If you're making $600k, then assuming <50% total taxes, 10% charitable donations, and <$100k living expenses, it will take you about two years to save enough of a down payment that you can buy a $2M house according to that table.
The article is a bit vague, but I'd bet that he was just responding to a reporter directly asking him whether this should happen. If so, then he may not really be making an issue of it, may not be planning to take any active steps toward it, etc.
I don't know if I've encountered that mistake, but I would guess that it's a typo, copy/paste error, or editing error, rather than someone genuinely believing that you can combine any digit with any suffix.
Not sure if this is part of the joke, but by many (most?) estimates, Shiites are actually a majority in Iraq.
What would he have done if this *hadn't* worked?
No need to apologize; different perspectives are part of what makes life interesting!
I think it's also wrong from a Bayesian standpoint, because it ignores your priors. Suppose a high-powered study finds a narrow 95% CI for μ, and then a low-powered study finds a wider one. The latter doesn't make it less likely that μ is in the first 95% CI. (Right?)
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but the tweet on the left is not really praising Candace Owens: it's saying she's the best at "spread[ing] crazy conspiracy theories", which even Jeet Heer surely realizes is a *bad* thing!
Yeah, definitely. But even people with normal amounts of money usually choose to keep most of it rather than, say, saving lives of desperately poor people. That's why we need taxes and a welfare state, instead of relying on everyone giving charity (and judging most people for not giving more).
A billion dollars is a lot of money — like, a lot a lot — but it's a small fraction of even a single state's budget for even a single year. If a problem is devastating but unsolved, that may mean that a one-off billion-dollar expenditure isn't enough to solve it.
If it helps, Neal Whitman wrote about it in 2010: literalminded.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/p... . He didn't trace the history, but he mentioned having noticed it on "Dora the Explorer" almost ten years earlier.
Suppose that, instead of Purim and Netanyahu, it was about Kwanzaa and an African leader, or Ramadan and a Muslim leader. No other changes. Would you recognize those versions as insanely bigoted? If so, then, can you explain why you see this as different?
That's not what he's saying, either. Is your reading comprehension really this bad?
That's not the argument he's making; I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Do you genuinely not know anything about the history of the conflict?
Not me!
And maybe not anyone? There's a lot of evidence that people can't actually multitask even if they think they can, and even though they have a lot of practice [not] doing it; and what you're describing seems even harder than normal multitasking.
I'd speculate that different people have different levels of inside knowledge, and some people on the losing side of the bet are people who thought they were the ones exploiting inside knowledge.
I need those pauses even when reading just one book!
This is really cool!
It's amazing how much we can compensate for, and it's weird how quickly everything falls apart once it's even a little bit past that.
What I've never understood is — even the softest-brained bro-man has friends and loved ones who aren't. Why would he want to live, and want them to live, in the world Republicans want?
Humans are also fundamentally incapable of not "hallucinating" (in the sense that we mean when we talk about AI). We cut each other slack, because we're sentient and empathetic creatures; but we shouldn't fool ourselves that that's what we're doing.
Humans also make mistakes. All the time. There's no reason to assume that AI mistakes will always be so much more frequent, and/or so much worse, as to prevent widespread adoption.
It took time for digital everything to match/beat paper in terms of durability, uptime, compatibility, etc. It's not like it was better from day one.
The same may well turn out to be true of AI.
Has he ever argued that Trumpism isn't fascism? He himself calls Trump fascist; his point is just that we're not living under fascism.
BTW, creating an alt to evade a block is immature. No one owes you interaction.
www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...
My brother-in-law's mother once gave us some blueberries from a local farm, and I've been chasing that high ever since.
Even with drug abuse, I'm not sure that "moral condemnation" is an effective strategy. AIUI, it's recommended for people who care about the person to explain how the drug abuse is affecting *them*. Public condemnation on Bluesky probably fails every part of that.
Re: "letting it fly to be nice to everyone else just lets him off the hook": Even if of we accept that premise, it is better that one guilty person go unmocked than that a hundred million innocent catch strays.
Oh, definitely. I absolutely agree with rahaeli's initial thread; it's just the Kirby frame stuff that goes off the rails.
(I mean, if people *want* to use that frame then fine, whatever. But Moser wants us to think it's the *only* frame, when honestly it's not even a particularly good one.)
No, that is not what any of that means. Maybe that's the series of misunderstandings that motivated the Kirby frame, in which case it's an interesting bit of anthropology; but it's a bad approach to persuasion, and there's certainly no reason to reject the alternatives.
I read a few. AFAICT they all make the same bad assumptions (that we can only make one argument, and that anyone who doesn't already agree with us must be a bad-faith troll) and reach the same bad conclusion (that we should never dispute lies, only impugn motives).
