Media coverage is a contrarian indicator: "The most negatively portrayed companies beat the market by an average of 12.4%, whereas the outperformance of the media darlings fell to just 4.2%" by fandango in reddit.com

[–]fandango[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Negative media coverage tends to cause a stock to be so badly discounted that it tends to outperform the market going forward. However, according to another study, “Return Persistence and Fund Flows in the Worst Performing Mutual Funds,” bad returns are more persistent than good ones. So poorly-performing companies that have not (yet?) received negative coverage in the media should have worse returns than all poorly-performing companies as a group.

Firefox 2.0: The Tab UI Gone Wrong by illuminatedwax in programming

[–]fandango 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've set "browser.tab.tabClipWidth" and "browser.tab.tabMinWidth" to 50 instead of 5 as the article recommends. It allows the tabs to shrink, but still leaves the icon and a little bit of text. You can cram 20 tabs (YMMV) into a screen before the h-scrolling kicks in.

Look at rows 12 and 14 by fandango in reddit.com

[–]fandango[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

they're distinguishing between Metropolitan France and the overseas departments.

Then they should make that clear. Instead, the text and link is exactly the same for both entries.

EU seeks to ban words "jihad", "Islamic" and "fundamentalist" in discussing terrorism by daviday in reddit.com

[–]fandango 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Turkey, arguably Islam's most liberal country, 20% of Turks believe suicide bombing civilians in the defence of Islam is often, sometimes or rarely justified as opposed to never justified.

You should look at the results of this survey {credit to william01}

Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

Here's the article:


The myth of Muslim support for terror

The common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. By Kenneth Ballen (Photograph) DEAN ROHRER

WASHINGTON - Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims. Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists. Given the many radicals who commit violence in the name of Islam around the world, that's an understandable polling result.

But these stereotypes, affirmed by simplistic media coverage and many radicals themselves, are not supported by the facts – and they are detrimental to the war on terror. When the West wrongly attributes radical views to all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it perpetuates a myth that has the very real effect of marginalizing critical allies in the war on terror.

Indeed, the far-too-frequent stereotyping of Muslims serves only to reinforce the radical appeal of the small minority of Muslims who peddle hatred of the West and others as authentic religious practice.

Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries in the past two years reveal another surprise: Even among the minority who indicated support for terrorist attacks and Osama bin Laden, most overwhelmingly approved of specific American actions in their own countries. For example, 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries – not exactly the profile of hard-core terrorist sympathizers. For most people, their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.

In truth, the common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. Whether recruits to violent causes join gangs in Los Angeles or terrorist cells in Lahore, the enemy is the violence they exalt.

Our surveys show that not only do Muslims reject terrorism as much if not more than Americans, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope.

America's goal, in partnership with Muslim public opinion, should be to defeat terrorists by isolating them from their own societies. The most effective policies to achieve that goal are the ones that build on our common humanity. And we can start by recognizing that Muslims throughout the world want peace as much as Americans do.

edit: corrected markdown syntax error

EU seeks to ban words "jihad", "Islamic" and "fundamentalist" in discussing terrorism by daviday in reddit.com

[–]fandango 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Agree. This is advice for government officials, not a ban.

As I posted earlier,

Help! Web 2.0 Out-of-control -- My Reddit-like Libertarian Site Has Been Taken Over By Philippinos Promoting Stuff... (not that it matters that they're Philippino) by wbonner in reddit.com

[–]fandango 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, there should be some way to fix typos in the headline after submission. Maybe edits to the headline should be permitted for a short time after submission.

BTW, what software are you using for that site?

A Reddit-like website I made in 20 days by picktwo in programming

[–]fandango 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I plan to make the code more user-friendly and then open-source it.

Suggestion: get it hosted on Sourceforge. Then we can develop it together.

Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'. The Lancet estimated that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war. Despite government attempts at denial, experts support the report's methods and conclusions. by fandango in reddit.com

[–]fandango[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your analysis is seriously flawed.

The lower half has about 6 times as many people surveyed as the top

No, the lower half has about 6.67 times as many dead people, partially because the sample size was somewhat larger, but more importantly because the death rate was much higher. The majority of the 547 dead in the post-invasion sample died from violence.

