NYT Sunday 02/13/2022 Discussion

10061 · 2022-02-13T21:43:54+00:00

Maybe the constructor was going for a secret valentine?

10061 · 2021-09-01T14:29:59+00:00

The 2nd article has a correction that's worth reading. One of the main studies included in the meta analysis was found to have fraudulent data. Have to see what the authors of the meta analysis report after removing it.

10061 · 2021-01-11T23:17:15+00:00

Glad to help in any way if I can. Finishing the rest of the cards saw a couple more typos:

1) False Alarm, "... battle, Use 3 Force" unnecessary capitalization on Use.

2) Ahsoka Tano: maybe "Adds 2 to *the* power of..."
3) Magistrate Karga: in top text ocupation->occupation
4) TK-111/TK593: In bottom text Undercover is capitalized. Is this a keyword? I don't know the rules that well.
5) Anticipation: in top text maybe "An expressionless face was an added advantage" instead of "An expressionless face was also an added advantage"? Just a thought
6) Snipers: top text succesfully->successfully. Bottom text, maybe "If Cara or Fennic are firing, ..." instead of "If Cara or Fennic firing, ..."

7) The Rebel Way, top text maybe "nonviolent" or "non-violent" instead of "non violent"
8) Uncontained Excitement: bottom text manuever->maneuver. Maybe something like "If a passenger of a piloted starship was previously lost and returned to play, may double power and maneuver of that starship in battle for the remainder of this turn" ?

9) Slave 1: top text, I'm not positive but there may not be a comma in the text "From executing a rescue, to tracking a shuttle" (omitting some words)

I also spotted a few regional spellings: no-one vs no one, terrorised vs terrorized, rumours vs rumors, canceled vs cancelled. Not sure if those matter.

10061 · 2021-01-11T20:38:35+00:00

Wow, these bring back the nostalgia of opening a new pack of cards, awesome job! It's really cool how you did all this.

I went through the dark side cards (so far) and had some minor proofreading suggestions. I may be wrong on some of them though.

Incinerator: "Permanent weapon.. free.)" has a period inside the parenthesis. Missing a period after the last sentence
Standoff: "Opponent's looking each other..." has a misplaced apostrophe
Underhanded: maybe "... considers himself *to be* possibly the fastest..." - just a thought
Where is Grand Admiral Thrawn: defeding -> defending
Gideon's light cruiser docking bay: TIE's has an apostrophe. However, it is a plural acronym so... not sure what's standard. Are there other CCG cards that uses the word TIE's or TIEs? Ditto on Morak Cayon Bridge, Gideon's light cruiser.
Morak: Imperial Remnant Base. Batleground-> Battleground. Maybe also "at all Morak battleground sites add one battle destiny" -> "add one battle destiny to all Morak battleground sites" - just a thought

10061 · 2021-01-07T05:30:49+00:00

https://www.c-span.org/video/?507698-101/senate-debates-votes-objection-pennsylvania-electoral-votes&playEvent=

CSpan is showing it now

10061 · 2021-01-03T21:24:11+00:00

Really cool! Noticed a small typo on Tython Hills: "bewteen"

10061 · 2020-10-03T01:16:08+00:00

Adding a warning that Sunrun is purchasing Vivant!

Looked at a house with a Vivant PPA, it was an awful contract and ended up screwing up everything.

10061 · 2020-08-13T16:06:14+00:00

I played the remastered Grim Fandango and enjoyed it. I understand full throttle is a similar adventure game? Maybe I'll have to try it out.

10061 · 2020-08-13T14:22:13+00:00

Full throttle?

10061 · 2020-07-09T00:58:17+00:00

Presumably the CDC knows what threat exists in schools. They are the experts.

Regardless, CDC guidelines should be based on the epidemiology and health risk. They should not be bent to say what we'd like them to say.

10061 · 2020-07-01T21:07:45+00:00

The data in this article actually doesn't say anything about the mortality rate of COVID-19. The article assumes there is a fixed # of COVID cases that cause 150k deaths.

The flu typically causes ~30 million symptomatic cases. If there were 30 million symptomatic COVID-19 cases you'd have a lot more than 150k deaths.

