CharonY

Yep, have tried both extremes for mass data storage. As a whole I found swansont's suggestion regarding tags with shallow folder structure most efficient.

Or for users. How likely is it that someone is specifically looking for a discussion on met-ethics but really does not want to encounter social philosophy on the way? Since we are a low activity forum we do not have that many active topics at any given point, so organizing them just to have a proper classification just does not make any sense.

I think there is little argument that both elements are important, though things like policy can mainly only address access whereas self-motivation is more difficult to achieve. However, it is important not to use issues of the latter as an excuse to not address the former. This happens everywhere, and generally speaking I have the feeling that folks are barking up the wrong tree quite a bit. Especially for underprivileged folks the issues start way before college and need addressing. Even simple things like counseling (if done correctly!) during high-school can make an impact. Obviously teacher quality is also immensely important, and I do not think that folks invest enough in areas which clearly need more support.

I think for exams that is for the most part not a huge issue. Typically there are so many that you do not spend a lot time looking at their names and in quite a few systems student IDs are used. It is getting trickier when it comes to say, admission in the first place but also later on for graduate student selection. But again, the socioeconomic issues do have other costs, too which can affect performance. After entry to college it might be too late to do anything, so measures have to be taken before that.

Sure, my point is that it is not an either or situation. And even worse, bad life situation can make it more difficult to put in an effort (or one could argue that it would mean that one would need to put disproportionate amount of effort which may or may not be possible). As such it is difficult to disentangle, unless some of the barriers are removed. I.e. if you compare attitudes among folks with similar standing. Not only that, but also because of overcriminalization. I.e. stronger and more frequent persecution for similar offenses than their white counter-parts. That being said while still disproportionate, there are more families with a black father than without out there.

I doubt that in order to study ethics one needs to be an ethical person. For the same way as studying infections does not require you to be infected. I have been a first generation immigrant in a few countries now (and the first time being a kid myself). As such I would like to try to add to your experience a bit. First, the salary situation has changed. While your (and my parents) were able to work themselves out of poverty, it is now quite a bit more difficult. Second, for folks that have been subjected to economic penalties (which includes African Americans, but also indigenous folks whom there were additional barriers, such as simple things such as getting housing) also are still catching up. It is pretty well documented that there is quite a bit of a difference between immigrants depending on when they immigrated (and where from). This is also the reason why e.g. African immigrants outperform African Americans as well as white folks in the US, for example. Many recent immigrants start off with a higher education level and are able to obtain bachelors with a higher frequency. However, that is not true for all immigration waves (there are a few studies looking at performance based on subgroups, which quite critically dissects the myth of overperforming Asian communities for example). The second and third generation issue is real, but you might be missing the reason. First generation immigrants expect that they need to work harder than their counterparts. However, kids being born into the system do not have any other perspective rather than being, say, Canadian or US American. But if they are still treated as immigrants, it causes a certain amount of disenfranchisement. I.e. they do not understand that they still need to outperform in order to be seen as equals. That can lead to downward spirals in performance. That all being said, I still do see a higher rate of entitlement among non-immigrant kids (though nowadays rich second or third generation immigrants are pretty close, so there might be some equalization...).

I am not sure they are the worst (though in some ways they may be), but growing up in an area where you have underfunded schools and little career encouragement has been shown to be a big hindrance. Especially in working class areas there is often the base assumption that the kids will not go on to higher education. Even if there is interest, the quality of the high school has been shown to be a determining factor in entering higher education. Often, students in poorer school areas are underprepared, may never of hardly had any access to computers or the internet etc. Even overcoming these issues there is of course the cost of higher education in many systems (such as UK or NA) is prohibitive for many (which feeds back into the thought process for lower-income folks who just do not expect to be able to afford it to begin with). Even after getting university there are additional hardship for low-income folks which especially now has become quite apparent. Some cannot afford a laptop or stable internet, for example. I think that if especially affluent folks which all the benefits fail, it is more likely on them. However, for the others, there are clearly barriers that they need to overcome and they are not always well prepared for it. That all being said, an inquisitive mind with willingness to learn is clearly an important element. At the same time, I do understand that this in itself is a luxury that not everyone can afford.

Indeed. There are plenty of examples where folks used bad science to justify their actions and policies. In either case unquestioning adherence can become a bit issue. Of course, most would say that science is about questioning things, which in principle is true. However, the reality is that many do not put in the time and effort, especially if what is being said conforms with their preconceived notions.

Yeah, stupid bylaws here, too. Based on weather patterns there is going to be an uptick of ehm ticks. Unless one is already in a highly tick infested zone, not sure whether the numbers are projected to increase even further. But yet another reservoir for diseases.

Unless, of course it turns out that we actually to develop new ways to deal with resistant bacteria and/or they become resistant against the new weapons, too. Often it is not about having better and newer tools, but how prudent we are in their use. And unfortunately our track record is not that great.

Time to let out the chicken and ducks. And potentially opossums? But seriously though, tick-borne diseases are likely to become an increasing problem with potentially very serious consequences.

