Friday assorted links


#4 If the Chinese don't want to be trolled, maybe they should get a civilization.

Same for Portuguese like you.

1) I am not Portuguese. I am Brazilian. Brazilians are a blend of Portuguese, African, Native Brazilian and Non-Portuguese European peoples. Former President Mr. Temer is from Lebanese stock. Former President Mrs. Rousseff is from Bulgarian stock. Former President Mr. Kubitschek was from Czechoslovakian stock. Former President General Medici was from Italian stock. Former President General Geisel was from German Stock. Former Brazilian Emperor Peter II was actually a grandson of Queen Victoria's. Brazil's Imperial Family was considered the most distinguished in the world. President Captain Bolsonaro is from Italian stock.
2) There is nothing wrong with the Portuguese. Let us remember Formosa is called Formosa (beatiful in Portuguese) because it was a legitimate part of the United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarves and now is a legitimate part of Brazil.

Yeah, the Portugeezers are OK. Hurray for Portugal!

If they hadn't explored the wind and current patterns in the North Atlantic that excellent skipper, and dreadful geographer, Columbus would never have got to the Americas.

On second thoughts ......

Exactly. The Pacific Ocean was named by famous Portuguese sailor Ferdinand Magellan. He called it Pacífico (which means "Peaceful" in Portuguese).

Considering Magellan took a bamboo spear through the face fighting and losing to the Filipinos, he was not very good at naming things.

The ocean was very peaceful. The Filipinos were not.

The Chinese have no culture whatsoever anyway. I see no reason to want the Chinese to exist. They are not like you and I are. They are barbarians.

I dunno ... I have yellow fever.

They are barbarians. Trust me. It is either them or us.

But you are not us.

THE BLACKS have no culture whatsoever anyway. I see no reason to want black people to exist. They are not like you and I are. They are barbarians.

(Now please visualize these sentences with THE JEWS, THE MEXICANS, and THE MUSLIMS. I'm curious to see what happens)

It is different. In first place, there are many kinds of Blacks, from the Pygmy in Central Africa to urban workers in South Africa and professors in Boston or rappers in Compton. They are not A culture.

Most Mexicans and Zionists are just trying to get through the day, feed their families, etc. Asians are different. They don't care about human lives the way you and I do. Think about Japanese imperalism or The Great Leap Forward or the Khmer Rouge or the Cultural Revolution or Genghis Khan.

Mods love Thiago. They even gave him a shout-out a few weeks ago. You're just going to have to deal.

This is neither clever nor funny. I'm beginning to the real Thiago quit this board a long time ago. This generation of Thiago trolls doesn't capture the real hatred he had of the Paraguayan invaders.

The Paraguayan aggressor has already been defeated and now it is a good friend of Brazil. Brazil forgave its war debts. President Captain Bolsonaro praised former Paraguayan leader Señor Stroessner. Compare and contrast with the savage Asians, who want to exterminate Westerners.

It is not that simple. Evidently no one wants a nuclear war, nut what if it is the only way to preserve the West from destruction at the hands of barbarian hordes that don't care for human life? I think we should consider carefully the nuclear option. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Every time you spew your racist crap I'm going to be all over you until Tyler deletes it.

Why he doesn't ban your IP address entirely I have no idea. Your constant idiotic Brazilian bullshit is destroying what was once one of the best blog comment sections around.

You do not add anything to the proceedings, even when you aren't being a virulent racist calling for genocide. Go die in a fire, Thiago.

Thiago is funny, and the comments section is already dense with pompous bores.

Leave Thiago alone you meany!!

...he stays away from the racial shit, sure whatever.

+1, I'll tolerate TR as long as he stays away from the openly racist comments. Those deserved to be openly ridiculed.

But for some reason the moderators only do that when I drop by to highlight them so the whole section gets banned.

Would you give up your airplane seat for Wole Soyinka?

Not if I paid extra for that seat. And since we are already at it, I also don’t offer to lift up other people’s oversized carry-on bags if I paid to check mine exactly so that I don’t have to deal with it on the plane.

