Thursday assorted links

Comments

what does straussian mean?

It means having two heads.

Comments for this post are closed

Here, let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=straussian

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+can+i+be+a+jackass+online%3F

Comments for this post are closed

It's not funny if you actually write "let me google that for you."

Comments for this post are closed

I've been reading this blog for over 10 years and have Googled it many times. I still don't get it.

I don't get it either.

same. I look it up every time. Sometimes I get it. not this time.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

So glad I am not the only one. I have spent hours Googling it and I've also actually READ A BOOK BY LEO STRAUSS (excruciating) and I still have no idea what Tyler is talking about. My best guess is that it's a massive in-joke and it doesn't mean anything.

Ah, you have mood affiliation. Welcome aboard!

Comments for this post are closed

LOL, Funny and true. Everyone has mood affiliation. The one's who don't think they have bias are clueless.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Roughly, reading between the lines.

Comments for this post are closed

after doing some light reading on the subject. it is some kind of philosophical leaning that is associated with conservatism and neoconservative. Apparently, Straussian frameworks claims "great thinkers" are the authors of the "great" books in history. Great thinkers are people who have ideas that are truly original or atleast have stood the test of time and are therefore worth considering outside of the context of the era in which they were conceived.

I guess the Mao statue is Straussian in that Mao was a great thinker? and he has two heads in case one is destroyed there will be another head which is somehow representative of his ideas living beyond the time in which they were constructed.

that's my best guess after reading two of the two google results for "straussian"

@Harun.

On this blog Straussian means esoteric, or cryptic. It means that the first meaning (of a text, an image, etc.) isn't the intended meaning, or rather that there are several levels or layers of meaning. Most people will probably only see the first most superficial layers and miss the deeper ones. Only the initiated will see the most profound ones. The truly initiated will understand that there is at least one layer deeper than the one he sees.

tl;dr: wank wank fap fap

Sorry I meant @Harrison not @Harun

Comments for this post are closed

You win one (1) Internet.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

It's not that difficult. If being blunt will get you into trouble with the authorities, your public statements will bow to what is politically correct at the time, but like many works of art, literature, etc., the author will leave hints that contradict the reigning view. What might a second, decapitated head lying at his feet suggest?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

#6
Ali G: "So my idea is what?"
D Trump: "Create a drip-proof ice cream"

You can tell Ali G didn't know quite what to say to that...it took him a few seconds to recover. D Trump smiles at 0:30 because he knows he stumped him. He then wishes him the best and walks out. I'm impressed.

Not Straussian.

Comments for this post are closed

Yep, the most impressive I've ever seen Trump....

Comments for this post are closed

Way to go President Trump!

*Emperor

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

What? No. Ali G is setting up that joke on purpose. How ancient are you people? :-)

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

The point about bitcoin and its tracability maybe making it non-fungibile is important to think about. But don't modern financial systems with their electronic records and anti-money laundering laws do much the same thing anyway?

No, money is fungible *as a matter of law*. It doesn't matter how good you get at tracing particular dollar bills. Bitcoins on the other hand are not fungible as a matter of law and so are subject to replevin.

Money is fungible as a matter of law, but Adrian Ratnapala is totally correct that the recent arc of history has been towards more traceability (and recoverability, and surveillance), under the names of "anti-money laundering" and "know your customer" laws. It seems extremely dubious to me that either legislatures or courts would suddenly shift course on this.

It's true that banks have to increasingly worry about where their customers' deposits are coming from, but you don't have to worry that the money you got out of the ATM was stolen or used to buy drugs or used to belong to ISIS.

And this is where I wonder if cryptocurrencies are really is different. It's true that there is a very detailed ledger, but there is no such object as a "bitcoin" there are only transactions. I am not sure how courts will, or even can respond to that.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

2: Unsurprising result. Though the American school system is hardly optimal, there's very little evidence to suggest schools themselves, or a lack of funding, or some other easy fix is what primarily determines low educational achievement. Even leaving aside the substantial effect whatever component of intelligence is genetic/largely fixed, it's not like a school switch is going to move the needle much on the impact of poverty and culture.

And so throwing these kids into schools where their academic development is, on average, far below everyone else will just set most of them up to fail.

Comments for this post are closed

Vouchers might work, especially long term, as creative destruction cycles.

It was probably under-appreciated that bad schools are part of that evolution, and that students would suffer, possibly in their long term. That is, their lives.

There were too many live claims that all voucher schools would be above average.

s/live/glib/

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

That's a pretty "holy shit" sized effect though!

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

re: #2 - I am disappointed that the researchers would seriously expect some sort of positive indicators after only a single year. We know it takes people close to 5 years to adapt to radical change, and I would expect not to see positive results from a major change in schooling for 3 years. Later generations of transferees should have a shorter adaption curve if the transferring culture is significantly large to provide a cultural buffer in the form of peer guidance and mentoring. Such guidance would be highly unlikely from the existing population in the target school systems, even from supportive personalities. They just "don't get it."

Maybe, but every data point is important and time is fleeting for these students. You start the evaluations as soon as you can. I would think, however, that if a bunch of students go from a shit school to a better school it should not take more than a year to see some improvement in average test scores--and certainly not a large decline. Wonder if any of the change is caused by all the extra time these new students spend learning about Jesus Christ.

Good point. The tests are biased against Christians.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Schools operating in a competitive environment know that the best way to keep-up or boost scores is to discourage marginal students from staying. Three years of study would be better than one-year, so long as attention is paid to disadvantaged students who leave before three years are out.

