Thursday assorted links


University of Alabama doesn't make sense as a sugar baby school. Its not an area of a lot of rich men or conspicuous consumption. Also lots of out of state rich kids go there.

NYU type schools make a lot of sense.

Is this some kind of weird sexless pimping? Or on-line loan sharking assistance? Sadly, just as in health care expense, the proposed fix is a short-term non-solution to obscenely escalating costs when the real answer would be cheaper alternatives. Naturally, there would be lots of applicants from Arizona State, it has the largest enrollment in the country.

There's nothing sexless about it.

Are you kidding, everyone in Alabama is poor and nobody from out of state even knows it is still in the US. The site lists signups, it doesn't say they have found any takers.

I wouldn't equate being poor with being a sugar baby. less societal pressure for material consumption in a place like U of A than a place like NYC etc. I would actually assume a lot of girls looking for those kind of things are the middle class or even upper class girls in very affluent areas. Places like NYU fits that a lot better.

And markets are a two way phenomenon if their are no buyers then I wouldn't expect a lot of sellers to enter the market.

There is a lot of Money in Birmingham (ok Mountain Brook) which is 50 miles away. There are also the german executives from Mercedez who are probably lonesome when away from home.

How very witty of Mathew Yglesias. Clearly the left/Democrats still hate cops and law and order. One response to this "witty" tweat was "There was always anecdotal evidence that by & large being moron was prerequisite 4 being a cop". But that's the point of the tweat, right? To create a negative atmosphere for police and turn a large segment of the population against them. To keep them from being effective and to allow more anarchism and activism. After all you cannot convince happy people in an safe well managed society to choose socialism you must first make them fearful and unsafe. And the left are socialist/communist. I don't follow mr. Yglesias but based on what I see on this tweat I suspect he is an alt-left hard line socialist who believes that the end justifies the means. And why not? Look how well that worked for Cubans, Russians and Venezuelans.

Yglesias is a dope but being opposed to cops blowing holes in people and sending dogs after them doesn't make one a commie. The police have created their own negative atmosphere and by brainlessly defending the offenders in their midst accentuate it.


And fear of the rapidly growing U.S. police-state is not just some wacko leftist fringe viewpoint.

The white middle-class is now encountering routine police thuggery that previously was imposed only upon minorities.

The American neocons who champion the domestic police-state and military imperialism are wacko leftists ... who somehow see themselves as "right-wing".

Did eight years of Obama hope and change gave us routine police thuggery? .

Through the magic of cellphones, Youtube, and the availability heuristic.

I didn't realize I was encountering routine police thuggery. I better give the officers directing traffic outside the Church a dressing down next Sunday.

In a 50-50 nation, it is interesting and worth knowing which segments break 90-10 one way or the other, even if cheap writers use such things to make cheap points.

This is sadly a new axis for America, not the old right or left.


But it's the progressives that are the dedicated authoritarians, why would cops vote against authoritarianism?

"But it’s the progressives that are the dedicated authoritarians"

A totally ridiculous statement. As if GW Bush and his Patriot Act were non-authoritarian.

I can't tell if this is trolling but Yglesias is actually trolling towards Berniebros who think that trade and economic anxiety were to blame for Trump's win, not cultural and racial anxiety - if anything commentators would gleefully agree. Yglesias is also bashed for being a wonky neoliberal by everyone on the left...

Since Trump won by a very narrow margin, there were surely a dozen or more identifiable issues/groups that turned out to be critical.

I'm no lefty, but I don't particularly like cops, and I think it's a national embarrassment that cops are killing unarmed people (whatever their race) on a regular basis in this country.


Don't have to be a lefty to dislike arrogant, ignorant, authoritarian behavior when you encounter it.

I'm also not a lefty, and I'm no big fan of cops, but when the Democratic party started openly advancing laughably false claims (as in the Michael Brown case) in order to avoid dealing with the reality of how poorly they serve the African-American community, no one with an IQ above room temperature could have been surprised that cops would stop voting for Democrats.

Accordingly, I see why Yglesias is struggling with the issue.

Hopefully, people who truly object to government employees stomping on the rights of American citizens won't support that nonsense. This site- over the last couple of days- is not an encouraging sign.

Bingo. There's a big difference between "uhhh, don't shoot innocent people" and "Michael Brown is a hero, his mom should be a prime-time speaker at the DNC." Most of my Conservative friends are just as uncomfortable with police shootings as the lefties.

