I'm a bit baffled by this comment, so much so that I find it difficult to believe we've read the same article. I don't see any indication in the article that the author ever submitted any work to SciAm, let alone that he's sore about not being published. None of the examples he cites have anything to do with climate denialism, nor is he defending any pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories. How is any of this responding to the article you're commenting on?
No, you're right. I was referring to the pandering of credentials the author mentioned by citing the articles they published in other magazines and the book they're writing. No mention of their PhD in Medicine and specialization in the field though. Was that omitted?
> I've written articles about it for major outlets like The Atlantic and The Economist, and am working on a book. I found SciAm's coverage to not just be stupid (JEDI) or insulting or uncharitable (the Wilson story), but actually a little bit dangerous.
You're right, it doesn't sound like they're sour about not being published in SciAm. They're unhappy with the topics SciAm report on and the content of them.
Looking a bit deeper, the author is a co-host of the Blocked and Reported podcast and has been criticized for having an anti-trans bias in his writing [0].
It doesn't seem that he's a doctor of any sort, a scientist of any kind.
Yes, it's a curious coincidence that the people writing this report, surely in good faith, just happened to pick March 2020 as the point of comparison.
It’s specious to think that just adding supply to the desirable metro areas like San Francisco, New York or Seattle would be enough to make housing affordable to teachers and lower paying jobs. You’d just get more unaffordable housing or have to somehow flood the market with so much inventory that they would no longer be a place where people want to live.
> As an example, 2 parties could both say No to a higher Co2-tax, but one of them does so because they claim climate change is a hoax, while the other one has a problem with it not being progressive enough, thus hitting poorer people harder than rich people.
But as a voter who is in favour of a higher CO2 tax, why would you care about that distinction? If there's one party who thinks climate change doesn't exist and one who believes in climate change but is unwilling to do anything about it, the only difference between the parties is in their rhetoric. I'd argue that voting based on actual policy proposals a benefit, not a drawback of this approach.
> If there's one party who thinks climate change doesn't exist and one who believes in climate change but is unwilling to do anything about it
That's obviously not the distinction between the parties here. The second one intends (or at least has a policy to) do something about it, but just not by raising the existing CO2 tax. Maybe instead they intend to raise the top rate of income tax and increase subsidies for public transport.
If you incorporated all of the parties policies into the Wahl-O-Mat, that would all come out in the wash and you'd end up with your preferred party, but also you might abandon the process because it's taking too long.
The challenge is to distil the parties' policies into a reasonable subset that accurately captures the differences between them, some kind of principal component analysis.
> That's obviously not the distinction between the parties here. The second one intends (or at least has a policy to) do something about it, but just not by raising the existing CO2 tax.
Do they, though? I don't know how familiar you are with the German political parties, but the concern about climate change is mostly empty marketing on all sides. We should stop running coal electricity plants, but somehow turning off all nuclear plants immediately is more important. We should stop subsidising driving to work, but that would be regressive etc. Most parties are making noises about climate change being bad, but they're all pretty unwilling to accept any trade-offs involved in doing something about it.
I'm saying if you want something effective do be done, look at what the parties are actually proposing to do, not how concerned they're expressing to be in their election flyers.
Yeah, I generally agree, everyone is in favour of things like "peace" or "health" or (more controversially in the US, but mainstream in Germany) "the environment". The questions shouldn't be about whether you want to improve the environment, but what hard/unpopular choices you are willing to make to achieve that.
So you should give the party in favour of increasing income tax and subsidizing public transport a chance to say that, because it's a hard choice, just a different hard one than increasing the carbon tax.
Something I would like being asked in those election questions is if any party are willing to put in a ban for IC in the energy sector for the same date that they intend to ban IC in the transport sector. A set date where no more fossil fuels is being burned in the energy sector would be a distinct political message to investors and voters, rather than vague concerns about climate change.
Similar, it would be nice if any party would have a date when subsidizes to fossil fuel based power plants will end. There is unlikely that any party is in favor of having those subsidizes, but it seems equally unlikely that anyone is ready yet to be the ones to remove them and face the trade-offs of not paying those plants to keep the engines warm and ready.
> But as a voter who is in favour of a higher CO2 tax, why would you care about that distinction?
You cannot find a party that you agree with 100%. If you have to choose the lesser evil, you may still want to check why exactly a party disagrees with you.
The grandparent didn't say nothing bad happened at the protest, they said that Trump's comments were taken out of context, which is completely true. Read the thing in context (here: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump...) and it's clear that he's not defending white supremacists or anything of that sort.
