HN user
It's like asking someone playing roulette to value "13 black", after they bet on it.
Even worse, because you don't get better odds or payouts by persuading others to bet on 13 black, but you do when they invest in the company you've backed.
Uber and Lyft both provide an option for women to request female drivers. In both cases, they say they can't guarantee it and that they may end up matched with a male driver. (In Lyft's case, they group "nonbinary" with women.) I suppose you could cancel if you see it's a man, and if that's rare enough, maybe that's workable. (Though, it seems, that would happen only if there aren't any female drivers available, and thus you'd have to fall back to other transportation.)
https://help.uber.com/en/riders/article/women-preferences-fa...
https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/all/articles/9030680293-Women...
Surely, if the compensation was high enough, you'd be like, "Sure, I'm happy with that outcome." And then, if the AI company thinks they have a low enough failure rate that the expected cost of paying out the compensation still lets them make a profit, then they could make that promise to all customers.
Though a compensation that high sounds like it would invite fraud, where the customer would be glad to have something go "wrong" and get a fat check. Not sure if that's a solvable problem.
Multithreaded:
seq 1 20 | xargs -Iqq -n1 -P0 yes >/dev/nullSo is it your position that, when the Chinese government imposes takedowns or worse on Chinese people posting Winnie the Pooh stuff, it's primarily because the Chinese government is opposed to anti-Asian racism?
This is arguably rational because the pool is small and there's little to gain by studying harder if you already have a perfect GPA.
So there is a low ceiling, and if they instead used MCAT or something with a higher ceiling (where, apparently, the number of perfect scores is about 50 per year—in America, presumably lower in Canada due to population size), then studying harder would benefit them. That seems like a much better outlet for competitive urges.
But also, how small is the pool of qualified applicants? If there were something like "they're going to take n people from your school, at which there are 30 plausible candidates", then sabotaging one might conceivably be worthwhile. But if the pool is—well, Google says 3,000 medical students get accepted each year in Canada (and the qualified applicant pool is presumably at least somewhat larger), and sabotaging one person is extremely unlikely to help you personally. (This is one case where it's good that the expected-value "benefits", of sabotaging person X, are widely distributed among thousands of medical candidates, and thus it's a "free-rider problem" where no individual candidate has a strong motivation to do the work.)
Is there some multi-stage thing where they pick 10 people from each high school, or 30 from a town, or something? Or is there major grading on a curve, or a big benefit for being the top person in your classroom of 15? That seems like how you would get real incentives for this backstabbing behavior. Otherwise, I can't see how it's rational (even to a complete sociopath), and would have to chalk it up to individual miscreants and possibly some kind of culture that encourages it in other ways.
Theoretically yes. But I think at least part of the decision they've made is to delegate a chunk of the decisionmaking to doctors' guilds. Which—on the one hand, they are experts of a sort, but on the other hand, they have an obvious conflict of interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#R...
Wow. 1997: https://www.baltimoresun.com/1997/03/01/ama-seeks-limit-on-r...
“The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians,” the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. “The current rate of physician supply — the number of physicians entering the work force each year — is clearly excessive.”
The groups, representing a large segment of the medical establishment, proposed limits on the number of doctors who become residents each year.
The number of medical residents, now 25,000, should be much lower, the groups said. While they did not endorse a specific number, they suggested that 18,700 might be appropriate.
That would increase competition and thus depress wages for existing doctors, who are the ones who make the decisions here. I heard, from a medical school attendee, that she overheard some doctors discussing whether it would be a good idea to require a fifth year of medical school to become a general practitioner (luckily, they were like, "Eh... nah"). It did not seem like it bothered them that this would make it even harder for civilians to get medical care.
No matter how many have good grades, you can always pick the top n by grades—unless there's a ceiling that the top m > n have all hit. Which, if you're talking about "grades" as in GPA, is plausible.
MCAT seems more relevant, though. According to Claude: "Roughly 0.1% or fewer of test-takers score a perfect 528 in any given year — typically only a few dozen individuals out of the ~120,000 or so who sit for the exam annually." So it should work fairly well for them to sort by MCAT and take however many they have (or expect to have) room for.
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, I imagine? That's probably the one category of XY people who have undergone no hormonal masculinization throughout their lives, and the one case where I'd agree with them competing with women. Wikipedia says it's estimated to be "1 in 20,400 to 1 in 99,000".
https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/2024/09/uneven-playin...
“Women tend to have thinner skulls than men, along with smaller neck muscles, which can predispose female athletes to getting a concussion,” says Sarah Menacho, MD, a neurosurgeon and neurocritical care specialist at University of Utah Health. “Data shows that women are also more likely than men to report concussion-related symptoms, and these symptoms can persist for a longer time period prior to recovery than in male athletes.”
Googling "fargo police chief resigns": https://www.inforum.com/news/fargo/zibolski-announces-his-re... among other results.
That said, it's portrayed as a retirement, and doesn't seem to give any hints that it's connected.
I guess, in theory, this can eventually be countered by people using LLM browser integrations to tell them whether comments are worth reading (and maybe to summarize long comments). Is anyone currently working on that? It might be interesting to see.
It's one of the relevant factors. It, and related facts, make it usually possible for a man to overpower a woman (and a predator self-selected for being somewhat above average in fighting ability might be confident of overpowering multiple women, or at least being able to get away in the worst case), which has implications for safety.
If Whites had, on average, 2.5 standard deviations lower upper-body strength than non-Whites, then maybe.
A general reason to focus on abuse instead of immediately visible outcomes: if the abuse is not dealt with properly, then that may lead to the abuse becoming increasingly widespread and blatant, which will affect future outcomes.