How does one pronounce "tweat?" Does it rhyme with treat or sweat?

I wouldn't know he exists except for posts like this.

Yglesias is a miniscule reason you douches lost: rank disdain for their Americans that each day put their lives on the line for us.


I believe you have not spent enough time researching the history (and current situation) of the our justice system and minorities, and black people especially. If you spent a little time on the subject you would find that it is very bad. I think if you or your family members were subject to such treatment, you would be up very upset.

1. Peter Thiel's detractors are confused. On one side are those who believe Thiel has an apocalyptic worldview while on the other side are those who believe Thiel is obsessed with prolonging life - his own - forever. Both can't be true. I'm a Christian, which means I believe in a coming apocalypse, the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the body (no, grandma and her cat aren't in heaven, not yet anyway), the destruction of evil, and God's kingdom on earth. ISIS actually believes much the same thing, as Graeme Wood explains in great detail. Is it merely a coincidence that some of Trump's nominees (including to head the CIA) believe what ISIS's believes (though, to be fair, with a different set of actors who make up the elect). As for Mr. Thiel, he is a smart guy and not likely to leave anything to chance. Thus, if in the apocalypse the wrong set of actors make up the elect, he has a fallback in parabiosis.

Why do you care what ISIS 'actually believes'? Or more to the point why do you believe that ISIS's beliefs actually matter?

ISIS holds marginal territory surrounded by serious armed forces in Iraq/Iran, Jordan, Turkey, and Syria. Yet it's supposedly very important to understand what ISIS believes. When was the last time you tried to study what Jordan or Turkey or Syria's Asaad 'really believes'?

Well, Mr. Pompeo believes (and preaches from the pulpit) that Christians and Muslims are engaged in a holy war, a war that he wants to take to the enemy. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims and over 2.2 billion Christians. That's one Hell of a war.

OK so why is ISIS important then? ISIS is maybe 2.5M people ( living under their rule, perhaps just tens of thousands of 'fighters'.

If you're mulling over a 'clash of civilizations' then that's nowhere near the 1.5B Muslims. That would be like someone in 1960 saying communism was the world's biggest problem, but didn't pay any attention to the USSR or Russia and instead focused on some obscure Africa nation of a few million people landlocked with no major weapons or military.

Go educate yourself on muslim beliefs. In the mean time, spare us your bullshit about ISIS not being dangerous. Your team is "literally shaking" over Trump.

' I’m a Christian, which means I believe in a coming apocalypse, the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the body (no, grandma and her cat aren’t in heaven, not yet anyway), the destruction of evil, and God’s kingdom on earth.'

Clearly, then Pope Francis and his billion or so followers aren't Christians, because they pretty much don't believe in any of what you do.

and according to the Book of Revelations only 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel will be saved. Don't think I'm going to be one of them.

Um, yes they do. Here, allow me to quote from the Nicene Creed:

"He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end."

" We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come."

My original comment (at Cowen's blog post on why so few are shorting the market) about the Thiel-MoDo dialogue was better: "Well, the wise investor would have shorted pharmaceutical stocks before yesterday’s news conference. Here’s an interesting dialogue, Peter Thiel playing Peter Sellers playing Chauncey Gardiner: I recall Cowen’s dialogue with Mr. Thiel, at one point Cowen mentioning Gnosticism and the two of them looking at one another, knowingly, and smiling. Is Chauncey Gardiner’s gibberish wisdom for those who know, is Peter Thiel’s gibberish wisdom for those who know, is Donald Trump’s gibberish wisdom for those who know? The similarities between many of Cowen’s blog entries and Thiel’s version of wisdom reflected in the dialogue cited is (sic) inescapable. Are Cowen and Thiel one person or two? [No, I’m not being either critical or sarcastic. What is wisdom? What is knowledge? What is real?]"

“Well, the wise investor would have shorted pharmaceutical stocks before yesterday’s news conference"

Wouldn't our economy be better off if 'wise investors' spent their time figuring out which companies were making promising innovations rather than who will or will not be on the Orange King's shitlist at midnight?

Resources are limited. A correct short improves the allocation of capital, which increases productivity and innovation. Go learn something.

A correct short reduces the value of a company that has become overvalued.

If a company reduces in value not because its products are less useful or it no longer meets the needs of its customers but because of the whim of a politician then we are talking about destroying value, productivity and innovation.

Actually #6 raises a pretty good issue. Who exactly is so worked up over TPP? Trump did talk about TPP a lot, specifically. Why? It's probably one of the most boring of trade issues to discuss. Exactly which voting group was excited by Trump being so focused on TPP (and it's not like Trump has some great amount of focus he can afford to waste)? I can't think of any yet like never saying a word against Putin or Russia, it seems strangely important for him.

Why would anyone get worked up over TPP? The general population doesn't know any of the details of the proposal. Like domestic legislation thousands of pages long, proposed trade pacts aren't explained to the public because those negatively affected would be screaming bloody murder. So it's marketed with a soothing name and bland generalities.

"Who exactly is so worked up over TPP? Trump did talk about TPP a lot, specifically. Why?"

Its a stand in for general fears about globalism. Trump talked about it because the perception among many is that the Washington elite negotiate these deals with little concern for how it will affect non-elite Americans.

And how are 'non-elite Americans' impacted by NAFTA or TPP for that matter? How are even 'elite Americans' impacted by them? I bet you it would be very difficult to find a direct link to the income of the top 1% and either trade deal.

I dont know really, but if the perception is that NAFTA or the TPP benefit the 1% at the expense of the masses, then its worth it for a candidate like Trump to talk about it. You asked why Trump talked about it, there is your answer.

Yes, it's like immigration and terrorism. We don't have that much immigration into the U.S. And you are more likely to be killed by your furniture than by a terrorist in the U.S. It's just symbolic issues to get people all stirred up, so the politician can tell the voter "I am on your side and will defend you against this horrible thing." They don't know the thing doesn't exist or isn't a any huge problem. But you can get the fear and rage vote by using it, and that's a lot of votes.

This is just moronic. Free trade -> production leaving wealthy countries -> increased profit margins, decreased production employment. This is freshman level economics.

I'm not ashamed to admit it: I fucking love Peter Thiel.

I disagree with him and I think he's a riveting and brilliant thinker, his talk with Tyler was really fun to listen to. If all figures on the other side of the aisle were this fun, politics wouldn't be just a drag.

I am not sure Thiel is that smart. He is "mercurial" which many people love more.

Thiel isn't smart but Obama is a genius. If Thiel was a Democrat, you would think him brilliant.

In one sense Thiel reminds me exactly of Trump: As his debate in 2012 with Google CEO Eric Schmidt showed, Thiel will go on about economics and innovation with vehemence despite not having a clue what he's talking about most of the time.

This debate was entertaining to a degree but annoying at the same time.

Thiel: "We've had no progress on energy (for the past 40 years). If you think about where oil prices were in 1973, it was $2 or so a barrel, and it is now north of $100 a barrel, and so you've had a catastrophic failure in energy innovation and its been offset by computer innovation."

Oil was $20 per barrel in real terms in 1973, but that isn't even the crazy part of the comment.

Thiel v. Schmidt, 2012

Peter Thiel from the debate above: "Globalization has nothing whatsoever to do with technology. It was going on in the 19th century. It is about the spread of ideas. You could spread ideas with a telegraph, or with letters or with books."

You can't make this up.

I am also an unabashed Thiel fan. The only thing that would have made the Gawker episode better is if they offered to reduce the settlement if Denton would agree to wrestle Hulk Hogan and televise it.

I don't understand why the initial Gawker article bothered Theil so much. It reads as supportive of him, and it seemed that those in the valley knew his sexual orientation anyway prior to the post.

That this post would cause Theil to spark a vendetta to destroy a company seems extreme. (The Gawker thing with Hogan was totally wrong however and they should've known better - and it cost them the company.)


I didn't have much exposure to Thiel before Gawker and Trump, so I don't have strong opinions on him from before now. But reading that interview, it seemed like he didn't really have a ton of substance to him. Maybe it was Dowd being unfair and selectively quoting, but it felt like there was a ton of question dodging. Like, Dowd would bring up a question, and his answer would just be, "Well, I don't think Trump actually meant that," or "Well, maybe that wouldn't be so bad."

Thiel claims that all of his friends didn't have any substantive reasons for not liking Trump, it was just "everyone knows he's crazy." In an interview in which a large number of specific policy claims have been raised. Trump claims to believe that climate change is a Chinese lie. Trump pledges to nominate Supreme Court justices that will walk back gay rights. Trump is weirdly supportive of Vladimir Putin. Really? None of Thiel's friends could manage to come up with actual policy questions? Maybe Thiel needs better friends.

I just didn't see much insight there. Even on subjects I agree with. "Why is the silicon valley obsessed with immortality?" "Why are you not upset about your mortality?" Really? You can't come up with any kind of actual reason why we might spend some money on anti-aging research? This should not be a super tough question.

Peter Thiel is an idiot. That interview proves it. How many times did the question bring up legitimate reasons why Thiel might not be so enthusiastic about Trump to have Thiel revert to his, I'm pathologically attracted to disruption, default? He's gay and he's working for a man who's vice president--the guy is going to be calling the day-to-day shots--whose main claim to fame is as homophobe. And this is Thiel's philosopy: "1) It is better to risk boldness than triviality. 2) A bad plan is better than no plan. 3) Sales matter just as much as product."

He is an idiot.

Usually when people dodge a question, it's because they're dodging a question. It seems unlikely that Thiel doesn't have a coherent thought in his head. It's much more likely that he can't say what he really thinks on many of these topics and thus has to spout sometimes dumb-sounding prevarications.

For example, "Any concern I may have about gay rights is overshadowed by my desire to invest in a long-shot campaign and adminstration and gain a ton of ink furnace and perhaps profit. Besides, none of that stuff will affect me personally, and I don't generally worry about other people's welfare." It doesn't play so well. So instead, he has to say something that approximates "I dunno." Not saying he actually thinks that, but it's a much more convincing hypothesis than "Peter Thiel is an idiot but just happened to be incredibly successful throughout his life."

That article was a tour de force by Theil. Dowd is hyper partisan and attempted to ensnare him at every opportunity and he played her like a fiddle.

Impressive. Well done.


"Sugar Babies and Daddies"

Hypergamy at its realest.

Is it really though? The hypergamy fear is more around attractive, rich and successful men who get all the women - not creepy old desperate men who give young desperate women money to tolerate them and their bodies

Fear? Hypergamy is about maximizing a woman's options at the expense (pun intended) of men's options in the sexual market place.

Correct, hypergamy is about value optimization, but specifically value optimization at all times, without apology. To use an analogy, hypergamy (in the Red Pill sense of the word) suggests that women always scanning for new potential mates and are always doubtful about the fitness of their current mate. If it decides the man sucks, they will dispose of them and attach to the better mate, without any apology.

Red Pillers are a varied bunch, but of the strand I follow(ed), the phrase is "women love opportunistically, men love idealistically." This does not mean that women do not love or that their is love not truer, it's just conditional on your fit as a partner (and can always be withdrawn).

A commenter made the following observation once:
"I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull."

Around half of the people in the world are women, around half men. So people who believe this stuff believe that half the people in the world-- around 3-1/2 billion people-- love in a certain particular way. And the other 3-1/2 billion people-- love in a certain and different particular way. Highly unlikely. Certainly, some men do love opportunistically-- even if it is not necessarily economic opportunity that they seek-- and some women do love idealistically. And I have certainly seen men marry for money, though most do not.

Red Pillers aren't really out to prove AWALT (All Women Are Like That). It's not necessary or possible to explain the individual motivations of 7 billion people or explain every single human interaction. That being said, most of the women who come around trying to prove NAWALT really only end up confirming the stereotype...and there have been hundreds over the years.

Lots of people think they are special snowflakes and are not. I'm definitely not. You're not. My wife's not either.

Are the sugar babies having the sugar daddies' babies?

Considering very few people are having babies at all anymore, I would posit that the money has long since supplanted the "baby" in this equation.

1B: The prospect of deregulation certainly is a factor, but plenty of small businesses are organized as C Corps, too, so corporate tax reforms will benefit them, also.

6. Matt Yglesias is the definition of the word "twerp." Unfortunately, TDS seems to have have driven Tyler to join him.

OK so I read the Theil article with a question in mind, why did he support Donald Trump? What things does he think Trump will or won't do?

Here are my notes from start to end of the article:

1. He worries that Trump will change things too little rather than too much....change what? How?

2. Silicon Valley doesn't have much sex so they are a bit too P.C. i.e. Billy Bush tape

3. Climate change isn't a hoax...but there's no way to convince Trump of that so why try?

4. Anti-gay S.C justices won't roll back gay rights too much.

5. he doesn't think Roe should be reversed...but it may not even though Trump says he's for it being reversed...

6. Even if Trump is retro, people want to go back to a past that is 'futuristic'....

7. He thinks the FDA has a rule against consideration of any anti-aging drug....but ok the FDA should be open to anti-aging therapies.

8. Obama got boring going 8 years without any major ethical problem.

9. He'd like the US to go shoot for a Mars landing. Though that doesn't seem to be anything that was all that important to Trump's campaign.

But at no point do I see a single actual reason to support Trump. Do Trump supporters actually ever get around to actually saying "We support Trump because we want X to happen?"

Thiel is "burn it down" with a little more polish.

His disdain of democracy should have gotten more play. It is integral.

Disdain for democracy? I could deal with that, but to do what? I could get someone saying "Look massive Mars colonization won't fly democratically so we need a strongman who'll con people into electing him so he can then make that happen" But he doesn't seem to think Trump should do any specific.

Here's the whole problem with that "Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally" idea. At some point in real life serious and literal must converge.

The way I parsed his statements is that Thiel thinks that the long-term trajectory of the US (or perhaps the world) is bad, that Clinton represented a continuation of that trajectory, and that Trump potentially represented a change. And his concern is that Trump will discover that actually changing the direction of the country is hard--everyone from the media to the intelligence services to the big companies pushes back--and so end up not actually changing very much.

"Parse" is the operative word here. Trump voters also seem to have parsed his words. Occam's razor suggest that you would be right more often taking people at their word.

That would make sense, except if that's what he thinks then it should be even more clear what he thinks should be done.

I think a more likely possibility is that he is simply bored and wants something different.

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I know plenty of perfectly rational ones, and they want, among other things, (i) an end to speech suppression on campuses and (ii) a trade policy that focuses on the median American, rather than either (a) the average American or (b) the median foreigner. I actually support those goals, and I have to agree with the Trump supporters that the Democrats will do nothing to advance those goals. Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will do so either.

Why? Why do so many esp. blue collar types feel campus speech was the critical issue of 2016?

It also doesn't seem to be an issue the GOP is that good on. Last I heard there was a professor somewhere with a course titled 'the problem of whiteness' that lawmakers were trying to have fired. So much for free speech, instead I suspect this issue for most is just intellectual masturbation. A bunch of sensational headlines that let the true-believers think they are in the right and so much smarter than those in the the 'war on Christmas' theme from a few years ago.

In regards to trade policy, I don't think anyone who supports Trump over this issue has bothered to even formulate a rudimentary understanding of the issue.

Odd too because anti-PC, don't "coddle" or create "fragile" students was a position shared by Obama. Not an actual policy difference.

His Title IX letter to colleges was what enabled a lot of the PC crap on campuses. Along with the garbage one-in-five rape victim stat.

You really have some odd caricature of Obama. You need to look at what he does and ignores what he said. The last person to believe about Obama is Obama.

Boonton, that's a very good question. Why does anyone care what happens at Yale, much less at rinky-dink universities like Mizzou? I don't know for sure. But I do know that the alt-right sites that my cousin, the cafeteria cook, and my former secretaries--all fb friends--link to are full of the latest nonsense from college campuses. (Which news can, sad to say, can be confirmed from mainstream sites like the Yale Daily News.)

I guess it's a reflection of class resentment at the little snowflakes who have never had to do any real work and consider themselves oppressed.

I certainly wouldn't care if they kept their delusions to themselves, much like I don't give a crap what some backwoods school in Kansas teaches their kids about evolution, or give a crap about some stupid dry county in Alabama.

The difference is the liberal morons control all the levers of power and the idiots in Kansas control nothing (not even Kansas with how much the federal government runs rough-shod over everything).

It's class resentment. It's inherent prejudice. It's just old cranky people resistant to change that puts them in the shade. Young people (my daughter is 17) are trying to work out a better better societal norms regarding how you treat people. Of course, being young people, they make mistakes. But in the end they want to reduce discrimination, rape, police brutality.

cw: Jerelyn Luther is working out better societal norms about how you treat people? Melissa Click is working out better societal norms about how you treat people? The protesters at Yale who spat on attendees at a free speech conference are working out better societal norms about how you treat people? The president of Emory, who vowed to use surveillance cameras to track down the people who chalked Trump slogans on the sidewalks and punish them, are working out better societal norms about how you treat people? What a foul and disgusting politics you and your daughter espouse.