The context was reported at the time and it still means exactly what people think it means. Here's his attempt to clarify
"I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. "
Trump knows full well that this is a lie. No one was there because Lee was so great of a general and they love military tactics. They were there because he fought to protect slavery. There was absolutely no "both sides" about anything. In context he's still saying protestors were as much to blame as the counter protest and the counter protest had as much validity to their complaint as the protestors. These is exactly what everyone took his meaning and all the context and clarification make it very clear that he meant murdering racists are the same as peaceful protestors against violence.
I'm sorry but you personify the issue stated in this article.
The guys holding tiki torches were definitely white supremacists.
Most protesters who are in favor of preserving Confederate monuments aren't doing so because of slavery. I don't agree with them but I grew up around them in Virginia and it's much more complicated than "derp they love slavery derp".
The confidence you possess in your ability to read people's minds is likely unfounded since I've never met any human being who can successfully read others minds.
I hate to ad hominem but this statement is so disgustingly naïve it's difficult to fathom. The Confederacy existed to preserve slavery. It is theoretically possible for someone just be really into that 3.5 year span of history so, so much that they can't bear the thought of fewer statues or else they'll forget about it but I think that is far-fetched. I also don't believe they literally want to reinstitute slavery in 2021, but they are absolutely fighting to lionize people who fought to protect it. It is 100% equivalent to defending a statue of a Nazi general. And it is 100% racist whether they consciously accept it or not. There is absolutely no plausible explanation. And none of the explanations put forward by apologists are remotely convincing. The same people who think taking down statues is "erasing our history" are passing emergency laws to ban the 1619 Project from being taught.
Facebook famously has dual-class shares that give Mark Zuckerberg a majority of the votes. The shareholders can't make him do anything he doesn't want to do.
Why would languages without tail recursion optimisation perform worse when all languages use the naive implementation? It's not tail recursive, so it shouldn't make a difference, right?
> Some particular names used in the examples were introduced by Python. For example the `enumerate` function or `zip`. I haven't seen those names used in programming languages older than Python, I know I might wrong.
All the ML dialects that I know have a zip function and ML pre-dates Python by about 20 years. This is particularly relevant since Rust is clearly strongly influenced by ML.
> The fact that those are functional I think is not particularly relevant. It's like someone seeing a comparison of Java and Go and saying that those are just the principles of imperative programming, or object oriented programming.
The comparison feels right, but I think it would certainly be odd if somebody explained loops in Go as "a Java idiom".
> People can't discriminate on properties that the person they are doing business with can't pick or change [...] but can discriminate on properties that the person in question did choose or could change
Religious beliefs seem to fall squarely in the latter category (at least to the extent that political views do). Are you really comfortable with people discriminating on that basis?
In principle I'd be fine with including religion and every (political) view in that list as long as the view infringes on the freedom of the person doing business. For example: view (a) that demands that all living people must wear black gloves and run in circles five hours a day would be on my "that's ok to discriminate against" list while view (b) that requires the follower to wear a three-pointed pirate hat and eat pasta at its religious gatherings would not be.
Basically: If your view demands anything of me or any other person I might know other than pure tolerance of your view, I can choose to discriminate against you. If your view only demands tolerance and only makes prescriptions for you, I can't. Obviously, the real world is a bit more messy since even a political moderate view that demands higher taxes to feed the poor infringes on my freedom to earn money - so the question where to draw that line is a matter of open debate.
I suppose you haven't heard of the "Trump voter divorce" yet, have you?
Political views are sometimes similar in character to religious views, such that expressing contrary opinions results in shunning and being ostracized by one's family and community.
It's one of the major reasons why free and fair elections have to use secret ballots, aside from vote-buying. Around here, it's risky to even participate in partisan primary elections, because employers can look up your name in the voting records and determine which party's ballot you used, then engage in party-based discrimination at work that ranges from subtle to blatantly overt.
While this area seems to have more than its fair share of petty and bigoted persons, it can basically happen anywhere that requires a declaration of party affiliation during the primary.
My own spouse has turned a bit more left over the years, even as my siblings-in-law have gone more to the right. It has resulted in some rancor, as those four gratuitously post replies on Facebook for each other's posts and summarily delete replies by my spouse. They're really being a bunch of a-holes.
If you don't conform to the views of your local community, you're going to have a hard time. And the more homogenous it is, the more you can be punished for your non-conformity.
It's still a choice to remain with your religion. It's not a simple one, granted, but if you stick with a religion that requires you to hate or be intolerant to other people, you don't deserve that others are tolerant of your religion. Hence they can choose not to engage with you. Why would hey have to bear the burden of you picking the easy path.
