schemester

Nonsense. By 2007 it was already a settled matter. There had been decades of attempts to tease out environmental influences. We’d seen that no amount of education funding, government employment, government schools, adoption by white parents, or any other way of approaching the matter would boost black test scores close to whites’ in America. Nor could blacks find a way themselves to do it, not in any locality. It was also clear by that time that serious environmental influences on individuals were small relative to the observed performance differences between blacks and whites, which meant the theory that its environment would imply insane levels of deprivation that weren’t happening. Social scientists had already given up.

Men are inherently smarter and more talented.

Like, the best at basically every field is majority male. Open the horse’s mouth and count its teeth.

(And as I mentioned, where it isn’t majority male, it’s majority female. Not some balance of social factors that magically cancel out to 50%.)

th asserts “If 500 people submit talks and 394 are men, then ~79% will likely be by men.”

I didn’t misunderstand. That is simply nonsense.

Almost always when you take the top N of something, there is a higher proportion of males than the general set of participants. If talk acceptance departs from that norm, it would be for some reason that makes it overshoot and have more females than is proportionate. In no case would you expect 98% and 79% in your scenario, or 50% in general, unless they rigged it that way.

The FTC doesn’t have that power.

No, of course not, if your military doesn’t develop tech faster than the competition then you lose.

Why don’t you complain about Facebook and YouTube doing this?

No, political ideology is genetic.

He and Buffett (among many others) have often talked about these misaligned incentives in the past. He is not sharing any novel insight here.

How much more money do engineers or engineering firms make by designing dams that fail and boats that sink?

Banks are a specific situation where employees can get one-sided rewards for increasing exposure to tail risks with other people’s money. It’s to avoid misaligned incentives with delayed (by years) feedback.

Those are powered on when the laptop is on.

East Asia is also depopulating.

You don’t. It’s one choice in the electricity market.

Being homeless is better when there’s less crime.

Derrick Lemond Simmons had a prior conviction for aggregated assault with a deadly weapon in 2001, according to another article (not just an arrest: https://www.azfamily.com/2023/02/18/man-accused-killing-cowo...

This is not about “mental health” and employers just need to pay employees money. Employees can take up the burden of not being a murderous psycho on their own time.

The sets {x+n : n in Z} where x in R are almost entirely sets comprised of only noncomputable elements. We don’t even need AoC to choose an element from each: pick the smallest positive element (the element in (0,1]).

There is nothing special about noncomputable set elements.

If the layout had copyright protection, this would still be fair use.

He produced spells that purportedly would control another person’s will, with life altering effect, in exchange for money. That is a crime deserving of capital punishment, even if he was mistaken about efficacy.

The school is not remotely elite, that is a fact, and the list of majors it offers is a tell. You think I’m saying the majors list _causes_ it to be elite or not. Or you don’t really think that.

Explain how this isn’t non-elite.

https://colby-sawyer.edu/academics/majors

I don’t know who regulates what, but short-term loans are not securities.

Of course a mutual fund isn’t going to beat the market in each year. It would have to time the market perfectly through what we’ve gone through. That involves placing bets on other people’s opinions of companies instead the company itself.

What shaming? A candidate likely to job-hop is just less valuable.

You are describing a static, failing company’s CEO. If you never overextend, you were too conservative and weren’t making the best decisions.

Both are instances of trying to get the best deal, just as employees do when negotiating salary, so there isn’t anything hypocritical there.

That blind audition claim is actually pretty weak: https://www.wsj.com/articles/blind-spots-in-the-blind-auditi...

Coal and wood are possible. Maybe off-the-grid solar is still allowed.

The optimal amount of headline fraud is also non-zero.

Hours worked, career selection. In short there is no arbitrage to be found and employers aren’t leaving money on the table.