CharonY

I just want to point out that the effect of the policy is disputed (and there were other, potentially more effective policies prior to one child. One interesting read: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220170

The other thing to consider is once the nominee was announced, the usual support was given. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/17/more-support-than-oppose-jacksons-supreme-court-nomination-with-many-not-sure/ So fundamentally there was more handwringing at the front (shall we call it virtue signaling or something?) but with very little actual follow-up impact.

While the criticism might be valid, I will have to say that the dat on lockdown effectiveness is a bit limited, and seems fairly region and population specific. Measuring such effects can be challenging, as we do not really have many areas with differing mandates that we could directly compare. It also depends when lockdowns are initiated. Otoh there are also studies that show that given high compliance to health mandates and effective contact tracing, the outcome might better or equal to full lockdowns. But again, what works in one country or city might not work elsewhere. That being said, there are some studies that suggest that early lockdown followed by slow opening can actively reduce infections during the previous wave. Otoh, in the US rapid lockdowns with rapid re-openings were less effective (https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11606-020-06345-5). A study in Italy found that after tight lockdowns transmission were controlled, but less rigid ones did not control movemen sufficiently (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100457). There are other areas which had no lockdowns and no worse outcomes, but such comparisons are very difficult to make as a lot of other factors play into reduction of transmissions. Even just imposing mandates without lockdown can be effective, provided the population takes it seriously. Conversely, and what we see now in many jurisdictions, lifting of mandates regardless of infection levels in a region, sends the signal to the population that more careless interactions are not only allowed, but perhaps even encouraged. Here, we see that the wave is getting prolonged compared to areas where mandates (not even full lockdowns) were implemented. I might also disagree with the use of mortality as the sole endpoint, as it would ignore a lot of studies looking at transmission. However, for public health limiting spread of the disease (which lockdowns and other measures intend to curb) is one of the more critical and actionable measured and one the which most epidemiological papers investigating lockdowns are focused on (rather than the economics ones).

There is something in this thread here which reminds me of MLK's letter from Birmingham jail:

While this is very good info, I fear that in today's world the whole thing already falls apart in the first paragraph. Too often, multiple social media posts are considered independent validation of facts. Also, folks seem to be getting worse at reading longer texts, so even coming up with a single hypothesis is going to be incredibly challenging (unless it is shorter than a tweet). Or maybe I am just getting old(er).

Simply put, I have no solution. Look, I am unable to convince college student that the COVID-19 pandemic is deadly and threat to us all, what chance do I have convincing a bigot that pigments, sexual orientation does not make a person better or worse. But the evidence suggests that trying to bow to these pressures does nothin to fix the underlying problems. Poverty measures in the US which were assumed to lift black folks out of poverty mostly helped white folks. Economics based college admissions allowed more poor white folks to get into unis. Trying not to upset folks did a) nothing to solve problems that need addressing and b) still results in anti-democratic movements. Faced with this choice I'd rather opt for doing the right thing and not worry too much about whether it might upset the majority. Look, my perspective might be a bit different on this issue as I was trained since childhood to traipse around the majority folks and not upset anyone because it will harm social interactions and career prospects. I still had to leave the country I grew up in, in order to get a job. And seeing the young folks now asserting their rights I start questioning whether I made the right choices when I was young.

If history is any indication, that does not work. You have to acknowledge that for quite a sizeable proportion of the population a better way is just the things as they always were. Giving folks equal rights (see certain Eastern European countries and LGBTQ rights for example) is considered an essential threat to the way things were. I am not sure what a "better way" there would be. I am not sure whether you were paying attention, but in the last years America has shown the world that you can threaten democracy by simply denying reality without paying a political price (though to be fair, other countries like Hungary have pioneered that). And this "better" way of democracy is seeping outward. Consider the freedom convoy and their claims regarding the first amendment. In Canada (Manitobans, eh?). Again, folks that assert a critical threat to their identity (e.g. the alt-right movement as seen by their successes in Europe and basically their takeover of the GOP in the USA and tendrils getting into Canada) will always have a stronger ability to shore outrage and even a sense of community. The new thing is really that we managed to abandon facts entirely (rather than playing with it loosely as in the past). There is a lot to unpack there, but I'd rather not hijack it anymore than I've already done. The average voter has the memory of a goldfish and politics treats them as such. That is why we have slogans instead of whole sentences (or even paragraphs). I actually doubt that KBJ is a big wedge issue, it is more of a short-term battleground and could be used to further isolate and marginalize the few remaining moderate Republicans. There are other issues, including the current economy which are going to hurt the Democrats. Meanwhile, shit-stirrers such as JP try to take advantage of such things and try to elevate it to some kind of moral outrage in order to stay relevant.

