I took a course on Freud in college, and what struck me at the time was that the framework of psychoanalysis seemed basically cruel, in that the analyst was free to say that either acceptance or rejection of their claims was evidence for them, and that it would be maddening to deal with that for any extended period of time.
The paper does more than that. It measures wet bulb temperatures at different stops with different combinations and varieties of trees and bus stops, provides decent evidence of variation among these combinations, and attempts to explain the variations. For example, the roles played by evaporation from leaves and shelter material weren't obvious to me before reading.
More generally, this method of interacting with the most simplified interpretation of science and then criticizing its simplicity isn't useful to the criticizer or the criticized.
+1 for Consumer Reports. They're not expensive either, something like $5 per month. If they keep you from buying a bad fridge, it pays for itself!
Their recentish coverage of lead in foods is a bit embarrassing though, since they used a California standard for dosage limits that even the EU would blush at.
I chalk that up as lame but kind of inevitable mild corruption that doesn't really go anywhere -- Hunter seems more like an embarrassing addict child that a caring parent has no choice but to put up with than somebody who can truly peddle influence over his father -- and feel that this administration is a vast difference in degree of corruption. Degrees matter!
Yeah, The Economist regularly writes these articles that spend half the time praising the intense competition in certain sectors of the economy and half the time bemoaning the influence of state-owned enterprises (or other CCP instruments) in others. It seems to vary a lot by specific industry.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Blindsight. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that it is a book about the place of human intelligence in a universe with other options, both biological and artificial.
I don't think there's a good discussion to be had about this article. The referenced paper is based on two data sources. One is a longitudinal study (great!) of "hundreds" of children in one region (not bad!) and only checks parenthood at the rather young age of 23-24 (uhhh). The other study is based on Mechanical Turk questions. In both the article and the fullest version of the paper I can find online [1], no further details are provided -- not the size of the effects, not the statistical power, nothing.
I'm not sure what word to apply to facing three familial tragedies, any one of which might seem like more than a life's fair share of misfortune, with that kind of perseverance. Inspiring is too glib, inhuman is too alienating. Whatever kind of mettle that is, I hope to never have to prove it.
Yeah, I think this is one of those domains where frictions (or lack thereof) matter. It is much faster, cheaper, and easier to send out a significant volume of material on the Internet than through the mail. In theory, somebody could send a bunch of obscene trolling letters, but having to lick all those envelopes seems to deter most of the people who'd be otherwise tempted.
> In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors are above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and maybe half are at or below the 100 line.
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but isn't IQ meant to follow a normal distribution with a mean/median of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, in which case you'd expect half of jurors to be below 100 and ~15% to be above 115, which is pretty close to what you've seen?
I think a modern USA 1 year old has about a 99.97% chance of making it to adulthood. That means that if a modern USA adult loses a young child, there's a decent chance they don't know anybody who has had that experience.
The ancient (and even, as you point out, very slightly pre-modern) world had a lot of "infrastructure" in place to deal with this, there were rituals and ceremonies and familiar people who knew what you were going through, and most of that is gone now.
I was going to ask about this number, because it seems high enough to be statistically improbable, but back-of-the-envelope arithmetic says otherwise: there are about 10 cases of pancreatic cancer per 100,000 people per year [1], so let's say each person has a 1 in 10,000 chance of a diagnosis each year. If you know somebody for 50 years, there's a 1 in 200 chance they receive a diagnosis in that time, so you'd expect to need to know 2000 people to eventually know 10 diagnosed people. 2000 is a lot, but "knowing" a person is a pretty loose term, and pancreatic cancer has a miserably high death rate within 5 years, so it's unfortunately plausible.
Sure, so it seems fair for him to offer advice on how to apply AI or start a company based on it, but doing AI research means generating new knowledge about AI itself, and I don't see any evidence of that.
IMO the confident Tweets about how to become a good researcher and hire good researchers look pretty weird next to the lack of any apparent research papers (or even visible research products) five years later.