postflopclarity

there are already reasons given in another comment thread. the main reason is that this IR is itself written in Julia, and using multiple languages is cumbersome and annoying.

it's easily resolvable. the first statement is a lie: MANY students pay the full, published cost of attendance.

anybody saying they're identical clearly doesn't use both...

you have a very strange experience

https://www.wired.com/story/grok-is-still-hosting-sexualized...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/musks-grok-chatbot-faces-...

I don't know if I'd call this an "unfortunate" result or not. it's neither good nor bad, just a thing.

Arpino & Mogi are different authors that wrote a different paper that I didn't read. _This_ paper does not appear to have controlled for much at all in its primary contribution of analysis of US GSS data, and all the conclusions reached appear to me to be purely observational.

Another nuance is that since their analysis consists of filtering to people already over 40, and then asking about political leaning, there is no way to infer anything about causal association of left - vs - right ideology and fertility. For example, "having children makes you more right wing" is an equally plausible explanation for this data as "being right wing causes you to have more children" (or maybe neither of these statements are true at all, and it's caused by a variety of other confounding factors).

seems like an odd choice to so emphatically phrase this as a quality of "the left" when there are so clearly many plausible confounding factors (education, wealth, employment status, do you live in a small city apartment, etc.)

not sure what nuance you're looking for in between "abuses" and "children"

or I could just do something better with my time :/

so much effort all to fix what should be a clear and objective inaccuracy

you have described my experience very accurately

"only" a 7% increase in deaths

I think one of the last straws for me before I quit trying to help is when I "lost" some disputed edit (and the page was subsequently locked) because the original author provided an external citation for their claim.

The problem was, if you actually go read the content being cited, it did not at all conclude what the page author was asserting it did. In fact, it concluded the opposite. So the citation was "real" but the way it was being used with the implication that it supported the author's position was pure misinformation.

I tried to point this out and petitioned to unlock the page, but I was told that "consensus has been reached, and edit warring will not be tolerated" ...

it was in the computational social choice sphere which attracts a lot of amateurs interested in electoral reform and "voting theory" (which of course is not the typical term used for the field but is popular among these amateurs).

these contributors tend to have some kind of unrelated engineering / technical background, though never in econ or social choice itself, are often retired with lots of free time, and _always_ have incredibly stubborn and strong opinions. the demographic matches the [trisector](https://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/Wha...) very closely

if you look around on these pages in social choice and voting algorithms you will find plenty of inaccuracies, vague assertions about strategic manipulability, misunderstanding of the formalization of certain electoral axioms, and other misinformation.

I am confident that my edits were high quality and improved the mathematical accuracy and clarity of the page.

unfortunately I was editing under my real name and I'd rather not dox myself so I can't link to the reverts. but the general area was in social choice / computational democracy. so if you scroll around the edit history of some of those pages maybe you'll get the picture?

indeed. the field I was trying to improve tend to attract a lot of cranks and trisectors. the topics are not "contentious" in the typical political sense but the pages are closely guarded by very stubborn and uninformed retiree flatearther types.

trying to contribute to wikipedia was the most miserable experience in a "collaborative" process I've ever had in my life.

Like arguing with cranks at a town hall meeting, ignorant high school group project classmates, and bureaucracy-obsessed nonprofit initiative zealots all wrapped into one.

in the area I was trying to contribute (a math subdomain) to there is sooooo much technical misinformation. but if you don't have an intimate knowledge of all the details of the editing bylaws, and seemingly infinite time to be able to litigate your case, it's almost impossible to get any of these edits through when the original page author is sufficiently motivated to prevent them.

In that particular sense I think NYC is the clear best city in the country,

yes. if you don't like cities, you won't like NYC. but as far as "city" goes, NYC is the clear best and I don't think it's particularly close.

NYC is certainly the best city in the US.

if only there were a fungible way to measure which land is "desirable" or not, and then allow people to build there instead of making it illegal.

it is not the definite answer for the housing issues.

it kind of is.

Anyone thinking there's a simple solution to this problem hasn't spent enough time with the problem.

I've spent a lot of time with the problem. and there is a simple solution: relax zoning restrictions and various lot requirements to allow private developers to build more housing. the market incentives are already there, they're just blocked by NIMBY's and stupid city councils, etc.

that costs a $200 monthly subscription to access, the profits going directly to grifter's pockets.

for this kind of question, 20 years is not enough data. one would need a much longer study period to be able to reach any more compelling conclusions

I would pull a wild number out of my ass and estimate that all the "not very expensive endeavors" with approximately similar scope / usefulness to these current trackers add up to, maybe $20B in the budget? which is a microscopic rounding error compared to the amount of money that goes to bribes, fraud, and grift in the DoD budget.

because it is useful information for the public benefit, and not very expensive.

yes. adoption is slow, but steadily increasing. for certain tasks it's the best tool and each release just gets better.

except that they changed the index rules to OVERweight them because of their small float.

We're going to start to seize companies now?

already started by the current administration?

Not sure if they've pivoted since, but when I interviewed here a few years ago these folk used ABM.

https://www.gauntlet.xyz/

Don't be a ridiculous socialist, clearly 50% is too much. The true capitalists believe that the USG should only own

* 10% of Intel

* 15% vig of Nvidia chip sales to China

* largest shareholder in several materials and mining companies

* option for 8% of Westinghouse

* "Golden Share" of U.S. Steel

/s