It does actually. He wants to create enthusiasm among those supporting such choices. So he announces that he is going to fill a position with a black woman and then he does. This is a signal that he is committing to their values rather than having incidentally a black woman on the list. I am not sure where the confusion is. Have you heard of movie trailers? They announce what they are going to show well ahead of time. There is a reason for that. They shore up enthusiasm and try to keep up momentum until the movies shows. Here, Biden can say that he is committed to what he and his voters consider to be right right move and rather than trying to hide it. I think doing it in a conspicuous way in order not to offend the GOP would be seen as a weakness from most of his potential voters. I.e. you need to see politics from the viewpoint of the political system.

Lego technic is pretty good, and it was rather cheap when they sold it at a loss. But if you are interested in Meccano kits, they are still around (they were bought by Canadians, I think?).

While there are ways to engage with racists, appeasing them at every step won't win them over, either. One of the few effective methods is direct engagement but other than that folks generally have their own bubbles either way. Appoint a white man and they would against it for being a liberal. A white woman is a direct attack on masculinity. A black person or any other minority is obviously just a ploy to diminish hard working white folks. However, changing the system and normalizing e.g. black women in places of power at least creates the chance that at some point this state will be normalized. Just as a silly example, in non-diverse groups or universities immigrant often were made fun of of their accents or were just considered too hard to understand to engage. One of the most common things in student evaluations are complaints about accents. Yet the more diverse the setting (i.e. more folks talk with different accents) the more folks are used to that. Do they stop being annoyed by it? Perhaps not, but at some point they put up with it as this is just the way things are now. I.e. changing the norm requires changing the system to some degree up until it becomes normal again.

So, looking at polls among democratic and likely democratic voters the choice was highly popular. I think there is one thing that one needs to understand for the US voting system (and actually to some degree also the Canadian, though a bit less so) is that due to the partisan divide, you do not win elections by getting folks from the other aisle or trying to get the biggest consensus. You win elections by mobilizing folks on your side (if we put the issue of gerrymandering aside for the moment) not by trying to get others to move to your side. I.e. the goal is to combat apathy. The GOP is doing that by creating a visceral response based on fear. Themes like white displacement, LGBTQ agendas, immigrants and economic fears (often tied to the former) are wedge issues that create emotional responses and trigger all the right identity politics boxes that helps getting a higher turnout. Especially in the polarized atmosphere we are right now, trying to stay in the middle and appease those that won't vote for you either way is a ticket out of power.

In that case it seems he is simply just communicating to someone else than you think he should. Basically he is telling progressive as well as black voters that he is fulfilling his campaign promise to them. As all politicians it is an overture to gain their continued support. In the polarized atmosphere I doubt that folks that have an issue with perception would have voted for him in the first place.

It seems a bit like a style over substance argument. Having 100 white men is fine as long as one makes the appearance of not discriminating. Rectifying the situation in a targeted way is bad even if the outcome is fine. Or it could be an argument of equality vs equity. It is fine to give everyone 100$ (equality) but only given poor folks 100$ in order to lessen the difference (equity) is bad, because it discriminates. What is missed in this argument is that the system under which everything operates (i.e. context) results in differential outcomes even with equal input. With regard to the privilege argument, it is not about that life is not hard for e.g. white folks (or whichever group or class are considered privileged). It means that for the exact same person in the exact same situation, swapping out a factor such as skin colour would result in a bit different outcome. You might get a couple of more rejections, if you are black, for example. Or in certain areas you might have a harder time getting an apartment. You might not get into certain school districts. In my case, the schools tried very hard to discourage my parents to put me on a track that would allow me to get university, despite being first in class (Germany has weird tracks which only allow certain pupils to attend university and luckily when I was a school kid recommendations were not binding). As my parents (also immigrants) told me, as an immigrant you have to be perfect to be perceived as adequate. However, a big issue is that come second or third generation, certain folks are more accepted into a given population than others, often because they are less visually distinct (I do feel that this specifically is a bigger issue in Europe than in North America). The culmination of all these factors that could result in a somewhat different and typically worse track is what the term "privilege" tries to convey. No one is asking for shame, but folks are starting to ask to take a look at the system. One crude, but in the long run potentially effective system is to have more diversity in places of power. It is certainly not perfect and will not work everywhere. However, for example in medical sciences, having women on higher boards has helped to highlight the lack of in issues that are not found in men. In the past having male cohorts were considered easier and often standard. Likewise having cohorts with disproportionately non-white individuals could get thrown out by reviewers as non-representative. Now, a higher diversity in the boards has made researchers to think harder in justifying a given cohort. The situation has not really caught up, but at the very least we start to see movement into the right direction. But we still have massive knowledge gaps in even some basic aspects of female biology (especially, but not exclusively when it comes to the endocrine system).

A few years back there was a study by Stoet and Geary (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719 In that report the authors claimed that the in more equal societies women are less likely to choose STEM careers. While there are issues with the overall interpretation of cause and effect, as well as potential of simplification (i.e. narrative vs data) it certainly created quite a buzz. I did not really followed up on it, but came across a few interesting tidbits. Apparently other researchers took a closer look at the numbers and found them to be off. The original authors apparently did some calculations which they did not explain. They issued later a rather lengthy erratum (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797619892892). Other researchers have responded and shown that the identified correlation is not really stable and is highly dependent on measures one uses and which countries are picked. I.e. the data quality is insufficient for the conclusion. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797619872762 This outcome reinforces the issue of how simple narratives are often insufficient to address complex outcomes. Unfortunately public discourse is not well suited to these types of complex (and highly academic) analyses.

Except once the culture of "fit" for a position has been set, folks that are similar to the prevailing composition will continue to be preferred/deemed more competent. This won't go away by simply saying that starting now we will stop discriminating.

Yes opportunities and for Italians an Irish for example have changed, maybe as late as the 20th century. About time we do it for other minorities, no?

I actually I was hoping that we were over the 60s mindset...

So which one would then be a reasonable comparison? Reagan made a campaign promise to appoint the first woman, which he did. He also chose Scalia since he wanted da an Italian-American on the court, thought that was less publicized at that time. Lyndon B Johnson basically groomed Marshall to become the first black supreme court justice (though publicly announcing it at that time as such would have been politically damaging, of course),

So the argument then seems to be that white male judges do not bring the personal experience and potential diversity in experiences to the table that a black female judge would bring.

If a white judge was selected, one could make the inverse argument that the system excludes minority judges. After all a random selection among the majority favours the majority, as evidenced by the non-representative selection of judges over the history of the US. So following that system we would be likely in for either a white male judge, and with a lower likelihood a female white judge.

It is also somewhat interesting that the issue of meritocracy rarely (if at all) gets raised when white men are under consideration.

I think decomposition might not be the correct term, or at least it might be confusing in this context. You might be referring to tissue damage as oppose to decomposition, which refers to breakdown into simpler compounds, typically via microbial activities (and generally also refers to large-scale events, as even in living organisms microbes do kind of decompose stuff, but very localized). With regard to death typically lack of oxygen (rather than lack of nutrients) initiates cell death (often by apoptoptic but also in part via necrotic mechanisms) within minutes. But I do not think that one would talk about decomposition at this point. Edit: crossposted.

Clearly Russia has no other choice but to attack before it happens. If not, it may increase their ability to fend off a Russian invasion.

All you have been doing is using a broad brush. Even ignoring the atrocious and evocative characterization of certain folks, the superficial look at incarceration statistics is an example of using a too broad brush. Generally speaking crime is a relatively rare event which is not randomly distributed in a population. Some of the key factors, especially for violent crimes, where incarceration is more likely, include socioeconomic status and gender. So for these types of comparisons, at least representative cohorts are needed. Other ways to look at it would be to se whether areas or times with high immigration correlate with change in crime trajectories relative to areas which have no or reduced immigration and so on. Most in-depth studies were conducted in the US have clearly shown that the association between immigration and crime is a myth. Longitudinal analyses conclude that first generation immigrants are less likely to enter a crime trajectory, while 2nd generation kind of catch up to their native peers (https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200), undocumented immigrants were less likely to be involved in crime than their legal or native peers (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014704117), a consistent negative association has been found between crime and immigration (https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2016.1261057), a pattern also seen in Canada (https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2019-0015; https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0229) and the UK https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02503002. In other words, once one puts the big brush aside, a finer resolved view emerges that counters the persistent but false narrative of immigrant crimes. What it does tell us that among immigrants the factors that are associated with crime (e.g. low income, gender bias) are likely overrepresented plus potential bias in policing. Also your selection of countries for criminal immigrants is quite interesting considering that the top foreign nationalities are Albanian, Polish, Romanian and Irish. Not saying that mentioning those would be any better, but perhaps there is some discrepancy between perception and reality?

No, your adaptive immune response changes throughout your whole live. It is kind of the point of it, too.