A part of the issue is that folks thinking that they are in the right tend to make intellectual shortcuts. In the early 2000s I was somewhat interested in various atheist movements, in part because I was worried about rising anti-intellectualism and creationism. But apparently once enough folks gather things go quickly to a self-congratulating group of folks who cannot stop emphasizing how rational and therefore superior they are (without actually putting in the work). There were plenty of folks, including academics who did a great job in outreach and educating. But some of their followers were sketchy and did not put in the intellectual work before succumbing to insufferable smugness (the result being attitudes that are way closer to religious organizations than folks would admit) .

! Moderator Note Merged similar topics.

It is not that bad (yet). In phase III a lot of folks are treated so it increases the risk that someone has an adverse reaction which might or might not be related to the treatment (e.g. an undiagnosed diseases). However as part of phaseIII it is necessary to make sure that they are indeed unrelated to the vaccine before they can continue.

The issue with a wildly speculative mind is that basically everything will reinforce the assumptions. This is how conspiracy theories thrive, evidence against it are evidence of the conspiracy itself and evidence for it is self-evident. The speculations are untethered from fact and reality which basically makes it impossible to address it.

On the other hand, giving them a platform legitimizes them. Lose-lose.

There are a lot of good articles about that. Essentially it is a social media phenomenon that started on 4chan. An overview without paywall is here, for example. I try very hard not to read the actual content of these conspiracy, I fear for my neurons.

There are also structural differences- there was a prominent case in the US when a police officer tried to talk down an suicidal person who was carrying a gun (but without ammunition). Other officers ultimately shot the man but the office who tried to de-escalate was branded a coward and ultimately terminated.

I think that is an important distinction. From what I have seen armed police in the UK usually engage in situations which go beyond situations where deadly force by police are considered justified in the US. There appears a large gap between what is considered a threat in the UK vs in NA.

I think it is a very good model and evidence suggest that, too. Some of the issues is that the departments and their leadership are too entrenched into their ways and often trying to change it is difficult to impossible. Also trying to change a mindset of folks who are used to an adversarial mindset to do proper community policing is also somewhat unlikely. Studies suggest that one of the impediment is resisting police culture. Sometimes it is necessary to change the whole thing and often the change has to come from the outside.

No, you are reading too much into semantics. You could instead they they were designed as such. Which means that their internal mechanisms reflect their purpose. It is not that the police works in an innocent vacuum and are only doing someones bidding. And I think this is where the our differences in view appear. You seem to think of the police force as something is something reactive, and if things go wrong it is due to failures of a few individuals on either side of the matter. This view does not acknowledge systemic issues within the system were a combination of police, lawmakers and of course big swathes of the populations itself have created a system where deadly force by the police and especially against certain groups (outcasts of society, poor folks, and minorities) are kind of accepted targets. Again, while in other countries the police may not be perfect and have other issues, they lack certain elements that are apparently part of the North American system, which leads to rather dramatic differences in outcome. Or in short, the difference between systemic issues of the system vs individual responsibility. I should probably add that in recent times there are police agencies actively trying to change, including changing accountability rules. The Camden police department was one of the models where the whole department was disbanded, due to corruption, accusations of police planting evidence, and a deluge of complaints. At the same time Camden saw huge crime rates. Crimes went uderreported as the the black residents were afraid of the police. After disbanding the whole police force and building it from the ground up and starting a community-oriented policing, crime rates dropped, they hired more black officers (as Camden was a mostly black community) and so on. So here a radical rebuild was an effective measure to root out the system that has been set up in the former Camden police force.

Here is the thing, you have to wonder why. And the reason as has pointed out is that historically the police has been used to subjugate certain groups. It is small wonder that these groups do not accept them as valid authorities. It is not a problem just now. It is only that now finally white folks are also starting to understand the issue on a broader scale than it used to be. You cannot just look at the point of impact and decide whether the process works. You have to look at the whole mechanism and figure out why the observed impact happened in the first place. Because if you don't all you are going to conclude is that the plane was too fast and the ground too solid.

Perhaps, but not for market. It is special approval track (from what I understand) for emergency military use with a time limitation.

Actually basically all are going through the phases (but accelerated) and at least AFAIK I have not seen anyone beside Russia registering a vaccine before phase 3 data have been published. In fact, even the Phase 1 and 2 data has not been published, which is especially worrying as they did a combined Phase 1 and 2 trial with only 38 volunteers. That is roughly the scope of Phase 1 from virtually all other developers. They now have declared that they want to start Phase 3, but again with much fewer folks than the other trials. As a whole, I would not put a lot of money into this particular vaccine (after all, they manufacturer apparently did not, either).

That is a salient question. Too often it is pointed out that someone did something that prompted to police to a presumably justified shooting. However, especially as someone who grew up with a different type police, I have to wonder what are the steps leading up to the fatal interaction, and why does it not happen that often in most European countries? Why is an interaction with a drunk and belligerent more likely to end in death in the US (or Canada, for that matter). One part could be police training, but is it really all? I found it befuddling when talking to my US colleagues and friends that they think that if you do not immediately follow police orders or if you startle them somehow, you risk being shot. And again, for someone growing up elsewhere this is just mind boggling.