It's an interesting observation of a different culture. It wouldn't even occur to me (or most westerners, I suspect) to object to someone wanting their assigned seat, regardless of who was in it, or associate it with disrespect for elders. That said, I'd rather have the aisle anyway, so I'd let him stay put. +1 on the bag thing.

I'm not sure who sides with Cole in objecting to the young man taking his assigned seat, but I sense some elitism here, not just "respect for elders". Cole refers to the young man with "baseball cap, t-shirt to show his muscled chest and tattooed biceps" in contrast to "one of the greatest Nigerians". Cole seems to be saying that a t-shirted commoner should defer to a Nobel Laureate.

Of course, everyone should just sit in their assigned seat.

"I also don’t offer to lift up other people’s oversized carry-on bags if I paid to check mine exactly so that I don’t have to deal with it on the plane."

I see you've mistaken market principles for moral ones.

Utility is not always proportional to ability to pay, nor is everyone well-versed in exactly how easy or difficult it is to maneuver a bag into an overhead bin. I'll gladly take 5 seconds to help someone who didn't want to pay $30-200 to check a bag.

The moral principle is don't use oversized carry-on bags that deprive other passengers of adequate space to fit their own carry-on bags in the overhead luggage bins or expect others--especially the flight attendants--to become your personal valets because you are too cheap to check your bags.

Good point, although there's potentially another bit of nuance: I used to be impatient about people, usually women, who had a bag that was so heavy they couldn't lift it into the overhead bin and needed help. Initially my attitude was: if you can't handle your own bag, then you're taking too much d*mn luggage.

But then I realized the importance of height. Regardless of how weak you are or how heavy your bag is, short people face a greater physical challenge lifting their bag into the bin. They have to do a weight-lifting maneuver akin to a military press whereas for a tall person it's more like a simple clean.

Granted, a simpler ethical criterion is implicit in the original comment: people with oversized bags deserve no sympathy or help from bystanders (and presumably if the bag is not oversized, they do or might?).

But I think most of us instinctively include the condition of the passenger in our ethical calculation: maybe it's a 10-year kid traveling alone. Maybe it's a pregnant woman. Maybe it's someone who is elderly or disabled. This of course introduces all sorts of subjective complexities about who deserves help and who doesn't.

If you can afford the ticket in the first place, you can afford to check a bag, too.

Saving money isn't the only reason for using a carry-on. Checked bags get lost, especially when you have tight connections, and it's good to have your shaving kit, a book or two, and a change of clothes when that happens, especially if you're going someplace where you can't replace stuff quickly.

Amen to that. I got stuck in Heathrow once with nothing - no clean underwear, socks, toothbrush, ... nothing. I had to buy everything at outrageous prices in the airport.

British Airways was very warm, helpful, and professional - I'm a fan forever.

"And since we are already at it, I also don’t offer to lift up other people’s oversized carry-on bags if I paid to check mine exactly so that I don’t have to deal with it on the plane."

So that is it. In the modern world, as communist theorist Karl Marx pointed out, there is no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.

Yes, that's how it is in Brazil, where corruption, crime, and general predation are an ingrained part of the culture. But no need to worry about it in your case because you can't afford to leave your favela and fly to a civilized country like the U.S. where aviation was actually invented.

- Aviation was actually invented in France by Brazilian scientist Monsieur Santos Dumont.
- I do not live in a favela.
- Brazilians are very moral. As President Captain Bolsonaro pointed out, Brazilians worship the real god, God. Many Americans worship the Almighty Dollar.

But your president stiffed our prime minister! How can you call that morality? We in Canada are insulted.

I am pretty sure it was a misunderstanding, a failure to communicate. Monsieur Trudeau's body's language was ambiguous. I am sure there won't be any lasting hard feelings betwern our countries.

#5 this is definitely due to systemic sexism, and not due to (for example) men being physically sturdier than women and therefore more resistant to injury in general

Also note the unmentioned base rate/odds, and grouping of categories of the severity of the injury... seems like, despite the obvious flaws, it may have been a bit of a fishing expedition for headline stats... will have to read the paper when it’s published...

