Comments on: Links 3/15: Linksmanship

By: Magnap

Magnap — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:16:24 +0000

Your last two paragraphs are not in contradiction. If books by men and women have the same probability of being reviewed, but men write significantly more books, significantly more books written by men will be published. In mathier terms, if P(review|male-author) = P(review|female-author), but P(male-author) > P(female-author), then P(male-author|review) > P(female-author|review).

Report comment

By: not_all_environmentalsts

not_all_environmentalsts — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 06:17:58 +0000

@ Garrett
Ferrous metals are probably the cheapest to sort out simply because you can do it with a magnet.

Hm. Dump it all in a big tank, magnets near the bottom. Plastic floats to the top; aluminum cans too? Glass sinks to the bottom. Paper better go somewhere else; or use the tank like a rural septic tank?

Report comment

By: not_all_environmentalsts

not_all_environmentalsts — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 06:00:09 +0000

@ nancy
She’s a rational person, and if there’s solid evidence that recycling isn’t worth it, she’ll take it seriously.

Considering Ian’s comment just before yours, I think that any generalization as wide as ESR’s would be wrong-headed. It would be a matter of which of your materials was wanted at a processor within reasonable transport, which can vary from month to month. Some materials might be worth sorting in your bins, some not. What do the local recycling workers say about it?

Report comment

By: James Picone

James Picone — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 01:35:43 +0000

In this context ‘person who publishes peer-reviewed research’ and ‘peer-reviewed research’ is sufficiently selective. Climate ‘skeptics’ almost universally don’t publish, or publish research which is less out-there than there public statements. There are obviously some exceptions – Curry, McIntyre, Soon, Spencer, Lewis are the ones I can think of off-hand. But they’re rather outweighed by the entire rest of the climate scientist community.

This is the kind of thing the IPCC is for – summarising a lot of research pointing in a variety of directions.

Report comment

By: AnonymousBot

AnonymousBot — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:50:23 +0000

James Picone said, “That’s the most likely outcome according to actual scientists doing actual science.”

What is an “actual scientist” and “actual science”?

Report comment

By: Derelict

Derelict — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:19:31 +0000

Who’s up for making titles based off those decade words?

1890’s: Old Uncle Josh Michael Casey
1900’s: When, Old Uncle Josh Reuben?
1910’s: Gems (in an) Old Home Land Rag
1920’s: Mammy Rose, Sweetheart Blues Pal
1930’s: Sing In A Moon Swing
1940’s: Blue Christmas Serenade Polka Boogie
1950’s: Three-Penny Red-nosed Christmas Mambo
1960’s: Twist, Little Lonely Twistin’ Baby
1970’s: Disco Rock Music Dancin’ Woman
1980’s: Love Don’t Rock On Fire
1990’s: Get Up, You U Thang
2000’s: Ya, Like U Breathe It
2010’s: Fuck, We Die, Hell Yeah!

Report comment

By: Is everything a religion? (via slatestarcodex.com) | Me in Words

Is everything a religion? (via slatestarcodex.com) | Me in Words — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:14:42 +0000

[…] On a previous post, a commenter writes: […]

Report comment

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 02:40:46 +0000

Georgia Tech started offering its MS in Computer Science through Udacity, at a drastically reduced price (about $6,000 for the whole degree). It’s not truly a “MOOC” as it limits enrollment currently to 200 students per course, due to TA requirements, proctored exams, and the need to grade some pretty involved projects, and it’s significantly aided right now by a massive seed grant from AT&T, so we’ll see how it scales in the long run, but I’m in the program’s second cohort, and it’s pretty terrific so far.

For what it’s worth, I also completed the JHU/Coursera Data Science Specialization and they’re not remotely comparable. Those JHU courses took me on average maybe two days to complete each course. The Georgia Tech courses are far more involved, detailed, and difficult.

Report comment

By: Irrelevant

Irrelevant — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:23:21 +0000

The greater context was that people ought to stop reading male, white authors, because it would satisfy the personal whims of a hatemonger.

Report comment

By: Irrelevant

Irrelevant — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:17:27 +0000

The proposed game isn’t zero-sum, the proposed coalition sorts by an irrelevancy, our commenter community’s commitment to correctness is genuine, the “straightforward, game-theoretic” move you’ve described is both tactically and strategically idiotic. Did I miss anything?

Report comment