There's a huge amount of outrage-farming coverage out there, whose entire focus is finding someone saying or doing something really awful and then getting clicks by writing about it. A lot of the outrage-farming that appeals to the right is about universities.

Now, *should* you care about the ideological climate at universities? Perhaps some, because that's likely to determine the ideological climate in the country a few decades from now. I'd say it's about as reasonable to worry about the ideological climate at Yale as it is to worry about the racial or gender balance at Yale.

Y81. If you are going to reply to my comment at least read it.

1. "“Somehow, I think Silicon Valley got even more spun up than Manhattan. There were hedge fund people I spoke to about a week after the election. They hadn’t supported Trump. But all of a sudden, they sort of changed their minds. The stock market went up, and they were like, ‘Yes, actually, I don’t understand why I was against him all year long.’”"

MR commenters commonly think about the elites as being so so clever, always with a plan, typically a plan to enrich themselves at your expense. I think they aren't that different from regular upper-middle class White people, people like you and those you interact with. They might be a bit smarter, with better SAT scores, and they might have had the good fortune to be born in a connected family. But they are subject to the same mood affiliations and herd-like behavior as the rest of us.

6. The implication here is that they had a more sinister reason, like not wanting to be fired for doing their jobs.

The stock market probably would have also went up had Mrs. Bill Clinton won.

It would have gone up for a lot longer than it's going to go up for Trump. The market does better with Dems in office.

So cops are the anti-professors?

........"But 37% said Trump was their man because "he is not Hillary Clinton,"

With Professors , it could have been 77% " she is not Donald trump."

I guess cops are moral cretins for not caring about TPP. Maybe they just don't want to get shot by the criminals that the Democrats pander to and encourage? Blacks being afraid of being killed by cops is legitimate even though its statistically unlikely, anyone being afraid of black crime is not, despite much higher odds of being killed by them. Liberalism!

Being shot is definitely worse than TPP. It is also difficult to outsource police work.

It's statistically unlikely that any individual American will be killed by an Islamic jihadist but almost no expense has been spared to prevent it.

#6: Does Matt Yglesias mean the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or is there some other TPP I'm unaware of? The article he linked to did not contain the words "Pacific," "tariff," or "trade." The closest it got was a graph saying that 16% of police see "Economy/Trade/Jobs" as their top concern, and I have no idea how he jumped from that to TPP.

He was being ironic....since anti-TPP was a big (but not only) element to Trump's campaign then presumably many cops must also care about and really wonk out over trade policy.

Matt Yglesias has never been as funny or as smart as he thinks he is. The gap is usually pretty wide. It's hard to imagine someone taking him seriously.

Take him literally not seriously.

Or, in other words, he is intellectually in the same vein as Trump?

Ill buy that, actually. Because of his apparent success and current standing, people assume he is smart/clever despite all evidence to the contrary.

Right, because if you support a candidate you have to care a lot about every issue they care about. Im with Matt on this one, even a charitable reading of Yglesias doesnt really make sense.

Not every issue, how about at least a few issues?

The article Yglesias linked to actually spelled out what issues their respondents said where important. Commenting on what the linked article actually said is not sufficiently ironic for the cool kids, i suppose.

#1a: I'm very curious at how Thiel arrived to the conclusion of "....there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring."

The Gilded Age was decidedly more corrupt than Colonial America. Yet the Gilded Age afforded faster growth prospects, higher standard of living, rapid increase in the well being of the masses.

#6...There are a few topics that I only discuss face to face because I want to see my interlocutor's expressions, body language, and to hear their voice. It's too easy to be obtuse or disingenuous otherwise. Among the topics are race, Israel, and the police. On the police, for example, there are major variations between officers and departments, and your view of the police depends on how many times and why you dealt with the police. Where I live, I put a lot of credence into local views about particular departments, and not just about racism.

My impression is that there's a huge amount of variance between police departments, with some being pretty well-run and clean, and others being really badly-run, with some policemen getting away with all kinds of crap. Police misconduct has become a national issue, and that's reasonable in some ways, but probably most of what can be done to address it is local--the way to fix the Baltimore PD has very little to do with what might be necessary to fix the Boone County, MO sheriff's department.