I'd also like to see if this paper adjusts for vehicle weight. Pickup drivers are overwhelmingly male, around 80 %. They'll clearly survive a frontal collisions more often than a female driving a small car.

The huge difference in mortality rates is indeed alarming, but I really doubt the use of "fit male" dummies explains it.

The article mentions that almost all crash-test dummies model males and not females. That actually is a specific, identifiable non-neutrality of process, not a mere inequality of statistical outcomes. Not every non-neutrality claim is invalid.

The bigger question is how we can actually address this inequality if we are going to insist on denying that biological differences between sexes can ever actually matter. For example, presumably, biological males that identify as women don't suffer from higher injury rates. Would using crash test dummies that model biological females deny trans-women personhood? I guess we are going to have to choose between denying biological reality and protecting (biological) women from serious injury. To me, it's obvious we should prioritize the latter, but I wonder what the woke think.

They could just use actual women for the crash tests. To make it more fun, set up a web site where we can all nominate women to take part.

The study: "It looked at 22,854 frontal crashes between the years 1998 and 2015 involving 31,254 occupants, ranging in age from 13 to 97 years old, with a near equal proportion of males (49.4 per cent) and females (50.6 per cent)." I imagine that lack of female-sized dummies is due to some design oversight because of the gender of the designers, but the researchers don't address the fact that more men die in car crashes because of a higher likelihood of being in a crash. Men also make up 2/3 of passenger vehicle deaths. Check these numbers out: I'd say this is a case when inadvertently sexist design probably saved lives.

Ehh things get complicated. Men, for instance drive about 50% more miles than women annually. This comes from all sorts of places (e.g. occupation, housing/commuting trade offs, family driving habits), but we actually expect men to make up at least 60% of fatalities on just a per mileage basis.

On the flip side, a lot of the men driving crazy distances are idiotically safe drivers per mile (often going over a million miles without a crash) so the dangerous males have extremely high crash rates per mile driven (i.e. young men starting driving). This gets complicated by so many other things and few of the complications are straight forward (e.g. men drive bigger vehicles which tend to do better in collisions vs other vehicles, but often those bigger vehicles have faster top end speeds if not acceleration than more fuel efficient vehicles favored by the average woman).

Dicing out the effects of insufficient dummy data is going to be hard, particularly as we have seen some pretty radical changes in driving behaviors since we began using the modern crash test. Figuring out what to do to effect change is even more difficult.

'Dicing out the effects of insufficient dummy data is going to be hard'

Well, not having any female/children dummy data for 4 decades makes it remarkably easy to point that the entire lack of data is not due to whatever reasons one wishes to cite about men being sturdier or driving more.

Well, 3 decades, as noted below.

Two germane questions: 1. How do we know that any given air bag will actually deploy in the event of a collision? Well, we can't be sure can we? This means that the US Dept. of Transportation should set up an agency to test every air bag on every car on a regular basis, maybe once a month. Every car should be brought in to a location where the air bags can be tested. If it saves one life, it will be worth it, right? 2. What about our furry domestic friends? Dogs in the passenger compartment of automobiles not only cause accidents, they are frequently the victims as well. Unlike accidents that involve alcohol or drugs, no statistics are kept of incidents where dogs are a factor. But we know that statistically dogs would appear if records were kept. No dogs should be allowed loose in the passenger compartment of a car. Restraining devices, perhaps something similar to those currently required for small children would prevent dogs from distracting drivers and save them for injury or death in the event of accident. Man's best friend deserves better than he's getting now.

#1 Zerohedge just had a piece asking, "What's left to Monetize?"

What Tyler (Durden not Cowen) fails to grasp is the sloth, mendacity and head-shaking stupidity of many of those with money. I salute Evelyn. She's not complacent. Take the rubes for every dime.

#2 False equivalency. They both had seats. Wole wasn't in his. Putting this in a 'respect for elders' context is misplaced. It should be put in 'respect for other peoples' seats'...who has it and who does not.

