@SerialStateLineXer's banner p

SerialStateLineXer


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 25 09:14:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1345

SerialStateLineXer


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 25 09:14:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1345

Verified Email

There's also the odd Hispanic Asian, due to Asians immigrating to Latin America and their descendants to the United States. I don't know of any famous examples off the top of my head, though.

I think there are also some Hispanic Native Americans, which genetically is most of them, but the Census specifically defines Native Americans as indigenous people of the Americas who maintain tribal affiliation, which narrows it down quite a bit.

You know your own situation better than I do, especially given the sparse details you've given here, but are you sure that a short period of unemployment is as bad as you're making it out to be? If you don't have a lifestyle that requires two incomes 100% of the time (which ideally you should not), having a spouse with a steady job gives you the opportunity to take some risks.

Now that you mention it, I'm having trouble finding it now, but I remember reading about some Chinese neighborhood in the US or Canada that ostensibly had a very high poverty rate, but was full of million-dollar houses, the explanation being that there was a ton of tax evasion going on.

indeed asian crime rates are lower than other ethnicities countrywide

Yes, but Asians are also richer than other ethnicities nationwide. What's interesting about New York City is that for some reason they have the highest poverty rate, and still commit the least crime.

Why Asians have such high poverty rates in New York City is an interesting question. I virtually never see this discussed except as a throwaway line in articles promoting the "Model Minority Myth" myth. I suspect that it has something to do with NYC being a destination for Asian immigrants with limited English and technical skills, and possibly some confounding by age (which would be relevant to the crime issue as well), but I'm not sure.

There's also this Random Critical Analysis post.

Also important to note that the correlation between crime and poverty is confounded by personality and cognitive traits. People with low intelligence and poor impulse control tend to commit more crime and not be very employable. That doesn't prove that the poverty causes the crime. So much of what R*dditors "know" about sociology is either just made up, or at best based on low-quality research that fails to account for obvious confounders.

and said "there are stats that look at crime in others countries and they take a steamy shit on the 13/50 stat."

Am I correct in assuming that he was unable or unwilling to produce these stats?

I don't really know anything about strength training, so currently my only goal is to be able to deadlift my body weight (~83 kg) in a few months' time.

This is extremely unambitious, unless you're 155 cm tall and obese. The first day I tried deadlifting, I worked up to a very easy 80 kg (my weight) and did 100 kg for a few sets of five a few days later. That's not bragging; deadlifting your body weight really is that easy.

I'm not sorry at all, but my takeaway from "Injustice Democrats" is that the author has such a facile understanding of economic policy that he simply can't conceive of any reason anyone would oppose the agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party other than hating justice.

To be young and smart and white and male

"Smart" is doing all the heavy lifting there. Holding intelligence constant, white and male is probably the second worst demographic combination you can roll, after Asian and male, but the differences aren't that big, and being smart and born in a rich country is playing life on easy mode for any race/sex combination.

Do they have e-guy bullshit, or does the easy availability of sex to gay men immunize them?

I do think it's best for very old works to be in the public domain just because the marginal impact on incentive to create of the hundredth year if royalties is virtually nil, but I've always kind of rolled my eyes at claims that inability to crib famous character designs is holding back a tsunami of creativity. Who are these people who are so creative but can't come up with their own characters?

I was going to post my analysis, but this guy already did a much more in-depth analysis than I have the patience for:

https://cremieux.substack.com/p/black-economic-progress-after-slavery

TL;DR: As noted in the abstract of the paper itself, the gap appears to be driven almost entirely by state of residence, with southern but not northern blacks having been exposed to Jim Crow (the main analysis is in 1940, and the extended analysis only goes through 2000). There's also likely some selection bias, with more productive slaves being more likely to be freed.

In short, this provides basically zero evidence for the effects of truly exogenous poverty persisting for more than a generation or two once the impoverishing forces are removed.

Specifically, IQ is positively correlated with classical liberalism. As a classical liberal, this doesn't bother me much.

