Comments on: Links 4/15: Link And You’re Dead

By: Katherine

Katherine — Sat, 09 May 2015 15:13:51 +0000

What?

Report comment

By: JE

JE — Mon, 04 May 2015 14:17:10 +0000

Stop being pendantic 😛

Report comment

By: Anonymous Cowherd

Anonymous Cowherd — Mon, 04 May 2015 13:41:40 +0000

pedant*

Report comment

By: Jazi Zilber

Jazi Zilber — Sat, 02 May 2015 23:55:36 +0000

That therapy works (the Liberia experiment) is not surprising at all

Therapy works. this has been replicated multiple times for multiple aspects of psychologicla problems.

The issue is another. That all kinds of therapy work to the same level of effectiveness. This shows that it is the meeting etc. and not the theory based content being used.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Psychotherapy-Debate-Evidence-Counseling/dp/0805857095/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430610921&sr=1-1&keywords=great+psychotherapy+debate

Report comment

By: B

Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:40:02 +0000

God rebase the King!

Report comment

By: simplicio

simplicio — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:47:02 +0000

When they have those children matters too. 2% annual rate is a lot different from 2% monthly rate, and 2 children at 23 is a lot different from 2 children at 35.

Report comment

By: Tarrou

Tarrou — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:51:23 +0000

I agree, but this may be the difference between a culture’s goals and outcomes. What people think about themselves and what they actually are can differ wildly. In this case, I think your comment is a pretty fair characterization of a broad swathe of the poor-to- lower-middle-class south.

Report comment

By: Tarrou

Tarrou — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:43:44 +0000

Given the self-serving bias, 100%. Everyone thinks they were bullied, especially bullies. So everyone hates bullies, but 0% of the population thinks they are one. This is what makes “anti-bullying” so powerful, everyone can participate!

Report comment

By: Tarrou

Tarrou — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:38:40 +0000

Exactly, I was very vocal attempting to offer the libertarian narrative, but the whole thing collapsed into tribalism very quickly. It was such a shame. There was a real opportunity to get a sliver of beachhead in the Red Tribe through guys like Rand Paul and get some cross-cultural muscle behind demilitarizing the cops. But no, everything had to about racism, especially when there was exactly zero evidence of it. Then the tribal defenses go up, and the moment passes.

I’ve said it many times, the blue tribe’s cultural home is Selma. They have no other framework to describe the world than evil white racism. Their narratives are thus incongruent with what is necessary to create a broad cultural consensus on real issues.

Report comment

By: James Picone

James Picone — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 03:57:17 +0000

AR5WGIII is pretty positive about nuclear power – just checked. The SPM notes that “Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of baseload power, but its share of global electricity
generation has been declining (since 1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and risks exist”, and then notes the usual suspects – waste disposal, proliferation concerns, and public opinion. That’s about as far as WGIII goes towards advocating specific technologies (they talk a lot about CCS as well). The actual text talks about fast breeder reactors, thorium, passive cooling, small nuclear reactors, etc.. Inasmuch as there’s a Climate Science Czar, it doesn’t really advocate any particular pathway other than “less CO2″, but there’s a mix of technologies it highlights and nuclear is one of them.

The incentives for individual scientists aren’t so great to talk about nuclear power. For one, they’re climate scientists – they’re not experts in the field of energy generation. If it’s a sin for scientists to get involved in politics, what is it if it’s on a topic they’re not even an expert in?

I would expect that the energy-generation experts and economists who were behind WGIII would be very much in favour of nuclear.

As for political parties, I think that’s very well understood as a result of politics stripping sanity. Major parties care about electability – nuclear power is not popular, doing something about global warming is popular, but only if it’s tokenistic and doesn’t actually hurt anyone. Minor parties are almost always ideological, and there’s not a large ideological group that’s both in favour of nuclear power and in favour of doing something about global warming.

Report comment