I am beyond thrilled that this has worked out so well, and I only hope that someday, I or someone else manages to sex up indigent criminal defense so effectively.
Part of my irritation is how we devote so much more charitable giving to "innocent" rather than "non-innocent" causes.
So ALS kills many fewer people than diabetes but gets much more money, heart disease kills more people than breast cancer but... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:45 AM on August 25, 2014
Why is this a competition?
Because it demonstrates a systematic bias against poor people whose diseases and deaths are treated as less worthy. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:54 AM on August 25, 2014
ALS does not know what class you are.
No, but the people giving the money do. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:57 AM on August 25, 2014
Even if you have all the money in the world, ALS is still lethal, and very quickly. Diabetes isn't always.
Here is a chart. ALS kills a few people regardless of race or class. Diabetes kills a lot of people, and it disproportionately kills non-white people with low socio-economic status.
Breast cancer kills women regardless of race or class. COPD disproportionately kills non-white people with low socio-economic status.... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 10:06 AM on August 25, 2014
It sure as hell knows what race you are.
Sorry, I have no idea what this means.
We're referring to racial and ethnic incidence rates. The incidence of ALS is 1.80 per 100,000 person years among Caucasians, 0.80 among African Americans, 0.76 among Asians, and 0.58 among Hispanics.
For diabetes, 38.7 African-Americans will die of diabetes per 100,000, while 19 whites will die per... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 10:20 AM on August 25, 2014
breast cancer kills about as many people as prostate cancer does, and yet the former gets much more funding
That's not quite true. Breast cancer kills about twice as many people as prostate cancer, and breast cancer receives about 36 times as much as prostate cancer in donations.
breast cancer charities have not done anything wrong by accepting so much money
Thanks for the cites; I found 21,000 prostate cancer deaths to 41,000 breast cancer deaths, but that was from 2011.
I do think it's relevant how much of the money makes its way to research. But I also think schmod's point is relevant: how much of the money makes its way to promising research. The best guesses of experts should guide our efforts and expenditures, not the latest social media trend.
Could you explain your concern? When I look at the chart, the circles appear to be correctly drawn. For instance, HIV/AIDs receives ten times less money than prostate cancer and the circle appears to be ten times smaller. Roughly 3.5 times as many people die of heart disease as COPD, and the circle is about three to four times as large. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:05 PM on August 25, 2014
Okay, that seems right.
I think the bigger problem is using a single charity, but the data visualization issues are relevant here too. (For whatever reason using the the diameter relationship makes sense to me, but I can see the argument for areas.) posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:27 PM on August 25, 2014
You're joking, right? This is like a parody of sanctimonious righteousness.
Hold on now, I think he has a point. Because what's more nihilistic than pointing out racial and economic disparities in health care? posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:59 AM on August 26, 2014
It's funny to see literary academics discovering something SF/Fantasy/comic nerds have loved and adored about their genres for decades: the epic world-building.
It's quite likely that any academic today with an interest in David Mitchell is also a nerd of some stripe. I wouldn't do what I do if I hadn't grown up with sci-fi, and it's always been thus. Dystopian and utopian stories start off as literary and philosophical genres, and really they still... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 8:59 AM on August 25, 2014
Ok, so this sounds fairly reasonable to me. Over-preservation is bad for the other thing that UESCO is supposed to care about: development and human rights. In that sense, urban development and urban preservation are opposites. It's not clear what mechanisms are in place to enforce World Heritage rules, but clearly there are some effects or else it would be truly meaningless.
But I always worry when a theoretical physicist is the one making political arguments outside... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 11:16 AM on August 22, 2014
But who does the nominating?
You have to jump through like a thousand hoops and bribe a bunch of people to get the Olympics or World Cup to come to your country. But it's still a terrible waste of money for the people who live there. If it's anything like getting an international competition hosting, then these kinds of designations will usually end up being sought by politicians who care more about international prestige and tending to the interests of specific... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:08 PM on August 22, 2014
Robots will never write think pieces, let alone produce nifty video essays, will they? Because the demand for these seems to be infinite.
Robots are also really bad at motivating learning (look at MOOC retention rates). posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 1:13 PM on August 13, 2014
Strictly speaking, this video commits the lump of labor fallacy.
