HN user
A description of what you are supposed to be able to opt-out from on Visa cards is here:
"In some countries, Visa enhances card transaction data and uses it to generate anonymised and aggregated consumer spending and marketing reports and other data products that enable companies to improve their marketing efforts. These solutions help companies identify consumers that they can target."
You can read your result off the serology test if you like, it'll just look something like this: https://homehealth-uk.com/all-products/coronavirus-test-kit-...
This is incorrect, you're describing a mitigation approach which may be what is happening where you live, but many other countries are aiming for full suppression and having some success.
Hi Nostrademos — I was involved in this project. We asked a lot of questions and the answers to some others were quite a bit more controversial (we're going to release a new question each week or thereabouts).
But one thing we learned in the process was that seriously successful people doing their thing feel pretty gagged.
It's not worth it for them to write even things that seem uncontroversial to you or me, because someone out there might hate it, or misinterpret it, and start creating problems for them.
Here's what it comprises: https://imgur.com/a/BZDJ4wT
43% wind, 38% hydro, 10% solar.
They replied and they got a job.
Hi BinaryIdiot - while I don't agree that all of that kind of advice is not useful, most pages of that kind were written some time ago.
I think you'll find that the content we are currently working on, such as our podcast, are more concrete: https://80000hours.org/podcast/
"I find this website absurd. Is it really just articles by random people which give high-level advice on how to have a career? ... This is garbage and just not redeemable."
Thanks for your feedback. If you look around you'll see it's almost all written by a handful of full-time staff - this piece from an anonymous contributor is almost unique.
Most articles we write at this point are less high-level than this one, though pages that focus on general advice which is applicable to a wide range of people naturally attract the most traffic.
As I've said to others it highlights one weakness with the model - that it will always say a longer possible search is better because it raises your odds to success and the model features no cost for searching. When you add a cost to delay the appropriate time to spend exploring drops massively.
It rubs you the wrong way that I start with an example that clearly illustrates the point I'm trying to make?
As I say in the article, the question is how inaccurate these things are - are they good enough to be useful? Or so inaccurate that on balance they're misleading?
When you say insulting things like this it makes me feel sad.
Would be good if the title could be edited so the word 'This' isn't missing at the start:
"This trial claimed to show a 4 and 5-day work week are equally productive. It didn’t."
Sorry, I'll get a Medium account and post it there.
I took a proper look at this study and it didn't show what this article claims it showed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15q3hdJI2SxDBcOsn2Cqk8bMg...
Mate, I made this and I promise you there are no affiliate links and I'm making no money from the site.
I have a real job and don't need an extra $7 a year in kickbacks for selling crank radios.
I made it and there are no affiliate links on this page.
This is a good article. I just wanted to take issue with this claim: "Twitter is a public company, funded by investor money; they thus owe a legal duty to make as much money for their investors as they can."
This is a common misconception. While public companies have some duties to shareholders they are not required to maximise profits as such: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
It's important to be aware of this so that corporations cannot use this excuse to get off the hook for otherwise immoral behaviour.
As some commenters point out, it's not clear whether that's a good or bad thing. But approval voting would broaden out the conversation by allowing more heterodox parties to attract a significant fraction of the vote, reflecting their actual support, rather than just an artificially low 0-3%.
"...there's actually a really good track record in the US for passing ballot initiatives on single winner voting methods, so we expect the likelihood of winning some to be pretty high.
The way that we look at it is instant runoff voting has been passed as a ballot initiative in a number of cities, but we see approval voting as producing better outcomes, and having better political dynamics compared to instant runoff voting. Approval voting is also so much easier, and it avoids a lot of the problems.
If instant runoff voting can win, then surely, a simpler voting method that produces good outcomes and has good dynamics should also be able to do it."
Not faster, lower cost. It means they get more total computation. I don't understand the objection.
Am I reading this figure correctly, or does every group do better with evening classes?
http://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/SJL-2-40...
That paper disagrees with the established view, but helpfully lays out what the established view is. Scanning papers on the topic it seems like there's mixed results war to war, and it depends what other things you try to control for - I think you could get to saying it's neutral but not that there should be a strong presumption that a war will suicide.
"the argument of "increased social cohesion" against a foreign enemy is not applicable to a civil war"
You'd get increased social cohesion among each of the ethnic groups which is in conflict with the other.
In any case this focus on the Sri Lankan civil war specifically isn't that interesting - I posted a review article above which includes controls and studies a wide range of cases across different countries, and concludes pesticide control has large effects.
"Prevention of suicide with regulations aimed at restricting access to highly hazardous pesticides: a systematic review of the international evidence:
FINDINGS: We identified 27 studies undertaken in 16 countries-five low-income or middle-income countries (Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Jordan and Sri Lanka), and 11 high-income countries (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UK, and USA). Assessments largely focused on national bans of specific pesticides (12 studies of bans in six countries-Jordan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Greece [Crete], South Korea, and Taiwan) or sales restrictions (eight studies of restrictions in five countries- India, Denmark, Ireland, the UK and the USA). Only five studies used optimum analytical methods. National bans on commonly ingested pesticides in five of the six countries studied, including four studies using optimum analytical methods, were followed by reductions in pesticide suicides and, in three of these countries, falls in overall suicide mortality. Greece was the only country studied that did not show a decrease in pesticide suicide following a ban. There were no high-quality studies of restricting sales to people for occupational uses; four of the seven studies (in three of the five countries studied-India, Denmark, and the USA) showed sales restrictions were followed by decreases in pesticide suicides; one of the two studies investigating trends in overall suicide mortality reported a fall in deaths in Denmark, but there were also decreases in suicide deaths from other methods.
INTERPRETATION: National bans on highly hazardous pesticides, which are commonly ingested in acts of self-poisoning, seem to be effective in reducing pesticide-specific and overall suicide rates. Evidence is less consistent for sales restrictions. A worldwide ban on the use of highly hazardous pesticides is likely to prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year."
The standards sociological finding is that suicide is more likely to decline than rise during a war:
"Suicide rates are thought to fall during wartime. Durkheim [1] suggested this was due to increased social cohesion, while others have suggested that competing outcomes may be important, with individuals who might otherwise have died by suicide being more likely to die of other causes [2]. Neeleman [3] cites this as an example of contextual effect modification, with suicide risk modified by the likelihood of dying of other causes.
Examples of reductions in suicide rates in times of war have been described for several time periods and cultures [4-9]. Marshall [10] argued that the reduction in suicide rates reflected a reduction in unemployment, a recognised risk factor for suicide [11], rather than a direct effect of war, an argument offered some support by Lester and Yang [12]. Stack [13] suggested that the suicide rate decreased as the proportion of the population employed in military roles increased."
"One of Galinsky's more surprising findings centered around a question she posed to both children and parents: "If you were granted one wish to change the way your mother's/your father's work affects your life, what would that wish be?" Some 56 percent of parents anticipated that their children would want more time with their parents and for their parents to spend less time at work, yet only 10 percent of the children actually wanted more time with their mothers and only 16 percent wanted more time with their fathers. A far larger proportion, 34 percent, wished that their mothers would be less stressed and less tired, and 28 percent wished this about their fathers."
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/05/listen_to_the_c....
Before someone complains that this isn't the title on the article, this is the social share title shrunk to fit the HN character limit. These articles don't have proper titles in the design.
We talk about this in the episode! :)