slightly more weight per vote

Wyoming citizens count three times as much as California citizens

Also, he was suspended in July 2021, so the consequences were pretty quick, and only the final nail in the coffin was delayed.

Sisyphean Effort is actually a thing

omg Toad, you can’t just ask people why they’re purple!

The short answer is being admitted by the bar; we already trust them to certify humans.

If for some reason I were arbiter, I would say a convincing record of doing actual legal work, vetted by existing lawyers. The legal profession already has a well-defined model of how non-lawyers can contribute to the work, so there is no need for a quantum leap up to being a lawyer.

3. The bar exam is just one part of a larger set of qualifications
4. The bar exam is just a (closed-book) proxy for the actual skills and knowledge being tested. While a reasonable proxy for humans, it is a poor proxy for computers

Is this p-hacking?

“Journal”, “it’s”, and “because” are all mispelled in the original.

Nah, that’s another cut up with very little of the interview

Here is the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk

If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.

Surprised not to see any posts referencing the Arbitrary List of Popular Lights or !flashlight@lemmy.world.

One of the requirements to make it on the list is:

A user interface where a single click turns the light on in a reasonable mode, and another single click turns it off.

I absolutely understand the anger at the Democratic party. I mention several useful activities to work toward fixing its many failings. The Republican party is strictly worse. Giving equal support to both is counterproductive.

Yes, that is precisely what I was attempting to say. Thanks

The problem is there isn’t anything “useful” for understanding humans [in evolutionary psychology]. Yes we can come up with plausible evolutionary justifications for behavior like cooperation, but they are basically untestable and useless for predictions.

Edited to clarify I mean specifically evolutionary psychology.

This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren’t being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote “no preference”, that does not communicate “I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left”, either logically or politically.

There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.

Perhaps not every disability benefit is, but Social Security Disability Insurance and State Disability Insurance certainly are.

Four minutes for a cup of coffee? Yesterday it was three!

I think the “correct” usage of acronym is only when it is spoken as a word. But language evolves and all that.

You can see the tension in the way MW defines it (including the extended description). Like: here’s the definition of the word, but some people use it when they actually mean initialism. This is in contrast to your more concise and cohesive definition of “[abbreviations] that take the first letter from each word”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acronym

It hard to see this as anything other than a bad faith comparison.

1. It compares trans-oceanic LNG vs. US domestic coal
2. It makes a lot of assumptions about inefficient and leaky extraction, processing, and transport approaches
3. It only considers CO2 and methane ignoring other ways that LNG is far cleaner than coal

It is important to consider the entire life cycle of LNG, but a more even-handed author would conclude we should address these inefficiencies (e.g. via regulation), rather than fixating on promoting coal.

Direct link to paper: https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934