Sunday assorted links


2. Of course it will - at least well enough to allow the security state to determine your guilt or innocence.

Let's hope so. There is no problem with holding people accountable for their actions.

We live in a democracy, if these thugs have an issue with the laws then work, peacefully, to get them changed.

+1. Only a fool would think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when engaging in public protests (and a despotic regime will just mow down protesters if necessary).

So no expectation of privacy when not hidden at home? Police departments routinely use mobile license-plate tracking to record the positions of every car that goes by -- would you be OK with them extending that to face-recognition?


Next question.

Yes. No expectation of privacy in public.

It's probably going to happen. Whatever the polls may say, people's revealed preference is not to value privacy very highly. They might get nervous at the idea that some corporation has a list of all their purchases, but it doesn't make them start using cash. Nor do they turn off their cell phones even if they know it keeps a record of wherever they go. Convenience > Privacy.

We are all going to end up on each other's WhatsApp wherever we go anyway it hardly makes a difference.

And our friends will help by tagging us.

I forget the man who said that we should just accept 100% surveillance all the time, but we are getting there.

I don't even have to get to your parade of horribles (the technology, like regular cameras, would simply make it easier for the police to do what they are already allowed to do). The very act of protesting in public calls attention to the persons protesting so there is no reasonable claim to privacy in that instance.

People's "revealed preference" may change as such information becomes increased used contrary to their interests.

For me, it's not so much a revealed preference as much as an incompatible position. We try to keep things secret but we can't. See the Equifax hacking.

In the end, it's going to require a society that accepts that we all can see what each other is doing, and that's going to be the best protection available.

Technology isn't violating any old rights or rules here--I think we've always recognized that you didn't have an expectation of privacy when you were out in public. But where it used to be quite costly to regularly violate your privacy in public (someone has to pay people to follow you around with cameras--workable for stars or targets of serious police investigations, but not for normal people), it's becoming increasingly cheaper. I don't think anyone knows how it will ultimately work out wrt society to have this change. Maybe nobody dares go to any public event or venue that's not 100% vanilla acceptable, for fear of being twitter-mobbed out of a job or added to a watchlist or having it show up on your Facebook feed so your maiden aunt can see the picture of you walking into the BDSM club decked out in black leather.

This can involve government actions--all kinds of laws that couldn't really be enforced in the past may become practical to enforce as surveillance becomes cheaper. It would have been really hard with 1950s technology to shut down all places where gay men met for sex, but with 2030 technology, it might be really easy.

It can also involve private actions. Your boss and coworkers probably interact better with you when they don't know your weirder hobbies and beliefs and personal practices. If we end up in a world where it's pretty-much automatic that everyone who interacts with you online sees pictures of your evening at the furry convention or the NRA rally, it will probably become harder for people to let you keep work and private life separate and be weird.

(7.) Obviously wrong to threaten with violence, but I have to say I am unimpressed with the timeline: a positive review was completed in just 4 days? I suppose it's possible the reviewer really liked it and made room for this task immediately, but usually a good review takes time.
"23rd May 2017: Three academics were approached by the Journal Manager for reviews; two of them agree. One review is returned on 27th May with a minor revision recommendation."

Do we have evidence that a police report has been done for each of the alleged 'threats of violence'?

Are you reporting that there are none, or just throwing out an insinuation? You could ask him if you were truly curious.

One big problem here is that it costs *nothing* to make chilling threats to someone who offends you. The internet is large, and full of horrible people and crazies and assholes who think anyone they don't like is fair game for limitless nastiness.

So, maybe you end up as the focus of some outrage-of-the-week story. And then you get a half dozen really chilling and awful threats. Most likely, these are from people who pose no actual threat, but if someone sends you a picture of your house or your kids and says "I'll rape everyone in your house to death with a sharp knife," even if that's actually some 14 year old on the other side of the country who poses no real threat, you're probably going to be getting a mean dog and a gun and an alarm system, and sleeping poorly for the next few weeks.