That's a summary report. The full report is like a hundred pages with statistics for over a hundred different causes of death broken down by multiple demographic stats. Here's the report for 2019:

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/106058/cdc_106058_DS1.pdf

The white homicide rate in the US is somewhere around 2.5-3 per 100K

In 2019, the homicide victimization rate for non-Hispanic whites was 2.6. With accounting for asymmetric interracial homicide, the rate of offending was probably under 2.5 per 100k.

Source: CDC, Deaths: Final Data for 2019, table 9. 2020 data should be out by now, but I haven't been able to find it.

Edit: According to the first reference here, Deaths: Final Data for 2020 is still "forthcoming" as of this month. I guess they're busy with COVID stuff?

Some Supreme Court justices are better than others in some abstract sense, but in practice, the main consideration is that the appointee should reliably take the appointing party's side while being creative and erudite enough to avoid looking like too much of a hack while doing it.

In practice, true underrepresentation-as-tiebreaker practices are just not that big a deal for over- or proportionally represented candidates. The reason certain groups are underrepresented in certain positions is that they're underrepresented among qualified applicants, often dramatically. There just aren't that many to compete with, relative to the slots to be filled.

I guess one exception might be US Asians competing against whites, because we outnumber them so much. Tech companies aren't using race as a tiebreaker between Asians and whites, but universities probably are.

The bigger issue, as you say, is the bailey, where "tie" is defined loosely enough for a half-sigma difference to count as a tie.

I looked it up again, and the issue was that in Connecticut, juries cannot award punitive damages, but judges can. In Texas, there's a cap on punitive damages which the judge ignored, so that will likely be challenged.

This is not my area of expertise, but I'd expect that to lead to much larger distances on the right tail.

It does, but I accounted for that. The right tail is longer than expected even when accounting for the fact that it's logistic. Either there's something I'm not understanding about how this works, or someone screwed up somewhere.

The strongest justification for a large award is to recover the ill-gotten gains of Jones.

The state in which the lawsuit occurred explicitly does not allow punitive damages (I can't remember how general this rule is, but it applied to Jones' case), which is why the compensatory damages were so high. As I said at the time, using inflated compensatory damages to circumvent a ban on punitive damages certainly seems legally dubious to me, with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer.

It's not a question of how wide the confidence interval is, but of how much of the interval is greater than 1. For a 95% confidence interval, a one-tailed p of 0.025 should correspond to a CI with an upper (or lower) bound of 1.0. Since the p value is only slightly greater than 0.025, I would expect the upper bound of the CI to be closer to 1.

I checked confidence intervals of hazard ratios for several other published studies and found that the CIs were consistently geometrically symmetrical (i.e. upper/point = point/lower) around the point estimate, but now that I think about it, they all had large samples. I'll have to look into why small sample can result in asymmetric confidence intervals.

In Merck's recent press release for the results of their phase 2 melanoma trial, they said this:

Adjuvant treatment with mRNA-4157/V940 in combination with KEYTRUDA reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 44% (HR=0.56 [95% CI, 0.31-1.08]; one-sided p value=0.0266) compared with KEYTRUDA alone.

Does that confidence interval look wrong to anyone else? It should be geometrically symmetrical around the point estimate, right?

  • 0.56/0.31 = 1.81

  • 1.08/0.56 = 1.93

Even making the most accommodating assumptions about rounding, I can't make the math work out:

0.5649 / 0.3050 * 0.5649 = 1.046

Also, 1.08 is weirdly far from 1 given that the one-tailed p value is only 0.0266. I would expect it to be just barely greater than 1.

On the other side of the spectrum, of course, you have the shit-test case, where you rally behind the most unsympathetic, obviously in-the-wrong person you can find and dare people to call you on it.

This comment awakened ancient memories within me, and I reflexively looked around for a link to a site selling counterfeit handbags or something.

A fat teenage boy tried to sell me a blowjob, and then just grabbed my crotch when he realized that telling me that he gave straight men blowjobs all the time wasn't working. I smacked his hand away and he left me alone. Like you, this freaked me out more than I would have expected it to, but only for the rest of the day or so. I didn't really do anything special to take my mind off it.