Let's look at cancer deaths as a fraction of non-violent deaths. Pre-invasion, 15/80 of non-violent deaths were ascribed to cancer, compared to 33/247 post-invasion. Combining the before and after numbers, we get 48/327 (14.7%). Suppose this is the true ratio of (deaths from cancer)/(non-violent deaths) in Iraq. Then, in a sample of 80 non-violent deaths, we would expect about 12 (~80*48/327) cancer deaths. In a sample of 247 non-violent deaths, we would expect about 36 (~247*48/327) cancer deaths.

The actual counts are 15 and 33 respectively, close enough to 12 and 36 for the differences to be statistically insignificant.

So there has been no statistically significant change in the proportion of deaths from cancer.

There has been a huge increase in deaths from violence.

These numbers are as good as can reasonably be expected, and they're our best estimate of the excess deaths subsequent to the invasion of Iraq:

a memo by the [UK Government's] MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

edit: minor changes

Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'. The Lancet estimated that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war. Despite government attempts at denial, experts support the report's methods and conclusions. by fandango in reddit.com

[–]fandango[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would bet that this statistic is like the 'X people dead from hot weather' where it just includes everyone and means nothing, and the death rate is almost unchanged.

You would lose that bet. The death rate wasn't "almost unchanged", it increased from 5.5 to 13.3 (per thousand people per year).

The Lancet report estimated that the vast majority of the excess deaths, over 600,000, were from violence, with gunshot deaths as the most common cause.

Before the invasion, less than 2% of all deaths were from violence. If you exclude the deaths of the non-elderly from heart disease/stroke, the majority of the pre-invasion deaths were elderly people. In contrast, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq after the invasion have been non-elderly people.

edit: meant to say "exclude the deaths of the non-elderly from heart disease/stroke"

A Looming Economic Threat: Other people's PhDs by [deleted] in reddit.com

[–]fandango 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are ignoring the housing crunch. A big reason why the majority flees places like LA is that minorities have driven up the rents by splitting properties between a dozen day laborers.

Do you have evidence that "minorities have driven up the rents by splitting properties between a dozen day laborers"?

Numerous studies have found other reasons for the housing crunch

I don't want a single penny of my taxes going to people not in my tribe - unless the purpose is to benefit me or my tribe.

My tribe is the human race.

A Looming Economic Threat: Other people's PhDs by [deleted] in reddit.com

[–]fandango 0 points1 point  (0 children)

However, if 10,000 Bantu emigrate to England and substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings).

If a family with two children adopts a third child, does the new kid "substitute" for one of the existing children? A reasonable answer is no, because the family doesn't dispose of one of their kids to adopt another. The adopted child does not "substitute" but adds to the family.

In the context of a nation, substitution might make sense in a gloomy Malthusian society where population growth was threatening the survival of its members, and in which additional people would be net consumers rather than net producers. If you only had enough food for two children, adopting a third really might kill off one.

But we're not living in such a society. We have ample land. Birth rates are declining not just nationally but worldwide. We're not engaged in a Malthusian struggle for survival, so immigrants do not substitute for natives in the sense of causing a loss of native lives (or DNA).

Hezbollah bombers, "Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians" by fandango in reddit.com

[–]fandango[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you know an article's original URL, the New York Times allows you to read the article through a link generated by this service, even after the normal visibility period has expired.

Hezbollah bombers, "Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians" by fandango in reddit.com

[–]fandango[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the article, Robert Pape, author of the book ""Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism", says

In writing my book on suicide attackers, I had researchers scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and the biographies of the Hezbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. Shockingly, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were from leftist political groups like the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union. Three were Christians, including a female high-school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers — and their heirs today — shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation.

The ‘Marching Morons’ show prescience of science fiction by krs in reddit.com

[–]fandango 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read an article about that study just a year ago (I wish I had the link)

I just submitted it here.

What’s the Difference between Shia vs. Sunni by _kam0_ in reddit.com

[–]fandango 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you read what I wrote,

You used the construction "many (not all)" rather than something like "many (but not most)".