The classic private/charter school approach is to reject or simply make life hard for special ed students, so their parents move them back to the public schools. They theoretically have to provide the same level of services for these students, but in practice they don't. Bus them out. Public schools will handle them.

To some extent, they rightly will say they do not have the capability of handling "special ed" students, but I think what you describe as the classic approach is true for whatever a competitive school considers the bottom 50% of students.

Comments for this post are closed

The classic private/charter school approach is to reject or simply make life hard for special ed students, so their parents move them back to the public schools. They theoretically have to provide the same level of services for these students, but in practice they don’t

Public schools do this too. Like you say, theoretically they have to, but that doesn't mean they actually do.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Can't stump the Trump!

Comments for this post are closed

Which recent president would have come off as well as Trump in an Ali G interview?

Comments for this post are closed

The New Orleans story reminded me of something.

After integration began in the south whites establish private academies to avoid having to integrate

This should have provided a great case study of how private school did versus public schools as the academy students were essentially the same as had been in the segregated all white public schools.

But I've never seen such a study, does anyone know of any?

No, but the one thing I remember from living in New Orleans (pre-Katrina) was that the public schools had special academies like most large cities, which allowed engaged parents to get their students in better performing schools. A friend taught at the music academy, which was open to people who passed an audition. IIRC they may have had the best grades in the city, but were mostly poor students with a parent that borrowed an instrument and found someone to give free lessons.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

The biggest problems with drone delivery are not dogs and curious 8-year-olds, they are 1) Weather. Will drones really be able to operate in rain, snow, and high winds? 2) Noise, noise, noise. How is the public going to respond to a constant stream of buzzing delivery drones that are a lot larger and louder than the small camera drones on the market now?

Yep, plus the inevitable drone malfunctions with drones falling on people's heads. Even if the rotors are safely caged, there would be a lot of unpleasant experiences.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

#7 in which the Bezos newspaper sows seeds for The Bezos Corp. climb-down on its drone vapor-tech.

"People are the problem." Love it! You bet we are!

Just use the chimney like Christmas drones of yore.

Comments for this post are closed

It strikes me that - ironically - Donald Trump is much more intelligent than he is good at business, wherein he has apparently underperformed the market. He seems to be a politically moderate individual, who has realised that by playing on emotive identity politics he will elicit the forgiveness of his supporters on almost every other issue, and that there were more blue-collar, nativist moderate Republicans than pointy-headed, do-gooder moderate Republicans.

apparently underperformed the market.

No clue where this idiot meme got started. Mr. Trump's net worth is and has long been many multiples of his father's.

1. Trump could have both underperformed the market and still ended up with multiples of the wealth he inherited. The stock market really was that good for the time period when he got his wealth going.
2. I still don't see why people think any of his business experience will be worth a damn when it comes to actually running the government. Which is the President's job. He's also one of the candidates who is likely to not know enough good people to actually be able to fill out all those posts with competent managers. It's like the GOP version of Jimmy Carter or something, IMO. Best case is still first term Clinton.
3. And I still don't see the party of Christian values electing a multi-divorcee guy with connections to gambling, Atlantic city business, and other shady stuff. But they could get overruled by the rest of the party, IDK.

And I still don’t see the party of Christian values electing a multi-divorcee guy with connections to gambling, Atlantic city business, and other shady stuff.

If the Democratic campaign seems anti-Christian or anti-religious, many will simply do the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

r > g

Comments for this post are closed

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

Trump underperforms the market consistently.

That article is silly. It takes two data points and assumes that Trump had full control of all of his assets and that they were all perfectly liquid.

I think one could safely assume that the when 1982 Trump declared a fortune of $500 million, it was not a "net worth" but a total assets held. Ergo, Trump was exaggerating his wealth. More likely, Trump's net worth was closer to the $200 million that Forbes estimated. Furthermore, as is clear from every source, Trumps assets were tied up in real estate assets and wasn't very liquid.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Yeah he only underperformed the market if you think he never spent any of the money, which I doubt

Even after expenses, he has a very large net worth, and it is far more than he started with.

How could he have not done fabulously? r > g

Are you really being serious?

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

That is stretching credulity. I disbelieve that he has been deliberately running down his net wealth by roughly a million dollars every day. He's evidently an intelligent man, so I think that's impossible without significant charitable activity, like the magnitude that would involve a small state of the Union being renamed in testament to yourself.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

#7...My guess is that you'll see drones used for protest purposes. In the Oregon standoff, for example, I can imagine a few thousand people who disagree with the people camped out arming drones with feces, paint, and cat urine, to be dumped on them. Meanwhile, the campers will fire off rounds at the drones, meaning a lot of live ammo is going to be hitting the ground in the surrounding area. It's gonna get wild , friends.

I don't expect it will be too long before someone sells an RF jammer that targets drones. Sure, they'd technically be illegal to use, but you're unlikely to be charged with anything if you are using it in self defense. And it would be a pretty trivial piece of electronics.

Actually, here's a site with plans and details on how to build a drone jammer.

http://www.qrz.ru/schemes/contribute/security/jammers/drone-jammer.pdf

I'll be damned.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

#2 http://eml.berkeley.edu//~crwalters/papers/LSP.pdf

Comments for this post are closed

#4. How the heck could Time omit this one? https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/679137936416329728?lang=en

Comments for this post are closed

#7...Drones for carrying humans: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35249030

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed