voronoff's comments

I think this image from elsewhere in the comments does a reasonable job of showing both what an argument map looks like and why you might want one.

http://www.argunet.org/wordpress-argunet-2/wp-content/upload...

I don't think you read their comment correctly.

They are saying that their is no downside, outside of running foul of laws and regulators, for banks to take money without review instead of flagging transactions as suspicious.

Your response is about additional benefits for them taking the money without questions.

It works here. Voting fraud is incredibly rare.

They have invested in their tech team which is both infrastructure and expense. How much of the ~$10 billion it's worth is up for debate, but zeroing it's value is absurd.

Or they are just underfunded relative to the amount of work they have to do. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/01/49223579...

The Slate Star Codex article fails to make the case that lowering the general regulatory thresholds for medical devices or drugs improves societal outcomes. It makes a compelling, if possibly flawed, case for the EpiPen, but assumes generalizability rather than showing it.

We know the costs of not having something like the FDA. All one has to do is look at the supplements industry and imagine if real drugs were like that.

Oh, you thought you were getting what was on the label? Silly you. https://healthyfoodusa.com/fda-finds-majority-of-herbal-supp...

You thought you'd get something that would help? Silly you. http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/dietary-supple...

You thought you'd get something that didn't have major unknown side effects? Silly you. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/817427-overview

Edit:

Also ignored is how the FDA is a major incentive to create something new that both helps with the problem and doesn't generate an unreasonable amount of other ones. If the barriers to market entry are removed, you are putting the informational cost on the consumer. If it's cheaper to fool them than to do the due diligence in development, that's what will be done. And it's pretty clear from the supplement industry that it is cheaper.

Scott Alexander likes to make the future costs of a lack of new medications argument a lot. He has to account for the costs of a lack of new effective medications as well.

Edit 2:

Scott Alexander doesn't try to make the case the FDA is corrupt. He talks about how Mylan uses the court system and lobbies congress. And his point about costs is undercut by a later post he made about coming up with the chairs statistic: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-an...

Any good research Uni's psych department will have some TMS studies going on over the course of a year. You'll probably have to do a repetitive task and they probably won't be doing any diagnostics (for that you're way better off with a FMRI or EEG study, where they're often happy to share the data with you), but if you're just curious about the experience you can probably get paid a pittance to try it out.

High star generalship is more politics than military ability at this point.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-... for one discussion of this.

Why? The tsunami killed more people than the radiation is estimated to even with the most generous estimates of how many people will get sick from radiation. Hell, even the stress/evacuation caused by the worry of radiation is likely to kill more people than the radiation itself would have if they didn't take those steps.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isn...

Many multiples? Try two to three, currently.

"For instance, there seems to be a consensus that the most lucrative cab market in the world is in Japan, where yearly revenues are estimated to be about $20 billion to $25 billion just in Tokyo, followed by the United Kingdom with revenues of $14 billion, the bulk from London, and the U.S. with $11 billion overall and about $3 billion in New York. Assuming taxi revenues in the rest of the world add another $50 billion to this total, I arrive at a total market of $100 billion."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uber-isnt-worth-17-billi...

That's an absurd proposition. Even if you have an incredibly cynical view of humanity, it's extremely unlikely to be unable to find someone in a government with power who holds any reasonable common position of the general populace.

This. Literally every single person who identified themselves as in the security fields that I saw said the researcher went too far.

What's really getting to me is the overwhelming number of responses containing idea that everything that isn't explicitly banned is permitted, despite the recipient saying "No" (even indirectly/without justification) at some point. How to deal with the grey area of consent is something that every adult should know, and it's worrying to me that so many here seem to feel entitled to whatever they can take as long as it wasn't explicitly forbidden.

Obviously FB should update their policy, but at the same time it's important that we as the community use this as an opportunity to learn and discuss where the implicit boundaries are, where one needs clear-cut agreement to proceed.

Consent is sexy.

He kept it for a month. That is different than looking at it.

Here is what's happening right now:

FB: He's an experienced bug bounty hunter and should know where reasonable borders are.

All the experienced security guys itt: He's an experienced bug bounty hunter and should know where reasonable borders are or at least not pivot/escalate without asking. Also never dump and hold data.

Everyone else: What he did isn't technically against the rules FB wrote, so they are screwing him, despite it also being written that they have sole discretion.

AAA games are frequently one platform, generally either PC for UI reasons or locked into a particular console as an exclusive.

Is it?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...

It's a far cry from The Red Scare, though, which was his point.

What crops we grow can change drastically. Alfalfa for China is one example of using a significant portion of agricultural water use (in the solid single digits) that doesn't provide much benefit locally.

Computerized statistics and online journals/digitized libraries are ENORMOUS advancements in the scientific process.

He's right. It's an low cost way to be mostly right. There are much worse tradeoffs to be made.

Assuming that science news corresponds to scientific results will get one in trouble though.

Another attempt to explain this: https://medium.com/@maradydd/the-null-hypothesis-loves-you-a...