Economist.
Sherrinford
Karma: 1,043
Very helpful, thanks! So I assume the parameter b is what you call starting age?
I ask because I am a bit confused about the following:
If you apply this formula, it seems to me that all posts with karma = 0 should have the same score, that score should be higher than the score of all negative-karma posts and negative-karma posts should get a higher score if they are older.
All karma>0 posts should appear before all karma=0 posts and those should appear before all negative-karma posts.
However, when I expand my list a lot until it íncludes four posts with negative karma (one of them is 1 month old), I still do not see any post with zero karma. (With “enriched” sorting, I found two recent ones with 0 karma.)
Moreover, this kind of sorting seems to give really a lot of power to the first one or two people who vote on a post if their votes can basically let a post disappear?
The source for this is an economics paper using old-school macro techniques to measure the correlation between life expectancy and the unemployment rate.
Note that the policy conclusion of the paper includes “It is worth clarifying that with this claim, we do not want to suggest that policymakers should refrain from ordering lockdowns, as necessary lifesaving measures, but rather that, if they decide to do so, they should provide alongside enhanced health and economic support for the most vulnerable portions of the population.”
Moreover, note that the sentence “Unemployment shock is expected to cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years.” like the whole text you cite seems to suggest a counterfactual of people just continuing their normal work and normal life. While it is surely debatable how effective lockdowns were, their justification was not only saving the lives of old people, but also avoiding an uncontrolled breakdown of the economy; and without a lockdown, many people would probably also have lost their job or stayed home. In some cases, a lockdown ordered by the government may allow more targeted help to those affected.
Is there an explanation somewhere how the recommendations algorithm on the homepage works, i.e. how recency and karma or whatever are combined?
“There probably is an evolutionary adaptation that influences (at least probabilistically) the child’s sex depending on the social situation.”
Hm, if this were the case, I would expect either someone had already found evidence for it, or there were at least some plausible mechanism?
There is a difference between these two problems: aging is possibly solved by regular market forces because people have a willingness to pay for buying a solution for themselves.
Should you have children? A decision framework for a crucial life choice that affects yourself, your child and the world
Yes, it can be this simple, says new paper.
The link does not seem to work.
Gaby, it seems, cannot imagine any reason one might think that children are good or that the country would be better off with more of them. They couldn’t mean what they say about demographic collapse and our dependence on growth. They couldn’t be genuine in their values. It must be a political takeover, or racism.
To understand either Gaby Del Valle’s reaction or your reaction to Gaby Del Valle’s reaction, it would be helpful if you wrote anything about the conference. Judging based on my prior, it is likely that people organizing such a conference are not orthogonal to other general political ideology.
(My datapoint: people promoting more births etc were invited to different podcasts and it was mentioned they had a podcast of their own as well, so I searched that and was surprised that it seemed to be filled with almost cartoonish politics.)
I completed it.
In your opinion, why do kids need such devices to get that independence if kids had that independence before those devices existed?
Are there good and comprehensive evaluations of covid policies? Are there countries who really tried to learn, also for the next pandemic?
Should you have children? All LessWrong posts about the topic
Here was the combined effect
Where do the numbers come from?
Having read something about self-driving cars actually being a thing now, I wonder how the trolley-problem thing (and whatever other ethics problems come up) was solved in the relevant regulation?
Bryan Caplan: Conformity drives a lot of fertility behavior. The main driver of the Baby Boom really was, “Everyone else is having big families; we should, too.”
Is that just a claim or does he provide evidence for that?
Except then we started shaming ‘incorrectly’ having children directly.
We have also continuously raised the bar on what counts as ‘incorrect.’
This is not so obviously correct, or at least the “bar” seems multidimensional. Some decades ago, it was a shame for an unmarried couple to have children, and in particular it was a great shame for a single mother to have children. At least where I live that has changed.
The problem is that the shaming we used to do mostly did have an underlying societal purpose.
This claim would be stronger with some examples.
“Most people who want them all fired would be totally fine paying the extra salaries indefinitely. ”
That is likely wrong, but in any case it’s just a claim and should be phrased like that.
“Stephanie Murray reports that the village thing can still be done, and in particular has pulled off a ‘baby swapping’ system that periodically pools child care so parents can have time for themselves.”
Maybe there is more detail in the linked blog but just from this post it sounds like a reinvention of Kindergarten.
I don’t think so. But where could I check that?