent data point: The New York Times has fired an acclaimed science reporter (specialized on COVID, nonetheless), because in 2019 he dared to utter the N-word in the following context: A student asked him for an example of egretious racism, to which he replied with saying "If somebody said the N-word". He dared to utter the word actually, leading to the recent events (https://quillette.com/2021/02/09/with-a-star-science-reporte...). Just like in Harry Potter, the mere utterance of a word has magic effects. To me, this is literally a regression to the Dark Ages. The word is the thing, saying it out loud stirrs the evil.

Of course this is just one anecdote, but there are many similar anecdotes. At which point does it become a trend? Here it becomes important to note that there is no need for a majority to command social change. Instead, small but determined minorities are extremely successful in getting what they want. The mechanics behind that are currently a hot topic of debate (https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...).

However, the important takeaway is that critical race theory ("white fragility") is not the only "this cannot be real" movement taking hold of universities, social media, established media outlets and politics. In places of higher education you may find yourself drastically punished if you insist that sex has a biological basis, that vocational interests are not evenly distributed between genders, that the American Civil War indeed aimed at freeing slaves, or that hiring decisions should be primarily based on merit of the applicants.

From your other comments I gathered that you are relatively new to "this", whatever this is. I suppose your priors were calibrated in a time certain tenets of humanism such as the value of truth, rationality and the universality of human experience were common place, especiall among the left. The tectonic shift we are witnessing today is that these tenets are declared to be false and even imoral, and that the proponents of such views are gaining the upper hand. I will sound dramatic, but I fear that the progress won by the period of enlightenment is in grave danger.

I probably have not convinced you that what I am saying is actually happening, but that's ok. This would take a longer discussion, there is a lot to unpack here. Perhaps you can consider it as a possibility, and adjust your priors for future events.

To update you with an actual source on some of the points, you can start with Robin DiAngelo's book "White Fragility". Most of the points are argued in the book. DiAngelo's books have been many weeks on the NYT's best seller lists. She sells her diversity training courses to many Fortune 500 companies and is held in high regards in progressive circles.

You can get a quick overview of the book's ideas on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Fragility#Synopsis). It links also an interesting article discussing the book (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-r...).

Quote from the article:

Unlike Kendi, who boldly defines racism, DiAngelo is endlessly deferential--for her, racism is basically whatever any person of color thinks it is. In the story she tells about the world, she and her fellow white people have all the power, and therefore all the responsibility to do the gruelling but transformative spiritual work she calls for. The story makes white people seem like flawed, complicated characters; by comparison, people of color seem good, wise, and perhaps rather simple.

If you look a little bit, you will find many stories that fit into the 10 points. One of my favorite examples is how an (Asian American) reporter got fired for quoting from an interview from an African American man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#The_Intercept).

In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime.

The best part of the story? The person who set of the Twitter storm to get Fang fired, then a colleague of Lee Fang at the Intercept, is (to my knowledge) a white woman pretending to be Black.

I had a colleague from Cameroon (in Germany). He applied for a study visa, studied here, applied for a work visa, worked here, applied for German citizenship, got it. Same for people from Egypt and Nigeria I have met.

People who claim there are not legal ways are ignorant or deceptive.

valid study is retracted

Which study was that?

Could be possibly because they were Czech? The culture is very different from what Americans are used to. Very reserved, very matter-of-fact, no smalltalk.

v.reddit has never worked for me but I chalked it up to noscript/firefox/old-reddit idiosyncrasies.

same for me

But they had to do in in 10 years. And start with it immediately after Millar's death.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering what I have been using all these years in lapply ...

women

Except for Black women in the US. Together with Asian men (especially from India), they have a really, really tough time. There are a number of peer reviewed studies on the matter, it seems to be a stable pattern.

It's in the article: Opinion at NYT produces 10% of the output, but 20% of the views. Emotions, especially negative ones, drive engagement.

I feel bad for the guy, but this is classic "Leopards ate my face". Kafka wrote "Der Process" (The trial) 100 years ago. People have warned in abundance that Codes of Conduct will lead to Der Process-like situations, and here we are.

Cancelling others is "facing consequences". Cancelling you is unfair and a great injustice. Is it maybe possible that others who have been cancelled did, in fact, not just face consequences, but were treated just as unfair as you?

In important ways yes, and in important ways no. Yes: can deal with dynamic spatial environments, can act towards a goal (intentionality), some almost certainly can plan how to reache these goals. No: Use of symbols and recursive language.

It has worked very badly in Germany as well. In the year 1999, the UMTS licenses were auctioned based on Milgrom and Wilsom's ideas. The government's revenue was awesome, but it came at a high price. The telcos had to take up large credits, hindering future investments in their their mobile networks. Today, Germany has one of the worst mobile networks in the western countries.

article in German: https://www.golem.de/news/mobilfunk-umts-versteigerungstakti...

I do not understand how you can have acceleration without changing position (at 10:06). Acceleration is the derivative of speed, which is the derivative of position change. If the position change is zero, how can the acceleration be non-zero?

Oh god no. Lisa Barett-Feldman is mostly marketing, I do not see any great additions from her to the debate regarding emotions. Don't get me wrong, the state of affairs of theories of emotion is lamentable. But her views are (mostly) either already established, or obviously wrong. She creates strawmen. "No emotion is tied to a single, objective state in the body" is misleading at best. Of course it is not, no one in the field thought so previously.

Stating that emotions are "cultural" explains nothing, and it is also demonstratebly wrong if taken to the absolute. Blind people do show facial expressions very similar to non-blind people (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/978111951934...). Barett-Feldman simply ignores the large amount of evidence for specific, biological foundations of emotions. That is why she is controversial.

Also I am not even sure she sees things that differently, just claimes she does. Her view, as I understand it: Specific body experiences (affect) differ in two main qualities, arousal (how strong) and valence (pleasantness). The interpretation of affect as a specific emotion is a culturally influenced cognitive act. Apart from the cultur-thing that is exactly Schachter and Singer's theory on emotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory_of_emotion).

Is there a consistent mapping between context factors and affect? If yes, how can you claim that there is no biological, innate basis for emotion? If no, how can she claim that there is a thing called "affect", if you cannot consistently produce the reaction?

If all you do is say that affect and emotions are not the same, where is the contribution? Then you are over 2,000 years too late, the old Greeks already had some ideas on that.

For me it's weird. It has worked well sometime in the past, but in the last half year or so it became close to unusable again. For instance, if I search something related Pandas (the Python package), it consistently gives me the doc on Pandas 0.23 instead of the current one. I am switching back to Google, I've had enough for now.