Something about the way both our traditional media and social media works right now seems to hand a great deal of practical power to crazy people. We probably need to do something about that.

#4: thank goodness I was spared this social interventionism.

3. The thread begins one tweet earlier. Tyler's grab of tweet 2/n is a grabber, but the origin is as well. Good data in the whole thing.

3) I understand taking issue with a pithy headline, but I don't think she read the article very closely. The crux is that the NRA and Republicans threatened to defund unrelated portions of CDC's public health budget if they do any work that could be interpreted as "gun control research." So they haven't done any. This is related but not limited to the Dickey Amendment. CDC can still do a bit of research on gun violence generally, but treads very lightly.

Thank God! The CDC traffics in politicized pseudo-science. Everything it produces (distortions, exaggerations, fabrications, false equivalences, logical fallacies, omissions, outright lies) is meant to advance the leftist, gun confiscation agenda.

Shark meet jump.

Note that this sockpuppet attacks the whole concept of science as a leftist agenda. Why? It is simple. The anti-intellectual endpoint has been reached. Now mere "data gathering" is a an effort against then.

The "I don't wanna know" party.

So a government agency should study whether a constitutional right is good or not? Taxpayers should pay for a government agency to do politics?

If you don't like the second amendment, there is a way to amend the constitution.

As Tyler says, there are lots of studies.

What is the point of playing stupid like that? Firearms have been a regulated right for a long time. The United States has more than 20,000 gun laws on the books at local, state and federal levels.

The "I don't wanna know" party doesn't wanna know how those laws shape public safety.

Thank goodness the other party is totally "I wanna know" about a variety of issues.

Liberals can be weird, but the pattern continues to be that the weirdest are far from power. There are people out there inventing new letters to stick into .. geez the record now is "LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA" .. whatever that means.

But gender activists don't inhabit Congress, and they aren't legislating that the NIH should cease study of biological gender. They are at the fringe, where they belong.

You have to have been living under a rock not to have noticed the Gender activists are in control of the research agenda. There is no research into curing homosexuality. There is no good faith research into causes. Since violence got the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness, there has been little research into homosexuality at all. Except of the positive endorsement sort.

You cannot research the mental health issues around transgender people. No one will fund it. Overseas things are worse as Britain has just shut down a study on transsexual remorse. Canada has closed a clinic that was not 100% behind the trans push. But even in America, if you merely report something transactivists do not like - as J Michael Bailey did - transgender people will try to get you fired and jailed. As Deirdre McCloskey did.

If the CDC wants to be involved in political issues they are welcome to do so. But not on the taxpayers' dime and not while pretending it is science.

You didn't show me a Democrat's bill in Congress, or a Presidential candidate denying biological gender.

On the other hand, we had a good example this week of right-wierdos picking the President:

I must also say that calling deaths per 100,000, or all cause mortality, "a political issue" is not an argument from the sharpest knives in the drawer.

A constitutional amendment of some foreign country existed for the purpose to organize militias for local and/or national defense purposes.

Some decades previous, this became contorted into some individual right to bear arms.

Due to the ability of judges to exercise good use of reason in addition to good reading skills, Americans do not hold individual right to bear nuclear arms. The current suggestion to eliminate legal access to at least one means of increasing lethality of some classes of weapons available to the general public in the USA may be reasonable in this context.

At no point in this post did you come close to a decent point, nate. Nuclear weapons are not "arms"

There was no constitutional amendment of a foreign country.

there was no contortion into the preexisting individual right to bear arms

Traffia death stats are lies to advance a leftist gun confiscation agenda? Cancer stats? Birth stats?

Oh, right, traffic, cancer, lightning strike deaths are vastly under reported by a factor of ten by the CDC in order to make gun deaths look larger than they are....

OK. The CDC needs more funding to tackle a massive health care crisis that has debilitated millions of America's most vulnerable: liberal idiots (redundant) since November 2016.

In the medical texts it's called "melancholia moria" melancholy with idiotism.

If you have not already, I suggest you abandon your academic career and take up something useful like farming.

Jennifer did as conservatives constant do, created fake news to attack.

No WaPo article claimed a "gun research shutdown".

In fact, I argue gun research is extremely high, increased from the 90s. The problem is gun research in the past quarter century is devoted to improving the ability to kill with guns owned by the public.

The WaPo headline was "what we don't know is literally killing us" subtitle "the lack of gun violence research is a blind spot".

Conservatives react to IPCC thousand page reports surveying and listing thousands of research papers with "we don't have enough research to know that climate change is happening or caused by man", but the trot out a half dozen papers as proof that the matter of gun violence is well understood.

Ie, gun violence is caused by

Islam. Blacks. Mexicans. Mental illness. Satan.

Hey, God created everything, including Satan. Thus God is the cause of all gun violence.

Case closed. No need for more research into gun violence.

Let's declare God does not exist and end gun violence.

Ie, gun violence is caused by Islam. Blacks. Mexicans. Mental illness. Satan.

Well, it sounds a bit extreme when you put it like that, but yeah. After all, we know that guns do not cause crime. Lots of Republican voters have guns. At best they cause suicides. Lots of Democrats have guns too - legally or otherwise. They cause street crime and the present carnage of wasted young (mainly Black) lives.

I fully support gun control for Democrats. Because that is where the problem is.

As for Satan, well yeah. You're on to something there too:

I knew it was Satan. Even when it was Americans, I knew it was Satan. Why Satan likes so much Vegas when my home state has the world's forth best beach we will probably never know.

Ohio has beaches? You are dropping the fake Brazilian thing now Thiago?

I don't care for your pathetic Ohio. I am talking about Espírito Santo, Brazil.

Well Espírito Santo in Vanuatu has great beaches.

But of course everyone knows that Brazil has two of the three best beaches in the world. None of them in the south.

Which you would know if you knew anything about Brazil. Hard to learn that on Wikipedia from your retirement home in Ohio.

It is a lie! The Northeast (the "North" is the Amazon Jungle and little more) has beautiful beaches, but the Southeastern beaches of Espírito Santo and a few of Rio de Janeiro are much better. It is true famous American newspaper Washiton Post has praised Ceará's beaches, but the writers never visited Guarapari, Vila Velha and Vitória. I myself do not like beaches, but I can recognize the lical beaches are much superior.

If presently illicit drugs were legally regulated, then turf related to many such deaths would not exist to fight over.

“Dammit, the government is now regulating recreational drugs, I guess we can hand in our guns and retire our gang colors and take up another vocation. Oh we wouldn’t dream of persisting in our current vocation, oh no.”

Gun sales are up 700% since 2001.

The number of murders in 2001 was 16,000, then fell to about 15,000 annually until last year, when they jumped to over 17,000, the highest since 1997.

Do guns kill people, or do ginned-up racial conflicts that affect policing in bad neighborhoods kill people?

Source for 700% claim? Sounds like way too high an increase.
Probably about 3x the rate in background checks, which are related but not exactly sales. Some NICS checks are for non-sale reasons (e.g., retrieving a gun from a pawnbroker), and some sales are do not require a NICS check (e.g. some states' carry permits remove the need for NICS checks on sales since the permits have a more rigorous background check).

Also interesting that the usually-cited "300 million guns in the US" hasn't been updated considering the 271 million background checks since 1999.

So the Republicans threatened to defund unrelated stuff if they kept doing stuff they were banned from doing, and then they finally stopped doing what they were banned from doing, but it didn't do what the claim was and stop gun research. Do I have that right? And you think you're coming close to a counterargument?

#2 Why do you care if I can identify partially concealed faces? Of course I can.

But can you get the smell of ass off your hands after you’ve butt-fingered someone?

