Before the rev, your social standing in China could be judged by dimensionS (plural emphasized): lineage, academics, religion, business reputation, regional identity...
The Cultural Revolution tore each of those dimensions down, by design, for teh purpose of creating a new single dimension (politically sanctified identity).
The main issue with doing this to a Chinese culture, specifically, is that now the concept of face - already extremely important culturally - becomes basically everything. Every social interaction becomes zero-sum because there's only one thing to compete over.
In a pluralistic status culture, you can lose face in one domain and maintain it in another.
The Cultural Revolution removed that defensive buffer.
IN the past couple decades, China has added a second dimension, wealth. But it's hardly a real axis due to wealth being easily achievable through party alignment. In other words, the two dimensions are entangled. I doubt a principle component analysis would find them to be separate domains.
In any case, the younger Chinese generation who has access to global online subcultures, international credentials, professional specialization, etc., is recovering the pluralistic status axes. So... well, I could write my predictions, but that wasn't the point of my comment, so I'll end it here.
I am one such "gambler" in this process, and it's happening to me too. I don't like the turn of events, but I also do not feel robbed.
Playing victim bestows no benefit.
"Canada is taxing you back" frames a Canadian tariff as a charge on Americans when it's really charge on Canadian importers.
The site reached the front page of HN because it confirms the mainstream opinion here, which is "go team go," anti-Trump admin US.
I'm not pro-Trump admin btw; But I am anti political team sports on HN and will continue saying so until HN reverts to its previous culture of objectivity that we had before this culture of blindly signal-boosting anything that portrays the current boogieman as bad.
The Federal Reserve studies on tariffs have shown basically no net tangible benefits to tariffs: any import protection industries gain from tariffs is cancelled out by the cost of the tariff on consumers.
And of course, the two governments' accounts of the collapse of the talking are in direct contrast: within hours, both placed the failure to make a deal on the other party.
It appears to me that any discussion in support or against tariffs here now isn't data-based but just political teamsports.
The old HN would just note the studies on tariffs and move on. But not today's HN!
So here we have a really long thread on HN saying "go team go."
reply1: "The alternative is bad, and Trump is evil" reply2: "Uhhh, source for that? /reddit" reply2a: "I bet he subscribes to the wrong politics" reply3: "Americans are idiots" reply4: "I bet you have a personality disorder" reply5: "You're dumb but I'm not going to expound" reply6: "WTF dude" (proceeds to uphold a murderer as an example)
Can no one explain why the ideas the OP fears will not come to fruition? Can anyone explain the safeguards of the UHC system? Or do discussions about policy now all fall under the teamsport known as modern politics?
Is this what hackernews has become? It wasn't like this a decade ago.
What I saw was people who thought he was insane, people who thought he was a genius, people who considered him a racist, people who saw him as a racial hero, people who pitied him, people who respected him...
You might have a lot to say about online society, but you're the bird staring at the monitor. There are actually no conclusions to be drawn.
Of course, my hallucination does not dismiss the possibility that we are in a bubble. Wasn't CSCO something like 200x PE during the dot com bubble? People see immense potential in an idea but don't know how to properly price it, and so we get what is seen as essentially infinite expected growth priced into companies and their products.
My $3k laptop has nearly the best components on the market right now. The problem is that it has a poor build (MSI) and is falling apart in a way that's not repairable. I looked into purchasing an equivalent-or-better laptop, and I couldn't find anything under $6 for essentially the same specs, and over $10k for a significant upgrade. Though I need my laptop for work, I decided just to ride it out till it's death.
Researchers in this field actually break down the non-genetic component into four major components: 1. Shared environment 2. Non-shared environment 3. Error
Shared environment accounts for so little variance that it might as well be ignored; while non-shared accounts for little more than error.
Note that including error in the non-genetic component, just as you've done in your post above, you are viscerally downplaying the otherwise undeniably predictive link from genes to IQ. In other words, whatever number you give is automatically deflated due to the way a psychometric is measured.
This has never been the source of debate. Back when I was going through grad school in intelligence, people didn't have to overthink how they presented the data. Intelligence was already a mature field, and we discussed the data openly. But in the past couple decades or so, a lot of people such as yourself popped up, attempting to craft irrelevant, statistically incorrect arguments against the results of certain well-established psychometrics that happen to not fit within whatever mental world your brand of politics ascribes.
If you really cared about the data, you'd be discussing the numbers. But your interest in this previously niche topic isn't in understanding reality; it's in justifying your worldview, which is why you deny the established data, immediately present a caveat stating that the data doesn't matter in the first place, appeal to emotions, and finish it all off by claiming those who disagree with you have been brainwashed. None of those four arguments have any merit in a genuine discussion on this topic.
1. Families. 2. Women. 3. Corporations.
I've shifted 100% away from AirBnb and to Booking and am still able to book whole apartments/houses. It used to be AirBnb=houses/apts, Booking=hotels. Now Booking covers both, is usually cheaper (especially considering the cleaning fees AirBnb listings usually charge), and has good customer support (in my experience).
I can explain it to you with a simple example:
Imagine, for instance, you're making 50k a year and have a brokerage account that has appreciated by 100k and that you're being taxed 20% on unrealized gains in year x. In year x+1, say your account falls back to where it was before. You paid 20k plus another 10k, and you will need to set aside another 10k. In essence, your income has been reduced to 10k, which could make daily life impossible for many people making 50k annually, especially those with families.
I remember when I was in high school, over 20 years ago, there was a Buy.com commercial on TV that was simply "buy.com" in white text on a black for like 10 seconds. No voiceover. No images.That was the only commercial in my memory to inspire me to actually check out the product, which I did and began using to purchase electronics instead of eBay, which had been my go-to at that time.I still...