Her before-and-after pictures indicate she's even figured out how to do this without making the result HGTV-worthy. My "Toy Tamer" moment was when somebody on NextDoor inquired of area folks, who do they recommend to teach their child to ride a bike? And a couple dozen people replied. Yes, there are people offering that service, and people taking them up on it, apparently.

It's a great mystery to me how these people got where they are, financially.

Maybe the person asking simply didn't know how to ride a bike. Or perhaps those kinds of people are responding to incentives, and developing extremely specialized skill sets and ignoring skills that can be offloaded on others for a small payment. Which would explain how they came by their money.

' and not due to (for example) men being physically sturdier than women and therefore more resistant to injury in general'

Men are also bigger, and thus air bag deployment did not break their necks. 'But tucked into the details of the government’s crash test results was another rating that Milito said she never saw, which now has her wondering about her own safety. The front passenger seat on Milito’s Sienna received two out of five stars on the frontal crash test, a fall from the top five-star rating for that seat on the Sienna’s 2010 and older models.

The key difference: Starting with 2011 models, the federal government replaced an average-size male dummy with a smaller female dummy for some tests. When the 2011 Sienna was slammed into a barrier at 35 mph, the female dummy in the front passenger seat registered a 20 to 40 percent risk of being killed or seriously injured, according to the test data. The average for that class of vehicle is 15 percent.'

And oddly, this does sound like something systematic, though not of actually testing the effectiveness of automotive safety systems using anything but exclusively male proportioned equipment - 'Consumer advocates say the female dummy’s subpar performance in some top-selling vehicles reveals a need to better study women and smaller people in collisions. Until recently, only male dummies were used during more than three decades of government testing aimed at helping car buyers choose between vehicles. The female dummy also mimics a 12-year-old child.'

Here is some more information about those male advantages, and why no one apparently thought it necessary to design safety equipment for those less sturdy - 'And by the time this legislation was passed, many women and children had died in airbag-related accidents, often at very low speeds, when the airbag deployment might not have been necessary. A study at the University of Virginia found seatbelts put women at a 47 to 71 percent higher risk of getting seriously injured in an accident than men in a comparable accident. The reason for this discrepancy: Not only are women smaller, placing their chin where an airbag might hit them but also their necks are less muscular, potentially leading to spinal trauma and brain injuries as a result of sudden deployment of an airbag (read more). Asked by ABC News why car makers did not take the female physiology into account when testing vehicles, Dr. David Lawrence, director of the Center for Injury Prevention Policy & Practice at San Diego State University, replied: “Manufacturers and designers used to be all men. It didn't occur to them they should be designing for people unlike themselves”'

Thx for linking to these studies!

According to III (eye-eye-eye), in 2016 37,400 drivers in fatal accidents were male and 11,800 drivers were female. 10.2% of fatal crashes were head-on (first event). It's well known that (especially in head-on crashes) front seat passengers are the SECOND consideration of the driver when avoiding a crash. This entire this seems to me to be click bait. Although maybe in 20 years they can finalize their set of "new" dummies. By that time it'll be irrelevant. Note that the III does NOT confirm that fatal traffic accidents are decreasing 2017 (latest data) was a bad year. People who talk about rates declining or increasing tend to have an agenda. Picking the base point for time series always needs to be clearly justified, and I don't see it here. My question is how many dummies do we need? I doubt if anyone has any idea. Fatal accidents are hard to study, they're (thankfully) way out there on the tails of the distributions. The question I have is how many more people would two dummies protect? If two is better, why not 10? If 10 is better why not 1000? Where do the diminishing returns start? If it really takes 20 years to 'validate' a dummy, then who will care what we're using in 2035 or 2040?

'This entire this seems to me to be click bait'

Could be, but the links above are mainly from around 2011/2012, which is when using female/child dummies, and testing for safety involving anything other than male sizes, became customary.

#4) Given that Tsai has already been elected once as a single, childless woman, one has to question the political wisdom of her opponents in attacking her for being a single, childless woman. Obviously, the Taiwanese electorate as a whole does not share those sexist attitudes.

