thedevil

not as much as if they also got vaccinated, so it seems like the original point still stands

If previously-infected had as much resistance as vaccinated, they should not be more scared than the vaccinated. Even if they would have more resistance if they were also vaccinated.

Did you mean to say that previously-infected have much less resistance than the vaccinated? I would very grateful for a source on that. I tried to find out numbers on that but couldn't find apples-to-apples comparison.

The statements are logically consistent. You're incorrectly assuming he meant "only" in the first statement.

Those two statements are part of the same thread and LeCun makes it more clear in that thread. And the article says, right after the second statement: "If you read that thread, you’ll see that LeCun seems well aware of everything I’ve laid out in this post"

It sounds like celebrating, not advocating.

That's a very different thing.

It's not just mammals and I wouldn't frame it as them being disposable when propagating the species.

There's a bigger payout at the right tail of the distribution for male genes. Male genes can sometimes have 1000 offspring. Female genes generally can't. Male genes are generally more likely to have 0 offspring. So male genes have less to lose and more to gain by taking risks, behavioral and biological risks. See also male variance hypothesis.

This varies by species and the pattern is likely stronger in more polygynous species and weaker in more monogamous species. See also sexual dimorphism. Human males take more behavioral risks on average and have higher mortality rates throughout life (not only from behavior).

I warn you though, this is a controversial subject because of some of its possible implications.

Also I should disclose that I'm not an expert, just a layperson interested in this and some related topics.

One thought: If you see a resume with Coinbase until October 2020, that's probably someone who prefers political activism in the workplace.

That might be seen in a positive or negative light, depending on your stance.

I personally am afraid to associate myself too publicly with a political stance, lest I be wrong and/or the environment changes.

Out of curiosity, I looked for their policies on misinformation.

I could see some potential risks here but it still seems reasonable to me:

Demonstrably inaccurate content

YMYL content that contradicts well-established expert consensus

Debunked or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories

This part, I imagine, is a bit more controversial:

pages that potentially spread hate, cause harm, or misinform or deceive users, should receive the Lowest rating.

This is similar to what I've been thinking. I usually say "the brain is more like a board than a CEO".

One additional interesting tidbit I've noticed is that when the brain decides on a belief, it seems to suppress alternative beliefs. For example, with the old-lady-young-lady picture, it's hard to see them both at the same time.

Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise.

You've articulated well something I've been trying to say for a while.

I've been saying I try to avoid politics because politics is the opposite of math - the more you learn, the more stupid your thinking becomes.

I feel like my explanation just made me sound like a hater and yours nails the problem on the head.

Rather than separating claims into "covered" and "not covered", I recommend a third bucket "might be covered". I think this goes into that third bucket. Whether or not this particular claim should be paid doesn't mean it's not in the third bucket.

When buying insurance, you shouldn't rely on payments for claims in the third bucket, especially not without a legal fight.

Many consumers don't understand any of this. But I expect (hope) that most large businesses are sophisticated enough to understand this.

I don't think this will hurt Zurich's business, because most of their customers probably understand this.

The part that I found most interesting was the idea that we're moving away from low-capital startups.

Does that mean venture capital is going to have to get much bigger to fund these ventures? Does it suggest the ballooning of worldwide VC funding isn't just a bubble? (There's a really interesting chart in WSJ that I can't find right now). And will a few massive VCs become more powerful while smaller ones fizzle? What about ycombinator?

Does it mean that technical talent will be more or less valuable? Much more talent will be needed, but there's probably less opportunity to build a massive business with a few talented geeks as the low-hanging software fruit is probably plucked. Talented developers might be less critical to business success.

Typically the only parents that have any control over their child's "opportunities and levels of education..." are those in the uppermost classes.

I'm not in "the uppermost classes". I'm probably at the 80% of household income and went to a state school.

I put my son in a fantastic school in a well-off neighborhood rather than the default assigned school (my mom drives him there and I pay a babysitter/nanny to drive him back). Most of the kids that can read a little bit before entering kindergarten.

He goes to various sports camps and activities classes. His babysitter (more like a part-time nanny) helps teach him to read. We'll probably pay for music lessons and various tutoring later. I also taught my son addition and subtraction of small numbers before entering kindergarten. And we've done a variety of activities to help him learn about science, money, and more.

I tend to rent despite owning real estate.

I tend to move often and only buy real estate if I'm willing to hold it forever. So I buy what I think is a good long term investment and live where I want to live.

I wouldn't be too confident in that. Actuaries are not able to implement the models they'd like to. Regulators don't like complex models and they don't like models with disparate impact. Or models that make some risks (accurately) expensive.