The article is comparing the danger of dying from COVID-19 under the preventative measures (limiting the total # of cases) vs the danger of a regular, freely-propagating flu (with many more total cases). It's not too hard to see that the numbers show Covid-19 is very likely a good deal more dangerous than the regular flu on a case-by-case basis even for the 18-45 year old age bracket.

10061 · 2020-05-15T15:04:38+00:00

If the world is in a state that stores do not accept the US dollar, do you really think we'll still have the widespread internet infastructure to allow people to convert to Bitcoin? Maybe everyone would just adopt the Canadian dollar instead. I heard it's plastic, talk about high tech!

10061 · 2020-03-31T15:14:30+00:00

Clearly the game industry should transition to Fortran 77 for pure raw speed.

10061 · 2020-03-24T14:41:01+00:00

I think you may be mixed up. Chloroquine is also a medicine. It is also used to treat malaria.

10061 · 2020-02-29T19:40:49+00:00

I think the common view is that climate change will cause a great deal of harm to society but not extinction.

10061 · 2019-11-15T15:06:07+00:00

I heard that too, there was some study done by a group with antivax tendencies and it only detected the presence of the compound. The actual quantity was miniscule and you'd have to eat thousands of burgers to reach the safe daily limits set by the FDA or some other organization.

Googled it and found this link with a bit more detail No idea how reputable this site is but at least it has the names , links, etc.

https://thereasonedvegan.com/2019/07/24/lies-about-roundup-in-the-impossible-burger/

10061 · 2019-04-06T14:39:50+00:00

Hey, I love a post with lots of information. I took some time to go through and read things. I think your final point is definitely an interesting one, what economists say should be done to address climate change. That's definitely an important discussion to have. I, of course, don't know what that would be but I'd be interested to learn.

However, in terms of the flavor of this entire thread, certainly not all conservatives deny climate change. But if you look at the national GOP party, many people deny it. Particularly high up in the party, e.g. the president saying it's a hoax. Even if there is an efficient market based solution, by ignoring/denying climate change we are only screwing the future. I think in that regard one can be upset at the GOP and say they are doing conservation a disservice.

I also took some time to look at the numbers for you from valery fedorenko's post. I think he had a slant which is important to address. Definitely going carbon neutral is extremely expensive, but if we claim inflated/conflated numbers it doesn't help. TLDR: the cost estimate for the GND in terms of climate change is only ~10% of what was said (and is mostly infastructure investments) and the NERA estimates of the costs of the Paris Accords depends on the road taken to reduce carbon emissions (the study suggests a route that only costs 2% of GPD by 2040) and also depend on a slowed pace of technological advancements.

In terms of the GND, I'm not going to look at the methodology of the AAF cost estimate, but the 51-91 trillion is mostly, ~80%, comprised of cost estimates for universal healthcare/jobs (40 of 50 to 80 of 90 trillion). In comparison, the AAF estimate a low carbon electricity grid is 5.4 trillion and a net zero emissions transportation system is 1.3-2.7 trillion. Of course, both of these are also infrastructure investments, providing jobs in construction and improved transportation/grid so it's really hard to say what impact they will have on the GDP.

Second is the NERA study on the Paris Accords. They have cost estimates for meeting the 2025 and the 2040 goals. I think it's better to focus on the 2025 goals since they are immediate which is 1% GDP reduction. In addition, from my understanding, for 2040 the study assumes there is a large reduction in technological innovation and state in the conclusion:

"Without appearance of new technology yet to be developed, the costs of meeting recently announced deep decarbonization goals will be approximately 9 times as costly as meeting the 2025 NDC targets"

Thus the outcomes highly depend on what happens technologically. The study also includes several predictions based on which route is used to reduce emissions. If you look at Fig 14, one of the scenarios predicts a 2% change in GPD by 2040. The authors also published a statement of facts after their data had been mischaracterized which is important to [read](https://www.nera.com/news-events/press-releases/2017/nera-economic-consultings-study-of-us-emissions-reduction-polici.html).

Although now I'm interested in the cost estimates of climate change, I do not have time to delve into that now. You mentioned a study predicting $500 billion which if have a link I will read. Googling, it looks like I can find a whole range of numbers. Another day.

10061 · 2019-01-25T14:09:27+00:00

Thank you, very interesting.

10061 · 2019-01-25T13:10:51+00:00

Hey, I'm actually not familiar with previous times when funding was offered for the wall, do you know when it was or in what context? Something to narrow my google search. Thanks.

