ravenaspiring

joined 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 107 points 19 hours ago (14 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago

Listen to the first half of this podcast as Chenoweth explains what the cavets are to this rule. She describes it more of as a descriptive rule not prescriptive rule, and suggests many other circumstances going on in addition to achieving this rule. Further régimes have adapted to this rule since it was first discovered and she's still truing to see what that adaptation means.

You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth

Episode webpage: https://youarenotsosmart.com/

Media file: https://stitcher.simplecastaudio.com/aa9f2648-25e9-472a-af42-4e5017da38cf/episodes/2512fbaa-aa0a-406c-9829-7c1d58ff70d6/audio/128/default.mp3

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence — measured by how often she is on the winning side — is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.

Overall, her assumption of the seat once held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved the court’s outcomes dramatically to the right and locked in conservative victories on gun rights, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies. But in Trump-related disputes, she is the member of the supermajority who has sided with him the least.

So not what they wanted, but not RBG. Still to much authoritarianism for me from the SCOTUS.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Fascinating idea and I look forward to reading the book. As someone who has never seen protests be that effective as compared to other constituency pressure mechanisms, it's an interesting counter point.

The OP's article indicates 3.5% of the population, which for the US at the moment would be around 340 million. 3.5% would be 11.9 million people.

Rough guesses are that the protest saw about 4-6 million people out yesterday.

I'm particularly curious about the paper's coalition building concepts about tying immigration to other value such as worker rights, private sector interests such as agriculture, racial justice, etc.

Beyond this I wonder if the analysis from ten years ago takes into account the technological isolation, manipulation, and echo chambering of modern politics. I would venture to guess that the 3.5% might need to be higher in a population that doesn't listen to 'untrusted opinions'.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Write at rite, right?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Hugging face is repository and Machine learning hub. https://huggingface.co/huggingface

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I love this fact, and am curious where you learned it?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Where is the statistics button in the current iOS?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago

This Week in Virology talks a bit about this at the 10min mark TWiV 1214: Clinical update with Dr. Daniel Griffin

Episode webpage: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1214/

Media file: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/twiv/TWiV1214.mp3?dest-id=25528

Also worth bookmarking the CDC summary... For as long as it's up. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/index.html

 

President Donald Trump’s administration is moving to sever the link between academia and government by freezing billions of dollars in federal grants to top research institutions. This act may score political points among those accustomed to understanding academia as a left-leaning “ivory tower” insulated from ordinary Americans and private enterprise. But it reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of how the United States became militarily and commercially dominant in the first place. Research universities have long undergirded, in particular, the country’s national security through defense research, and they continue to train the pipeline of talent that powers both government and industry. Practically speaking, cutting their support does not represent a principled political stance—it is a friendly-fire assault on U.S. national security. ...

Universities, for their part, converted U.S. taxpayers’ dollars into innovations that made the country prosper. Nowhere was this more evident than at Stanford, where federal defense contracts and research funding supported a culture of innovation that helped create Silicon Valley. Faculty members such as Frederick Terman, who aggressively expanded the university’s statistics and engineering departments to win more Defense Department grants, encouraged students to commercialize their research, enabling the founding of companies such as Hewlett-Packard and Fairchild Semiconductor that would become cornerstones of the computing revolution.

While many other countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, continued to direct government funding for scientific research mainly toward government labs, the United States built a decentralized research system anchored in its universities. This decentralized system not only accelerated technological progress but also helped defense-related innovations flow into private commerce, giving U.S. industry a clear edge that the Soviet Union struggled to match, despite its extensive investments in technical education. By the end of the twentieth century, this system of federally funded university research had become the backbone of the United States’ global leadership.

 

A nationwide power outage hit Spain and Portugal on Monday, leaving millions without electricity. Reports indicate issues with the European electric grid.

view more: next ›