There is an article out there somewhere where three or four ex big city police chiefs were interviewed and the all said that the quality of applicants was a big part of policing problems. The pay is lowish. The job in lots of place sucks. It attracts people who are not very thoughtful (that is a near quote) who are be nature, attracted to authority, who are statistically more likely to be prejudiced.

#1...It was Samuel Johnson, a real conservative, who said you should vote based upon your principles, not because of party affiliation or a particular person. What's clear about Trump voters is that they have no principles. It's amazing how many Trump voters had never even heard of his 100 day plan, or seem able to divine what his real views are, or who don't care. Nor do they seem to care about his behavior, however offensive.

Of course, it's Mitch McConnell who sails past Joe Isuzu to the Three Faces of Eve. He doesn't seem to understand that a principle applies to everyone or each party, otherwise it's just a prejudice. American conservatives are a melange of prejudices, incapable of holding principles. I understand having to choose a party is a compromise, but the GOP, in choosing Trump, has surrendered, not compromised.Trump Satyricon has begun.

"Not Hillary" was enough for most voters. For pretty good reason.

Yes, there were lots of good fake news reasons. Also, most voters did vote for Hillary. She won the popular vote by a lot.

Also, most voters did vote for Hillary.

48.20% is a pretty weird definition of "most voters". You been huffing spraypaint again?

I agree, but I'm also sick of dynastic politics.

TMC...I agree, but then what did you vote for? Don't you find the lack of clear expectations bizarre?

"Our measure of the quality of play is the average of these differences within the ‘middle game’. That is, it is a measure of the errors committed during the most creative phase of the game and where improvisation is crucial. When we regress this measure of error against our controls and the gender of the opponent, we find that women commit more mistakes when they play against a man."

Or it simply means that men or more creative and better at improvising than women (on average).

#2 OK so they make more errors, but whose fault is it ? The "negative stereotype " or their own when they play a man with the same ELO. There is no negative stereotype. The best men are much better than the best women. It's simply the data. It says nothing about a random woman vs a random man ( my guess is that there is probability parity there). At the top the gap is huge, 189 rating point for Hou Yifan today and she wasn't held back in any way. She learned early, her parents were supportive, she had the best coaches etc.. If we look at 2nd vs 2nd [ Caruana (2840)/ Wenjun (2583) ], the gap gets bigger ( 257)

5. Gold price was $1275 the day after Trump's victory, after which it began a slow decline. Now it rises to $1200 and that's a portent?

In real news, Joe Biden has gotten the Medal of Freedom. Way to go Joe, this is a big fucking deal!

Good choice. He deserves something cool like that for being Co-president from 2008 to 2012.

He deserves the Presidential Medal of Awesomeness:

Joe rocks

I'll see your Joe and raise you a Joe -

#3 What is it like to be a monkey "grieving" the "death" of a robot monkey? Casey Chan doesn't know and neither does TC #anthropomorphismmakespeoplethinkyoureasuckerforcheapempathy

#2 - chess - the most important story of the links and gone unmentioned by the commentators (so typical). - "Our second result is more worrying (and interesting). The gender gap in performance is due to the gender composition of games. When a woman plays against another woman of the same ability, she has a 50% chance of winning. But when a woman plays against a man of the same ability, she only has a 46% chance. This is equivalent to a handicap of 30 Elo points when the opponent is a man." - 30 points --it's HUGE. But so many Filipino men masters that I occasionally sponsor end up losing to lower rated women players so much that it seems like a honey trap (

"Our second result is more worrying (and interesting).The gender gap in performance is due to the gender composition of games. ...Finally, let me mention two policy suggestions that can emerge from our analysis. First, it could be a good idea to introduce ‘blind’ tournaments in which the gender of players would remain unknown, as in the case of blind orchestra auditions "

Blind competition does not beat men on their heads for their sexism and reconstruct them according to feminist Utopian ideals. And are women more likely to be worrywarts?

Why wouldn't Thiel help build a muslim database? Would have liked to hear him expand on this. It is part of Trump's platform, so I assume he doesn't have too big a problem with the idea.

I found that the chess finding was just a statistical artifact. Click my name for the full explanation.

Comments for this post are closed