In Argentina, by law, the candidates for all national elections for all parties are selected by las PASO (mandatory simultaneous open primaries), which are national simultaneous elections. I don't know if there are many other such countries, but there's one.
I don't think that's what's happening. In your example with the generator expression, you're calling each lambda as you iterate through the generator, which due to the lazy evaluation of the generator means that the value of the single i variable shared across all each lambda is still only the latest value reached.
If you instead fully evaluate the generator expression before calling any of the functions (for example, by passing it to the list constructor), you get the same behavior as the list comprehension case:
>>> [f() for f in list(lambda: i for i in range(0, 10))]
[9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9]
You're right, but that means that sequence comprehension also leaks the variable, so it's even worse than I thought.
Side note: I think that commenters above didn't quite understand what I meant by "leaking", because there's more than one scope boundary here. Roughly speaking, any comprehension or loop can be desugared into something that looks like a C-style for-loop:
Scope 1 is outside relative to the loop. Scope 2 is specific to the loop but shared by all its iterations. Scope 3 is specific to one loop iteration. The "leaking" I referred to above is from scope 3 to scope 2. I think other commenters took it to mean leaking from scope 2 to scope 1 - i.e. the ability to use the variable outside of the comprehension; that is, indeed, something that changed between Python 2 and 3.
> So while you're right...by not using per Capita numbers... you're presenting your data in a very disengenuous and truth distorting way.
GP actually did speak in terms of per capita numbers (hence "population share"). In absolute numbers, California would exceed Florida in old people; as shares of the population, California has (according to your second link) 14.3% of their population over age 65, while Florida has 20.5%. This works out to be Florida having about 43% more old people per capita than California. If the claim upthread that deaths per capita in Florida more than doubled that in California is accurate, then 43% more people 65 or older per capita does not explain more than 100% more deaths per capita.
> Guess what STILL less than California. Guess what positivity rate at the BOTTOM of all states.
As to your positivity rate point, I can't confidently speak to whether your argument would be valid if the data was as you said, but your data is not accurate: your link lists Florida at the bottom of all states, but it also lists them as having a 0.0% positivity rate. The latter is, unsurprisingly, not correct, and neither is the former. Going through to its listed data source [1], I calculated positivity rates (number of positive results / number of total results) for each state using the data as of October 11 [2] (filtering for "date" equal to October 11 of this year).
Using cumulative numbers ("total_results_reported"), Florida has a positivity rate of 10.4% (18th highest), California has 5.7% (44th highest). Using new results with a date of October 11 ("new_results_reported"), Florida is doing better than earlier: only 4.6% positive (42th highest). Still twice California's 2.1% (53rd, below every other state and every US territory, but ahead of the District of Columbia).
>> then 43% more people 65 or older per capita does not explain more than 100% more deaths per capita
Why doesn't it? Is there some evidence that it does or doesn't.... or is this more of a claim?
Is there direct evidence that it's masks and not the density and quantity of old people?
Old people makes way more sense to me than our current mask policy of wearing a dirty cloth on your face until you sit down at the restaurant.
Thank you for looking into that, in a hurry I just looked at the ranking.
>>Florida is doing better than earlier: only 4.6% positive (42th highest). Still twice California's 2.1%
Still shockingly close, considering they have no Covid restrictions, whatsoever. And Cali has been extremely strict.
I guess it's subjective levels or risk. Is two percent lower infection rate worth it to require everyone to wear masks?
>Why doesn't it? Is there some evidence that it does or doesn't.... or is this more of a claim?
For the difference to be explained solely by there being more old people because old people are more vulnerable to COVID, I would interpret that to mean that any particular individual is not more or less likely to die depending on whether they live in California or Florida and the overall difference is determined by the difference in age distribution. But, as a limiting case, if all COVID deaths were among elderly people, then a 100%+ higher overall death rate in Florida which has only a 43% larger share of its population who are elderly compared to California would require that deaths per capita among the elderly population would have to be ~40% higher in Florida than in California (2 / 1.43). It's possible that my intuition is making an error here, but I think that the situation with only elderly people dying is the upper bound on how much effect the age distribution can directly have. So, something further is necessary to explain the additional (at least) 40%.
> Is there direct evidence that it's masks and not the density and quantity of old people?