It's also strange to read the sentence, "The comments reflect a deep-seated misogyny in Taiwanese society that hasn’t dissipated with the election of its first-ever female president." First, Tsai's election doesn't mean that there's no sexism, of course. But, it does show that misogyny is not so "deep-seated", or at least not so widespread, that it prevents Taiwanese from choosing women as leaders. Second, of course the election of a female president would not cause misogyny to "dissipate". Elections *reflect* societal attitudes. Misogyny dissipates *before* the election of a female president, not after.

"Those of us including the cabin crew tried to reason with Bobo Fine to let the old man be"

I cannot imagine this scene playing out as described, with the crew arguing with a man that he shouldn't sit in his assigned seat.

Window seat and isle seat are not interchangeable goods. It's not like the old man was confused and sat in the wrong seat by mistake, or else he would have apologized immediately, instead, he stole the window seat because he preferred it to the isle seat, as evidenced by the argument that he should be allowed to remain in the (superior) seat due to his age-privilage.

Since it's the cabin crew asking, I would tell the airline to offer me a discount to accept a less desirable seat, payable in cash on the spot. If they refuse, then it's the corporation who's the villain, not me.

Failing that, I'd tell them to find some volunteer from all the other window seats. I'd switch to that person's seat, as long as it had the equivalent leg room of the one pictured in the photo, and they'd take the aisle seat next to Nobel Prize guy and be thankful for the privilege. Win-win.

The article played up the issue of respect for elders, but that's an outdated concept. It's like demanding a participation trophy for breathing. You may decide to respect a person instead for their accomplishments, but only if you choose to. If it was a highly accomplished business executive instead, surely no one would criticize a young person for declining a demand to switch seats.

It's not like the guy couldn't afford to book a window seat, anyway. Nobel Prizes come with a huge cash award.

#2 If someone prefers a seat other than the one to which they're assigned they should ask politely rather than just taking.

If they're offering a seat in exchange that is less desirable then ask extra nicely and don't be put off if the answer is no.

In this case however they're offering to take the bulkhead window, the least desirable seat in the cabin. Recognizing that all value is subjective, perhaps what was needed here was simply helping the passenger with the assigned aisle seat understand that the deal being offered made him better off?

I'm confused as to why you think the window seat is inferior. My wife flies frequently for work, and thinks that seat is the best on the plane rear of first class, offering extended leg room, and the window alcove to sleep against, and being forward of the engines, reduced noise compared to the exit rows.

That bulkhead has less legroom, not more legroom, so the window seat is the most cramped and constrained seat in the cabin.

I always prefer window seats to aisle seats. Even if they're next to the bulkhead. In the window seat, no one will disturb me when they get up to go to the restroom. Plus I can look out the window if I wish.

The aisle seats seemingly provides more space, but I'm not a very large person to begin with so I fit fine in a window seat. And some of that extra space is illusory, because in the aisle seat there's a constant risk that I'll get bumped into by the refreshments cart or by clumsy passengers making their way up or down the aisle.

The window seat by the bulkhead does have one potential special disadvantage: with no seat in front of it, all carry-on items have to go into the overhead bins. Just a week ago I was in the bulkhead row (probably my last choice of rows but my original flight had been cancelled so I had to take what I could get on this flight). On that airplane, the overhead bin for that row was unusable because it had flight crew equipment in it. So I had to use the overhead bin for the rows behind mine.

Which can be a pain in the neck when the plane lands and I need to retrieve my items from the bin, if impatient passengers have already started standing in the aisle, blocking my access to the bin.

But I was in the aisle seat, not the window seat so as soon as the "fasten seat belts" light turned off I leapt up and sprinted to the bin (just a 3 yard sprint) and grabbed my stuff before the aisle filled with people. If I'd had the window seat I wouldn't have been able to do that quick dash.

All in all I still prefer the window seat though. My carry on is usually light so if I can't make my way to the bin I can ask someone to grab my bag for me and pass it forward.

2. Wole Syinka in Nigeria is like a William Failkner of the US. If not recognized , OK but if recognized I think quite a few many not mind exchanging Seats and not making a fuss.
Yes, also very much a cultural thing , the w -I-ndow and a-I-sle are different from Window and Aisle , in an "I" culture.