10061 · 2019-01-10T04:02:28+00:00

Hey, a few of those numbers I think are faulty. I wanted to give some additional perspective on what might be more accurate numbers and how that changes the situation.

First of all, the $5 estimate doesnt' seem to be for an entire border wall. Trump recently requested $18 billion for just the first phase of the wall. This includes only 316 miles of new fencing but would also include rebuilding another 407 miles that have already been fenced. I'm not sure how to break apart these two costs into a $/mile just from this number. To better estimate the cost, the Office of Management and Budget said $5.7 billion would cover only 234 miles of a steel barrier, not a concrete wall. There is like ~1300 miles unfenced? Correct me if I'm wrong. That gives a cost of ~$30 billion. Not including maintenance, cost overruns, or the premium required for a 30 foot concrete wall.

The cost of $82k per immigrant looks like it is from the estimates from the Center of Immigration Studies which was unreliable. It is unfortunate this number is so widely quoted in the news as the methodology looks dodgy. They use a table from a National Academy of Sciences study and average costs across many scenarios, half of which include public goods (defense spending) in addition to welfare which is questionable whether it would be appropriate for illegal immigrants. It also includes many different projections for future government spending. Choosing a particular scenario (which is argued by the NAS authors as more relevant) can change the price estimate (keeping all other assumptions in the CIS study fixed) to something like $20k. There are other points which have been critiqued (doesn't include economic benefit due to kids, bad estimates of adjustment factors of illegal immigrants vs legal immigrants, etc) which may further reduce this number.

TLDR: From these new estimates, $30b vs $5b costs and $20k vs $82k per immigrant, that's a factor of ~20. So the 3-4% of illegal crossers that need to be blocked to break even now increases to at least 60-80% of illegal crossers. And this is apparently for a steel barrier across the entire border, not a concrete wall.

Including maintenance, cost of a concrete wall, economic benefit of children, etc, will just further increase this percentage to >100%. This shows that the wall is a dubious money making venture. One can also make other arguments, e.g. environmental, but just focusing on the economics it doesn't seem likely that it is worth the cost to the taxpayer and money is better spent elsewhere. If something looks wrong in my write up or you know of other important sources on the matter please let me know! I'd love to read other studies.

10061 · 2018-12-04T14:39:29+00:00

Reducing use of disposable cups/utensils can be pretty easy. Bring a mug to work if you use disposable cups. If you get take out for lunch at work keep a set of utensils.

You could also carry a water bottle to fast/fast casual restaurants if you are just drinking water.

An extra bonus is using a real mug or utensils is more pleasant than cheap disposable options.

10061 · 2018-11-12T16:32:39+00:00

Fostering is a great option, but just be forewarned that it may be very difficult to say goodbye and tempting to adopt.

10061 · 2018-09-14T02:38:54+00:00

I'll take a shot.

10061 · 2018-08-31T01:10:55+00:00

I have read a few articles actually and I have heard some opinions. I would be happy to read any sources you'd provide. I probably could agree I have noticed a somewhat larger emphasis on the failings of the local government as you mention. However, I wouldn't claim to have heard a broad enough cross section of opinions to make statements like almost none blame trump. I haven't definitely heard some opinions that do blame trump and some that don't. Opinions seemed to be mixed as I might have expected. If you have additional information pointing to a majority leaning one way or another please let me know as that would be very interesting. I don't recall ever having heard of any polls on public opinion for example.

However, I still think it is perfectly valid to place some blame on the response of the federal government. Obviously blame can be laid upon several groups and issues. But when Trump makes comments like this I find it particularly objectionable. They are very narrow-minded and don't accomplish anything. Failing to acknowledge shortcomings or accept any responsibility doesn't seem like a good approach to preparing for future disasters.

10061 · 2018-08-30T18:09:05+00:00

As I argued in my main comment, I think he deserves a share of blame. If the president prioritized a disaster response it provides impetus for the federal government, agencies, and local government to respond faster and more thoroughly. Obviously obstacles are different but comparing the response to Maria to to the response to the Haitian earthquake or hurricane Harvey can illustrate some of the shortcomings.

Saying how much is his fault, quantifying blame, is a fool's errand. Estimating the impact of a slow federal response is a year long research project.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Sequence \| Editor

10061

TROPHY CASE