This isn’t a comment in support of the actions described, but a comment about unintended consequences…
If you reclassify putting stickers on a car as domestic terrorism, you’re somewhat removing the disincentive for some in doing an actual terrorism.
I love how memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) work. Lots of people have enjoyed this, but I can imagine this being quoted as the original is lost to the sands of time.
Young people everywhere thinking that Aquaman was someone who just bought failing assets from everyone.
I know this is a joke thread, but I think this is a great example of a poorly designed survey question that charitable people would say ‘generates discussion’. I would say it enables confirmation bias and just creates animosity amongst people looking for reasons to dislike an imaginary other.
My instinct when I first saw reporting of this was, yeah I probably could. But that’s because I read the question as me being able to play until I won a point. If I even won one, even by a double fault, I win. When I said as much on social media people jumped on me. But here’s the thing, I think theres like a 99.8% chance that the world’s best Female tennis player wins any given point against me. I’m just expecting one shanked return from 500 efforts.
Then uproar. Because it’s only because she’s a woman. Except… Well there isn’t an equivalent question for Novak Djokovic! So people are jumping to conclude reasoning, and YouGov is formenting that by reporting on a shoddy question with no control to give us a benchmark. For the record I think on average I’d have to wait longer to win a point against the worlds best male tennis player, because they serve so much faster, but I don’t think I’d be waiting forever.
So people read the question and assume both that the question refers to a one point shoot out, and they already think the greater portion of men are misogynists. Well then that’s the explanation! It cannot be an ambiguous question interpreted differently!
And I’m not denying that for some people the worst explanation is unfortunately the correct one. But I do have an issue with people dismissing or ignoring fairly rational objections to the survey or interpretations of it because of their pre-existing biases.
Not true either, someone has linked the survey question above 12% of men said yes, 3% of women
I’ve just gone and copied the wording from the link…
Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?
I’m not sure this is fair. I don’t think this is in lieu of such a conversation, but about some ideas on how to pitch the conversation. If you don’t have any friends in similar circumstances, it’s worth finding out what other people do.
That said, the range of suggestions here is so broad that I’m not sure it’s going to help!
if Beethoven had been a Nazi, it wouldn’t take away from his work.
It would have made him more impressive in my eyes, as he would have had to have been able to see the future, or time travel!
New clothes, often Uniqlo is my first stop. But more and more I go to Vinted and Charity stores for anything that isn’t sportswear.
There was a period in my life when I had to remind people frequently that NoSQL stood for ‘not only SQL’.
Cowardly from Keir’s Labour
That’s seems to be a theme. I thought I would be underwhelmed by this government, but at least thankful for a period of sensible leadership who understood the benefit of a strong public sector.
Actually I’m more than disappointed. Cowardice is their watchword. Cowardly hiding from the right wing media, from US authoritarianism, from market fundamentalists. We’ll get Reform next at this rate, because we’ll be encouraged to give up by astroturfers who will similarly be whipping the rarely engaged into a frenzy.
This is a fairly good summary of my argument against why we are in a simulation.
I’m certain (indeed more certain than I likely should be, which may be meta-meta memory?!) that what you say that the end is the case. There’s almost certainly a bias towards error correction over direct recall. Certainly my experience is of testing wrong answers in my head before alighting on the right one.
That implies a set up more like an adversarial neural network (I’m not saying this is actually how it is, just trying to draw an analogy from something I understand), as opposed to a function in code. But that seems like a bit of a waste, but also means that two (or more) distinct processes could be working on the same task?
That’s very helpful thank you. I read the abstract of the paper, I think it might take me a couple of goes to really grok it. I think it’s testing why are more likely to correct a wrong answer given on a test (in a subsequent test), if they are enthusiastically told it’s right the first time. This is compared to if they are told that they might be wrong!
Given it’s the first time I’ve heard of this, I’m finding even the premise a challenge! ‘Hypercorrection’ apparently, for anyone not going to the paper.
What I’ve read of the article, meta memory seems to be more about our ability to judge how well we know something, rather than evaluate if our recall is correct.
I say ‘rather’… The concepts are obviously (or maybe not obviously!) related, but that sounds like assigning a score to the information we possess. While my original question was around evaluating knowledge as incorrect after recall.
That’s why the engine analogy doesn’t quite work for me. It’s not one answer, it’s two! So if it is an engine, it’s one that drives the car both forwards and backwards initially, and then switches off the one it doesn’t need.
I’m definitely going to read more into these concepts though. Thanks again for the links!
I’m hardly a biblical scholar, but that interpretation doesn’t feel like it fits with the rest of the passage…
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
It says turn them the other cheek also, after ‘do not resist’. So it’s about offering even to the worst, rather than resisting.
Jumping on here, because this is often overlooked. If you didn’t know the title of the film, and someone played the first 20 mins to you you’d expect a hallmark film. Going to see the estranged wife, trying to repair a relationship, the awkwardness at the Christmas party.
The whole thing subverts Christmas movie tropes. It’s not just an action movie set at Christmas. It’s a Christmas movie which gets hijacked.
Even the final scene plays on the parody with the ‘snow’ falling, the comedy comeuppance for the nuisance bad guy, and then they kiss and drive off as ‘let it snow’ plays.
There’s another issue too. In perfect conditions, self-driving cars are a lot safer, but they aren’t 100% safe. So when an incident occurs it’s newsworthy. (In the same way that we hear about plane crashes anywhere in the world, but won’t necessarily hear about someone getting run over in the next city).
My hypothesis is that adoption would be throttled in even near perfect conditions. Just because we’ve internalised the risks of driving, but haven’t for the risks of being driven by a computer.
All that, and you may have left out the most damaging of all… Trump will likely pull the US out of Copenhagen, leaving no chance of limiting temps below 2C let alone getting anywhere near 1.5C. The excess deaths from this will likely dwarf COVID.
I’ve only watched the first of these, but having done so, I’m not sure I want to bother with the second. The guy in the first video repeated the (likely true) claim that WFH impacts commercial real estate value and then dunked on a couple of articles about return to work policies. But the question was, why does that sway Amazon’s thinking?
It’s been 15 years and I’m still not sure if MMT is an accurate description of Economics, a persuasive analogy, or convincing bunkum.