When the young decide they don't respect their elders anymore and are more interested in selfish pursuits, that is the beginning of the end of the culture.

Otoh, it's nice to discover that respect for their elders is part of Nigerian culture. Maybe things don't fall apart after all.

I have always liked the Nigerians, and they know how to party!

Didn't your generation once say "Trust no one over 30"? Reap what you sow.

Your humor detector is broken, or missing.

I don't know about Nigeria, but here in the US we dox the offender and then hound him and his on social media until he's jobless, homeless, and friendless. In China, we just drag him out and shoot him.

All in all, China is a much more civilized place.

#2 - Rights vs privileges? Good to see someone senior prepared to set an example in relinquishing the wrong seat, for someone who is correctly assigned to it. Makes me wonder if Tonye Cole is a nice man to work for, if you are a subordinate?

3) Which is why Export-Import Bank seems like an awkward name choice compared to Import-Export Bank

4. Cry me a river, sweetheart. Your choices in life are part of your person and it's the person who makes the decisions. And the notion that criticizing someone's choices is 'misogyny' is a manifestation of the notion that no woman should ever be held accountable for anything. Get a thicker hide, toots, or get out of public life.

#5: "Things like differences in fat distribution, differences in muscle strength, differences in bony alignment, the pelvis is different. There are just a huge number of things that suggest that females are not smaller males," said Roberts.

That makes sense, but frankly are crash test dummies modeled on human males to the degree of resolution that concerns that actually reflect "differences in bony alignment", "fat distribution", pelvic structure even matter?

As far as I know: Crash test dummies don't have body fat. They don't have bones. They're solid wood or plastic and actually have a pelvic bone.

"Throughout the menstrual cycle, stiffness and joint ranges of motion change," she said, citing one such example. "So there could be a time during the menstrual cycle when a female is more susceptible to injury."

Again, perhaps, but what does this have to do with crash test dummies? They're never really going to model that range of change in a dummy, and don't really account for any changes in male physiognomy over time anyway.

#4: I suppose you can call such attacks sexist if you want. They're not close in the scales to "How can white, straight, male really represent you?", a direct attack based on a characteristic rather than an indirect attack on a life path, but they're something.

I expect that a single male running for political leadership is probably more stigmatized than his female counterpart though.

If a woman is single, there's a degree to which its accepted that it's a women deciding she "don't need no man" and focusing on herself and career (and portrayed as rather admirable), while I suspect that if a man doesn't have a wife and children, there is more stigma about why he "can't" win a woman and why no woman would "choose" him. "Women Who Go Their Own Way" tend to get some degree more respect than male counterparts (some wrong societal bias that women are less likely to be "shitty partners", I guess).

I expect that a single male running for political leadership is probably more stigmatized than his female counterpart though.

Nowadays bachelors are universally assumed to be homosexuals. Liberals despise them for refusing to make a public point of their homosexuality. Starboard types whose heads are still in high school despise them because they'd be low status in a high school setting. Charlie Crist, David Dreier, and Lindsay Graham have all had to put up with scurrilous attacks. Ed Koch got less of that, but was regarded with rage by much of the gay lobby because they thought they should own him and they didn't.

That leaves tock-tick.

I suspect it is a matter of habituation.

I have always wondered why the French seemed unable to grasp that a portable two-way radio was called a "walkie-talkie" not a "talkie-walkie."

2: There is a social benefit to granting certain types of celebrities extra benefit - it encourages others to strive. Forgive my bigotry for believing that this might be more important in Nigeria than in America. Similarly, respect for elders is by and large a good thing. I would have backed off once I became aware he wanted to stay put. I would not back off for Kim Kardashian or any politician.

Having said all that, I definitely would have raised holy hell about this dirt-eater:

4. Is it really sexist? How many unmarried presidents have there been in the history of the US? 2. Would it be sexist to use the lack of marriage or children against a male presidential candidate?

#2 Tyler is flying a kite for when he wants a better seat. "Respected elder economist, etc..."

Comments for this post are closed