If you think about what people with enough money for essentials want, it's very often the services of other people. They want to be sold things, taught things, receive coaching and therapy. They want to be engaged and excited.
The owners of the robots will want those things too; there may be fewer boring office jobs, but there will be more jobs as psychologists, trainers, marketers,... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 4:56 AM on August 14, 2014
Guys, chill out. You're both great at the snark, but it's exhausting to read in such large quantities. If there's a point buried under all this rude assurance, I can't find it. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 6:38 PM on August 13, 2014
The thing is, Gawker could totally follow Metafilter and win out. I'd probably pay $5 to comment across all their sites (sorry, but I'm in love with io9 and addicted to LifeHacker), and they have the reach to make that kind of fee pay off. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 5:33 AM on August 13, 2014
Wait, Craig Newmark is the bad guy here? posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 5:49 AM on August 10, 2014
Craig Newmark (via Craigslist) killed the classified ad, a major source of revenue for newspapers.
I don't know Newmark personally, but I know people who do and I get the impression that he is anything but a "remorseless corporate Viking."
Journalism has taken many forms over the years; it's crazy to think that its final form should be the one where a monopoly on advertising junk sales and escort services is a... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:41 AM on August 10, 2014
It's a tough one. I help run a Patreon campaign with a serious mission, and it sucks being out-campaigned by a joke. On the other hand, there are awesome comics writers out-campaigning me too, and I can't really say I have any claim to the awesomeness of Dinosaur Comics. Ryan North deserves all the money in my book.
People spend money as they like. Unsurprisingly, they mostly spend it on entertainment. The potato salad story is way more entertaining than my campaign, so... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 7:05 AM on August 9, 2014
The problem is that if you introduce market forces, then of course the least-advantaged will end up participating in the trials, since they need the money the most.
The solution is to conscript all Americans into drug trials. It can be like jury duty: each of us takes a turn (say every five years) and then you're off duty. If a drug targets particular illnesses or conditions, then people with those conditions will be in a special pool of drug triers. All medical care... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 8:13 AM on August 5, 2014
You know, I found this article persuasive. Reading through it, I could feel my mind changing. Now, I kind of accept that Cruise was the victim.
It's taken nearly ten years. Longer, really, if you count all the years since Risky Business. All that time to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the actor's gaze. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! I feel like I'm going to cry. But it's all right, everything is all... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 2:40 PM on August 4, 2014
Awesome story. You know they lived because the reporter can tell you what they were thinking. But you also knew it wasn't going to easy.
FYI, you don't have to pay the transaction fee if you mail a check. There's every reason to think that the internet could do its magical money drop on Dave if we put our minds to it. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 5:15 AM on August 2, 2014
If they tell 30% compatible people they're 90% compatible, 17% have a "real" conversation. If they tell 90% compatible people they're 90% compatible, 20% have a conversation.
The lack of significant difference between 20% and 17% would make me conclude that OK Cupid's matching is completely unsuccessful. I'm curious why anyone would think otherwise. All that math, for 3 more conversations in 100? That's not much value added. 85% of your conversations were... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:00 PM on July 28, 2014
Mitrovarr: I'd just take it as a sign that having a single conversation is a really bad metric.
Given that the overall variance is between 10% (for super-incompatible) and 20% (for super compatible) response rate, they'd need to run this experiment on a pretty large n in order to justify their business model. You're certainly right that a 4-message conversation does not a successful marriage make. But that adds even more uncertainty, and makes the... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:10 PM on July 28, 2014
The algorithm research stuff, or the fact that it does succeed sometimes in creating genuine connections, is just the bullshit on top of the pie.
Except that if that were widely believed, their response rate would plummet, according to their own data, by approximately half. And that's going to affect advertising and subscriptions. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:14 PM on July 28, 2014
Why the heck would HRC choose a Maryland governor as a running mate? Was there a chance Maryland would go for the Republican candidate? posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 8:03 AM on July 24, 2014
What is your basis for saying that "[t]hings kind of are that bad"?