I'm a developer now but by last few years in actuary work were mostly spent helping insurance companies deal with regulation. We did some modeling with with machine learning but ultimately the models that got approved had to be simple (compared to machine learning). My job before that was a lot about internal negotiations with other departments.

Better models were not the main bottleneck.

Anyone have a plausible hypothesis on what's driving the trend?

The Economist is claiming "Today, nudists complain, it is more difficult to separate nakedness from sex." which seems plausible enough, but what would drive the change?

As mentioned in another reply, I don't think LGBT is big enough portion of the population to really drive a huge change, despite having high suicide rates.

I'd be interested to see gender breakdown to see if modesty is an issue. I find it implausible, but would love to see data showing me wrong. Especially because when I grew up Mormon (I'm now atheist), a bikini was pretty risque but now I see conservative Mormons wearing bikinis as often as not. A priori, I would also expect modesty to decrease, not increase suicide rates (especially among the overweight or otherwise less-attractive). I'm not rooting for sexual modesty. I think it's probably good for society, but I don't care for it.

Pornography is interesting. I don't know how much Mormons have focused on it, but I'd be fascinated to see if that was a factor.

That sounds horrible, but I'm not sure that explains the numbers. A quick internet search suggests that LGBT youth have 3x the suicide attempt rate.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/preventing-suicid...

Given that LGBT is maybe 4-10% of the population of the population, it's not likely to be driving such a big spike in the total numbers. I'd be interested in a more careful breakdown if anyone has it.

Additionally, my interactions with Mormons suggests them (and pretty much everyone else) becoming more tolerant of LGBT, not less. However, that's anecdotes, not data.

So some possible hypotheses (in what I would consider most to least plausible):

1) Whatever causes the higher overall rates in Utah (altitude and/or other variables) that interacts in a non-linear way with whatever is causing the national increase.

2) Whatever factor that is driving the national increase is more influential in Utah for whatever reason. (e.g. maybe social networks are more harmful to more-judgmental Mormon communities)

3) There is some recent change in Mormon culture that has driven a change in teen suicide rates.

4) Mormon culture has caused a change in suicide rates despite not changing.

Do you have any support that would make (3) or (4) sound more reasonable? Or do you have another hypothesis?

From the same publication, teen suicide rates are rising across the US:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/suicide-rates-teen-girl...

Yeah, it uh turns out God was was suffering from bipolar disorder. The official diagnosis was originally mentioned in a chapter in revelations. But his PR consultants thought that he probably better pull those verses out before it got published. But the good news is that Jesus got him to seek some good medical advice, and he's been on some great meds and things have been a bit better since, despite occasional lapses, most recently in the early-to-mid-20th century.

The failed replication of the marshmallow test

Actually, the result DID replicate here even though the experiment was slightly different. Other variables were introduced that might suggest additional explanations of the replicated result.

https://youtu.be/IpKqCu6RcdI

So you can just directly watch the video.

So are your norms and morals offended enough to justify banning such a business model that requires opt-in?

Is this the basis of our disagreement?

It's a little unclear to me how this answers the question. Can you connect the dots here?

I don't think not giving you services if you don't opt in violates your "enjoyment of the right to respect for private life..."

Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to trade use of your personal information for services?

If not, how does your quote tie in?

Do you think Google requiring use of my personal info in exchange for free services should be banned for the same reason as duels?

What is that reason exactly? I don't see what the two have in common.

I prefer some targeted ads. I'd like to be able to opt in or out. Why do you think that what I want from Google should not be allowed if it's a win for me, Google, and advertisers?

Not all business models are legal.

But why make this one illegal?

We can make wedding planners illegal if we don't like them and then just say "not all business models are legal.

But that doesn't explain why. Why stop people from engaging in a transaction that both sides consider to be a win?

For the proponents of GDPR, do you think that these are good ideas? edit: Why? What's the argument for them?

The GDPR prohibits such forced consent and any form of bundling a service with the requirement to consent

a penalty of 4% of global revenue

edit: On the first, if companies use (for example) personalized ads to pay for the service, why should they be forced to provide the service without the source of funding? If you disagree with that, you can just not use the service.

Sorry, but I didn't actually make a career out of accounting (I only wanted the knowledge to understand investments and maybe as a backup career plan). I don't think I can give meaningful advice on this.

They're spending a LOT of cash but the big thing that stands out is most of the cash outlays is for PPE (property/plant/equipment). At the rate they're spending, they have about a year's runway and need to keep raising money or stop spending (or have a HUGE increase in revenue).

I'm not sure what they're investing in and how much more they have to invest so I don't have an opinion.

Sorry, I'm not sure I can give good advice on this because I got a bachelor's degree which is probably way more than needed. There's probably a more efficient way.