Has anyone here switched roles from programmer to manager (of human programmers), and is it a similar feeling?
need not bother with teachers outside that top 25%.
To simply "not bother" with lower-quality teachers sounds like you find it easy, as an institution, to determine teachers' quality. That seems far from a solved problem, for teachers and indeed most employees in general. You can pick a particular metric, of course, but then people will try to game it, and in teaching, there seems to be a lot of room for gaming metrics...
Its primary outcome is a modest reduction in propofol and fentanyl dose under a very specific anaesthetic protocol.
Ooh, that sounds like p-hacking. How many other protocols, and other potential outcomes in general, did they look at before picking the one to publish? If it's on the order of 20, then we can expect they'd encounter such a result by pure chance.
Guessing those rewards are in the hundreds of dollars, probably a fraction of the engineer salary that went into the technical work.
To be sure, is it possible that, on each subsequent iPhone release, the hardware got better at handling weak signals, and thus a mediocre signal for iPhone N was decent for iPhone N+2 and would give great throughput on iPhone N+4?
More generally regarding poisons, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridatism . TLDR: YMMV.
"Mithridatism is not effective against all types of poison. Immunity is generally only possible with biologically complex types which the immune system can respond to. Depending on the toxin, the practice can lead to the lethal accumulation of a poison in the body. Results depend on how each poison is processed by the body."
"A minor exception is cyanide, which can be metabolized by the liver. The enzyme rhodanese converts the cyanide into the much less toxic thiocyanate.[12] This process allows humans to ingest small amounts of cyanide in food like apple seeds and survive small amounts of cyanide gas from fires and cigarettes. However, one cannot effectively condition the liver against cyanide, unlike alcohol. Relatively larger amounts of cyanide are still highly lethal because, while the body can produce more rhodanese, the process also requires large amounts of sulfur-containing substrates."
Our immune, metabolic, and other systems are built to be adaptable, and some things are easy to adapt to, but other things are difficult or impossible for them to adapt to.
Doctors aren't paid by the hour.
Not explicitly, but do you think the salary wouldn't change in the medium to long term if the hours changed significantly? Of course, in the short term you can burn out your doctors by making them work longer.
I have encountered this definition of "spectrum", as a vector of numbers that go 0 to 100, rather than a single number that goes from 0 to 100 (which you call "continuum" IIUC).
But... I mean, if you asked 100 people what they think a spectrum means in this context, how many of them would think it meant "vector" rather than "real number"? I would guess fewer than 10. I consider myself a fairly well-informed nerd, but I think I had encountered many usages of "spectrum" describing a single trait for many years, and I think this is the second time I've ever encountered someone using the "vector" definition (the first one was also using it to describe autism). Has this linguistic battle already been lost? Does it improve clarity to call it a "spectrum" and insist on using the "vector" definition?
(I've personally been using the phrase "collection of imperfectly correlated traits")
Yup. In real situations, one element is that sometimes things are misunderstood, and in particular sometimes collaborating is mistaken for defecting, so if all sides are playing pure tit-for-tat, then one can end up in a defect-defect loop forever (or, I guess, until the opposite misinterpretation occurs). Therefore, an element of forgiveness (some percent chance that you'll respond to a defect with a cooperate) can be helpful.
couple studies on Somali immigrant population in Minnesota and Sweden - where such dark skinned population naturally gets very low on vitamin D - showed such correlation as autism rates in that population is higher than back there in Somali (and that would explain the correlation of low sunlight expo.
Or autism among Somalis causes them, or their parents, to want to immigrate to Minnesota and Sweden?
"Modern features" are one thing; "security updates" are another. According to the blog post, security updates are guaranteed for 1 year.
Looks to be (1269 words into the article according to wc):
[Parker and Stone]’s lawyer, Kevin Morris, insisted that any South Park revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel would go into the pot for calculating the men’s share of back-end profits.
Though that might be a precursor to enabling this (400 words later):
With negotiating leverage, Parker and Stone agreed to a 4-year $75 million deal and, separately, a 50/50 cut of advertising revenue for any digital property…in perpetuity.
As you say, it's because the speech may later give way to force. It does go farther than American free speech law permits: the latter draws the line at something like "threats of immediate criminal action", whereas this would attack "propagating ideologies that one thinks will eventually lead the followers to criminal action". There are certainly deep problems with potential implementation here: e.g. the main American political parties would probably both accuse each other's ideology of eventually leading the followers to criminal action. One would want high standards for that (of, say, what percentage engage in what magnitude of criminal action; as well as evidentiary standards), and want it to be established in a mega-trial, or by a supermajority of Congress declaring war on an ideology; and even that might not be enough. I'm not necessarily in favor of Popper's approach, except in emergencies.
However, I think that, when most people use the word "intolerance" today, they include things like speaking racial slurs or expressing any negative emotion towards a demographic group. There are contexts in which these things are done, and manners in which they are done, in which, yes, they do give a significant signal that the speaker is the type who would cheerfully escalate to aggressive violence towards the targeted group; but also contexts and manners in which they do not give such a signal.
I think there is a distinction to be drawn here, between "always tracking whether this is likely to escalate to criminal action" and "just attacking anyone who vaguely resembles a known 'intolerant' group". The latter is essentially an autoimmune disorder, which has led to massive collateral damage and its own discrediting. The former ... has a danger of turning into the latter, certainly (which has an interestingly meta angle to it), but is there any version of it that is well-protected against that fate? I expect there's room for improvement compared to earlier versions. I don't know if it can be done well enough to be worthwhile.
To be sure, in the original context of Popper's writing, I believe "intolerant" meant something like "committing violence against others for disagreeing with you", and "tolerate" meant "refrain from intolerance". The full quote is below:
"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."