Investigators say the Black Guerrilla Family gang turned the Baltimore City Detention Center into a ‘stronghold’
Then, too, this sounds a bit 4th season-y:
It was one of the few cities to see an increase in murders, and Baltimore’s City Police Commissioner Anthony Batts says that 80 percent are drug-related. Murders were up... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 2:48 PM on July 24, 2014
A snarky comment on twitter recently made me go check out the Selvedge denim market, and I feel like the sticker shock works the same way. If the product most people (in that market) buy is twice as expensive as the highest quality product in the market, something weird is going on, a kind of mini-Veblen-good has appeared. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 3:41 AM on July 22, 2014
For whatever reason, fashion is also the area where people feel most free judging people for how much they spend.
Since fashion is by definition about signalling class and status, that makes a lot of sense. I don't think you have to invoke misogyny; I got a lot of shit (in a poorly-paid government agency!) in my first real job for wearing the wrong kinds of shoes and suits. And I love being an academic because the expectations are so low (so it's... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 6:24 AM on July 22, 2014
I dunno, I kind of like the way Dzur put it. But how about this?
"We will show that imprisonment is not a natural response to crime, and that prisons require public oversight (which they largely do not receive under the current dominance of anti-democratic approaches to criminology) and that active reflection by ordinary citizens can yet discover alternatives." posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:52 PM on July 16, 2014
The Giant Squid, there's still a question whether we're seeing a real decline, the effects of mass incarceration itself (the crime rate is higher inside prisons, we've just moved to an extrajudicial punishment model), some big public health effect (trailing lead exposure levels), or the effects of the Great Recession (crime tracks growth, cheaper non-carceral alternatives, less policing.)
There are other explanations too, including the effect of attention on mass... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 4:41 AM on July 17, 2014
True, Joe, but medallion owners have had thirty-four years of weekly lease-fees. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 2:33 AM on July 9, 2014
If "surge" pricing isn't capable of adding supply then you've got a market failure, and hence a real argument for price controls.
I've got a job and a baby and there's still an amount of money I'd get out of bed to drive you around for. The likelihood of market failure here under ordinary conditions (say sports events) is pretty small. The real problem would be congestion: surge pricing where the supply is limited (say by weather). That's... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 8:41 AM on July 9, 2014
Kennedy is the swing vote and he denies that this would apply as broadly as Ginsburg worried. He claims this covers "closely held" corporations where stock is not publicly traded, which is rare. Ginsburg responds:
"Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 8:06 AM on June 30, 2014
Before you get too outraged, remember that this just moves more of the health insurance market out of the control of employers.
Kennedy specifically calls for HHS to use the same method that they use for employees of religious organizations and non-profits: the contraceptive is supplied free by the insurance company. Since contraceptives are generally revenue neutral from an insurance point of view, this is a simple fix. (That's basically why the mandate for... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 8:32 AM on June 30, 2014
A lot of people think that's unwarranted optimism. We'll see who's right soon enough.
Those people should read Kennedy's concurrence, which specifically calls for this solution. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:22 AM on June 30, 2014
And what if we lose one or more of the judges on the left, and the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014 and/or the Presidency in 2016 before a hypothetical SCOTUS decision? All of those are, at best, not unlikely.
Anything can happen. But the Ave Maria case (the one that challenges the HHS rule that grants the exemption and requires insurance companies to pay for the contraception separately) was stayed in December, so if they decide to push this it'll... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 9:47 AM on June 30, 2014
The concurring opinion of the Court of Appeals, written by Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., argued that the accommodation, discussed in the following post, is itself likely to be struck down.
This Circuit Judge in that injunction has a weird argument whose weakness kind of points out how wrong he is. He's claiming that the Supreme Court is likely to see FILING A FORM as akin to supporting abortion when the form in question says that THEY DON'T... [more] posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:17 PM on June 30, 2014
which, you know, if that's how SCOTUS reads it, then that really doesn't sound very good.
At that point you really are using an unpalatable action theory. If the form leads to abortion in that way, then so does hiring a pro-choice employee. The court didn't say free exercise allows you to proscribe ANY action that can foreseeably lead to an abortion. That way lies tax avoidance and sovereign individual nonsense. posted to MetaFilter by anotherpanaceaat 12:27 PM on June 30, 2014