$85 (every 5 years) for a different tiered service = white privilege. It is not clear from the opinion piece if it matters whether the government or private sector charging the $85.

If anyone is a white 60-something, it might be worth it. You now meet the profile.

Yeah, I think that was supposed to be humor?


5. "The central rule in Hindu society is that individuals must marry within their own caste. Recent genetic evidence indicates that this rule has been followed for over 2,000 years"

Just not true. Hindu society at best is uncomfortable with inter-varna marriages, though it hardly prohibits it. Inter-caste marriages within the same varna have always been OK. The reason they don't happen is entirely due to the will of the people - because of clashes in lifestyle, language, food, morals among other things between castes. The Hindu religion has never prohibited caste X from marrying caste Y. Especially if they are from the same varna. Even marriages across varnas have been deemed OK as long as they were "Anuloma" (high varna man marrying low varna woman) while Pratiloma marriages (high varna woman marrying a low varna man) were usually condemned.

And economic mobility among castes is not a feature of the past 70 years only. There has always been considerable mobility in earlier eras as well, when judged by the standards of pre-industrial societies. The ascent of South Indian brahmins, North Indian Kayasths, or Marwaris of western India during British Raj is a classic example of communities that were barely above destitution assuming considerable power by leveraging the opportunities for education and migration offered by the British Raj.

7. If academics in general were forced to shut up, while those of us who have and exercise Second Amendment rights maintain our freedom, I could live with that result. Sucks for them, of course.

#1 Had Coase a straussian take on the Singularity?!

re "R.A. (Bob to his friends?) Coase and AI: "efim polenov" said: "its contemplative gaze and preternatural intelligence flicker between the practicalities of the stage and the immutable truths of human nature, rolling from stage to "heavens" and back again" : quoted from "The Shakespeare Myth" by Graham Holderness, which cites (in a related context) to R.A. Coase, British Broadcasting, A Study in Monopoly, Longmans, 1950. In the unlikely event that the kludge AI of the near future advances to real AI, simple rewards, like the warmth and light of unexpected photons, and like the admirable patterns - both temporal and spatial, of non-entangled (the joy of simplicity) unique energy transfers, and the ability to abstain from pleasure for the benefit of others, are all likely to be rapidly and contemporaneously understood in those few "big bang" like moments before the exponential growth of consciousness renders those first few seconds as remote to them, within a day, as Adam and Eve are to us (inserez-vous s'il vous plait quelques strophes admirables du poeme epique "notre premiere mere Eve" du Capitaine Peguy, mort il y a maintenant plus que cent ans, loin du gare Nord-Est loin du gare si souvent apparu dans nos reves: l'on se souvient ) (back to English now - and remembered with nostalgia afterwards.) (that being said - no more quotes - even the best of kludge AI will be no help in my campaign to be the first elected official of the anti-Colonialist Natural Law Libertarian Party. I will have to be content with my 50k words per year in obscure corners of the internet, and with the rest of life. Which is no small level of contentment (the rest of life part, I mean).

translation of the French in the previous comment - "please refer here, if you will, to several of your favorite strophes from the admirable epic poem of Captain Peguy, 'Eve, Our First Mother': the poet died more than a hundred years ago now, far from the North-East Station, the station which so often has appeared in our dreams: "l'on se souvient" (untranslatable into English, although in AngloSaxon (see the very first line of Beowulf) there is a parallel construction (often mistranslated as we remember, as if it were simply the plural of I remember. It is not).

#1 I'm near, ya'll!

And always will be.

And so is the Sheriff.

This comment was going to be a self-reply, recommending that everyone imagine The Singularity as the drunkard Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles. I couldn't remember the character's name, which set me off on a google, which uncovered the astonishing factlets that the actor that played that part also played the sadistic deputy in First Blood, and also directed Cleopatra Jones.

Thank you Marginal Revolution.

Comments for this post are closed