I work with principal investigators phd/mds at upenn automating some of their data analysis pipelines.
They have all have secret checklists for bs detection in papers they read. Certain labs set off red flags to them or certain techniques being too fuzzy or easy to mess up.
Every one seems to have their own heuristics, and no one seems to take any article at face value anymore.
I hear PI's say stuff is unreplicable all the time.
I mean some important truth underlying the rant. I'm not implying that there was one here. The point is that even when there is, it makes the destructive effects of ranting worse. It discredits that truth for those who don't see it and excites mob responses from those who do.
Patent trolls are lousy, but going on HN and posting a long-winded rant about how they're literally software hitler and should be tortured and then executed does nobody a service. The core of my complaint (patent trolls hurt small innovators) is debatably valid, but the way I'm expressing it alienates those who disagree with me and makes those who would otherwise be my allies shut up in fear of being associated with my jerkishness.
Imagine how much more persuasive this comment would have been if you'd just taken a few more seconds add and hand full of links to provide evidence and context to your statement.
Ignoring the blatant lies by Infowars, this still seems pretty bad. Giving Zuckerberg the power to identify "hate speech" and work with politicians on it can only lead to abuse in the long run.
In The Netherlands we have these rules as well. It's forbidden to publicly offend _groups_ of people because of their race, faith, sex or handicap (art. 137c). It's also forbidden to encourage racism, hate or violence (art. 137d) and to publish or even possess publications that do so (art. 137e).
We are living in the Post Fact World where you no longer need to provide evidence or cite your sources.
These days saying “I was given that information.” or “Actually, I’ve seen that information around." is all you need to convince half of Americans of whatever you want them to believe.
I dont think this is fair. Susan is a genius, she has multiple degrees from top universities.
The average person hears things like this and only gets demoralized. Its just like the lean in campaign. What worked for the 1% isnt going to work for the average person.
If this is talking about a prostate vs breath cancer dichotomy. The reason is prostate cancer kills much older men than breast cancer kills women. Women in their 40s routinely die of breast cancer but that's pretty rare for a man in his 40s to die of prostate cancer.
So saving a man's live fron prostate cancer means he dies at 75 instead of 70 and but saving a women's from breast cancer means she dies at 65 instead of 45.
By this reasoning children's diseases should get even more publicity and money, and I'm aware of nothing in that area that comes even remotely close in terms of funding and awareness campaigns.
The breast cancer movement was started because at the time, male-only cancers (such as prostate and testicular cancers) were getting far more funding and research, while breast cancer was essentially being ignored despite being at least an order of magnitude more common.
That it's more common has probably made it easier to do research on once it gained sufficient visibility and funding.
Edit: not to mention the perception of females as a weaker sex. Socially, society is mirroring male behavior in terms of protection of females. It'll switch and balance itself out in due time. Historically I think makes died more often to work or war, females to sickness. Today these boundaries are blurring, but (socio)evolution is a patient turtle.
Any facts to back that up? The story I hear more often [1] is the other way around. More men in medical studies, more often male animals in studies etc.
The lack of inclusion of women and minorities has historically been such a problem that it is now a term and condition of many awards from HHS:
"In addition, several OPDIVs have policies concerning the inclusion of women, minorities, and children as subjects in their grant-supported research. These policies, which implement Section 492B of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 289 a-2, require that women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations be included in OPDIV-supported research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects, the purpose of the research, or other circumstances. When these policies apply (as specified in the funding opportunity announcement), the applicant is required to address inclusion of these groups in the application narrative, and the applicant’s plans will be assessed as part of the objective (peer) review process. Failure to comply with this policy or to adequately address use of human subjects and animals may adversely affect the score for technical merit, which may result in the OPDIV not making an award."
Not suprising, this goes beyond republican and democrats. Trump is a first president of the new realignment. He destroyed or will destroy the legacy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Its not democrat vs republican to him. Its nationalist vs globalist. The old guard were globalists. This has Thiel and Bannons fingerprints all over it.
And we are arguing that it's not relevant. Men are treated differently in our society, dicks have a different connotation, etc. This is a great example of how simple metaphors strip important nuance.
I am unsure what your argument is here. The liberal position here is, in a nutshell, that women's rights are treated poorly and should not be. It's a real stretch to say that means they should be treated as if they were men wearing dick hats because they think men are equal.
So you're argument is that because women are treated differently we should treat them diffently? You aren't advocating equeal treatment but for more unequal treatment.
Because "women's rights" are treated poorly, we should treat "women marching with pussy hats" differently than "men marching with dick hats".
Specifically women's rights around their reproductive organs, between access to abortion, classifying sanitary napkins or tampons as a necessary expense, or sexual assault of those organs.
If men had women in congress debating over making ejaculation without intent to conceive illegal, if men were payed less for the same work on average, if men had powerful people talking bragging about grabbing them by the dick whenever they wanted, etc, maybe then you would have a point.
But as it stands, you're twisting my words into a false equivalence.
Women's rights are treated poorly. Women should have equal rights and should be treated equally if you believe they are equals to men. Women marching with pussy hats represents a different phenomena than men in dick hats. For that to be equal treatment the context has to be equivalent. And it is not.
That chemical spill was a disaster caused by an accident when the EPA was trying to manage the wastewater from a gold mine. The wastewater was created by unregulated gold mining in the 20s. Trump wants to return us to those days when industry was unregulated and created the pollution that has taken decades to clean.
Actually, prior to the EPA property rights were the method of pollution control. However, under property rights there was 0 pollution allowed. Courts began to consider that some pollution must be allowed to allow the economy to thrive.
So the EPA came into formation not exactly for the purpose to stop pollution, but to decide just how much is allowable.
Hardly. The man he has installed as the transitional leader of the EPA is a firm climate change denier, but is also strongly opposed to the Endangered Species Act as a violation of property rights. The nominee to head the EPA is not much better. This administration represents a clear and present danger to the environment and every species on the planet. I think Obama was just a tad better.
>For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
As opposed to every other government organisation in Washington which are all totally apolitical, and totally competent.
The focus isn't on what the EPA does or doesn't do, but on what the administration is trying to do, whether that actually matches up with how business is usually done in the organisation, and how this looks to the rest of America.
They have all have secret checklists for bs detection in papers they read. Certain labs set off red flags to them or certain techniques being too fuzzy or easy to mess up.
Every one seems to have their own heuristics, and no one seems to take any article at face value anymore.
I hear PI's say stuff is unreplicable all the time.