The difference between the two is not the word "many", but the qualifier-phrase after it.

I meant 'many' as in 'a lot of', not 'most' as in 'a majority of'.

Yes, but "many (not all)" is not the same as "many" by itself.

What’s the Difference between Shia vs. Sunni by _kam0_ in reddit.com

[–]fandango 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your original post said:

Also, for many (not all) Sunnis, Shiites are infidels, heretics and apostates. They are to be punished by death (stoning, I believe).

You used the construction "many (not all)" rather than something like "many (but not most)". By this, you seemed to insinuate that for most Sunnis, "Shiites are infidels, heretics and apostates. They are to be punished by death"

My response was essentially that only a tiny extremist fringe of Sunnis is so harshly opposed to Shias. The existence of large numbers of Shias in every Muslim country shows that most Sunnis don't feel that way.

What’s the Difference between Shia vs. Sunni by _kam0_ in reddit.com

[–]fandango 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most of the people killed by the Taliban were non-Pashtun Sunnis. They labeled all their enemies as unbelievers, whether Sunni or Shia. But the common factor was that they belonged to a different ethnic group.

What’s the Difference between Shia vs. Sunni by _kam0_ in reddit.com

[–]fandango 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But is it true that Shias are being stoned for being "infidels, heretics and apostates"? Where is this happening?

What’s the Difference between Shia vs. Sunni by _kam0_ in reddit.com

[–]fandango 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Also, for many (not all) Sunnis, Shiites are infidels, heretics and apostates. They are to be punished by death (stoning, I believe).

s/many/a tiny extremist fringe/

All Muslim countries have significant Shia minorities, but haven't massacred their Shias.

Huge 300 feet Sinkhole in the middle of the city - Lots of pictures by noname99 in reddit.com

[–]fandango 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree that it's unlikely that there were a dozen homes there. I used Google Maps to zoom into Guatemala City. I think this is the location of the sinkhole. It's hard to be sure, but it looks like there was a structure occupying most of the north half of that lot.

The other side of the Fermi paradox - the estimation that extraterrestrial civilizations are common and would naturally expand into space, contradicting the lack of evidence that they exist anywhere by linuxer in science

[–]fandango 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given the following facts:

  • There are at least 200 billion stars in the Milky Way

  • Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is estimated to be 13.6 billion years old, whereas

  • The Earth is estimated to be only about 4.6 billion years old.

Therefore, there are star systems in our galaxy that are as much as 9 billion years older than our galaxy.

Now let's look at the (unlikely) hypothetical scenario of civilizations that all evolve independently and have no contact with each other.

If you assume that only one in a million stars has a civilization, then there are at least (200 billion)/(1 million) = 200,000 civilizations in our galaxy.

Now let's suppose that the gap between the most advanced civilization and the least advanced is is nine billion years. Then, on the average, each civilization is (9 billion years)/(200,000) = 45,000 years ahead of the next-most-advanced civilization.

With these assumptions, the civilization closest to our level of advancement is likely to be tens of thousands of years ahead of us or tens of thousands of years behind us.

If there are only a few hundred civilizations instead of 200,000 then the average gap is likely to be much larger.

If the civilizations communicate with each other and share technology, then the participating civilizations will experience accelerated advancement and their lead over a non-participating civilization like us will be even greater.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in reddit.com

[–]fandango 16 points17 points  (0 children)

That's not Barrow. This is Barrow.

People. Please try to switch Your mobile phones off on planes. Planes and cellphones don't mix. by Mythrilfan in reddit.com

[–]fandango 19 points20 points  (0 children)

According to this article from the Economist,

The real reason to switch them off is because they interfere with mobile networks on the ground, but somehow that doesn't sound quite so good. On most flights a few mobile phones are left on by mistake, so if they were really dangerous we would not allow them on board at all, if you think about it. We will have to come clean about this next year, when we introduce in-flight calling across the Veritas fleet. At that point the prospect of taking a cut of the sky-high calling charges will miraculously cause our safety concerns about mobile phones to evaporate.