I don't know whether masks explain the cited difference (I haven't seen convincing evidence but I also haven't really examined the matter), just that age distribution cannot explain the entirety of the difference. At least some age groups must have been more likely to die due to COVID-19 if they lived in Florida than in California during the cited period. It's certainly possible that some portion of that additional difference can be explained through downstream effects of the age distribution, but demonstrating that would require some additional evidence beyond the bare fact of the age distribution differences.
My understanding is there were also other policy differences between the two states besides mask requirements, but I do not have any specific reason to believe them to have had a significant (or any) effect, just like I don't have any specific reason to believe that downstream consequences of the age distribution to have had a significant (or any) effect.
> I guess it's subjective levels or risk. Is two percent lower infection rate worth it to require everyone to wear masks?
I couldn't say, although it's also worth remembering that the positivity rate data in question doesn't tell you anything about the infection rate. It doesn't even tell you what proportion of people who got tested received positive results, since the data in question is about samples rather than patients.
Epik started hosting Gab in 2018 (introducing "free speech" as a part of their marketing allegedly following the Gab move [1][2]) and BitChute and 8chan in 2019 [3] (although they stopped hosting 8chan [4] after some of their own upstream providers cut them off or threatened to do so; they may have continued to provide DNS, but I haven't tried to verify this since providing services to the far right on the down low wouldn't count as part of their marketing).
External criticism from prominent publications and organizations of Epik for its hosting of far-right sites also dates back at least as far as early 2019 [5][6].
HN search provides a story about Epik hosting Gab [7] as the highest popularity story result for "Epik" in the date range Jan 8th 2018 to Dec 30th 2019 (HN search is weird about date ranges and wouldn't let me do 1st to 31st) [8]. The front page of that search result has 5 other stories that are not just incorrectly matching on the word "Epic" or companies named "Epic", one of which is about Epik's "forever domains" service and got 3 points and 2 comments. One is about 8chan getting kicked off its previous provider and mentions them moving to Epik (it appears to be the same article as my [3]), but the comments mostly does not talk about Epik. The other articles are all about Epik hosting Gab or far-right sites but received few upvotes and comments.
In the first page of results for the corresponding search for comments [9] I can find 1 comment from 'sadris talking about Epik's low pricing, 1 comment from 'boultonmark on a non-Gab story describing Epik as seeming to be "the go to company for criminals online", 2 hiring posts from somebody who happens to have epik in their username near the bottom, and two comments using the word "epic" at the bottom. The 14 by my count other comments are all about Epik hosting Gab and/or either hosting or not hosting 8chan.
[1]: The SPLC article below [5] says this is the timing, but the Wayback machine[2] doesn't have frequent enough captures of their twitter account for me to verify the timing to more precisely than between
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20190119014600/https://twitter.c... has "Protector of responsible Free Speech." in their bio, tweets calling for popular Youtube channels (including Jordan Peterson) to move to BitChute, and referring to itself as "Alt-tech", which afaict is a term coined to refer specifically to technology providers that alt-right sites & people have moved to as a result of bans or moderation policies on more mainstream providers.
Thanks for substantiating my point and doing the research.
The HN community - or even just small parts of it - did not go hard on Epik nor Rob Monster >12 months ago and mention all the horrible things about them, and it was not as commonly known as some currently make it out to be - not even in the thread about them welcoming Gab, nor the one about them not hosting 8chan.
You're welcome, but I don't think the information/citations I provided do substantiate your point at all. They show that Epik did market itself to right wing sites and individuals (and specifically the alt-right) as early as January 2019 (around 32 months ago),
Your claim upthread was:
> Even the threads here on HN from back then where epik gets mentioned don't mention that stuff.
but the HN search links demonstrate that the threads here on HN from back then where Epik gets mentioned are almost all specifically about that stuff! Not all of that discussion was opposed to Epik, but that wasn't the claim you took issue with.
As to your Google Trends link, yes, Gab has never been an especially popular website, and it was not as frequently searched for then as in the period immediately after Donald Trump's twitter account was suspended, but your trends link shows that the Epik coverage (and the only HN thread about Epik to get any traction in 2018 or 2019) coincided with the most searches Gab ever got (as a result of coverage related to the Tree of Life synagogue shooting) prior to Trump's twitter suspension, and was about three times as much as it gets nowadays. It was only exceeded during the week of January 10th through 16th of this year. Epik itself, of course, has never been as frequently searched for as even Gab ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... ).
> but the HN search links demonstrate that the threads here on HN from back then where Epik gets mentioned are almost all specifically about that stuff! Not all of that discussion was opposed to Epik, but that wasn't the claim you took issue with.
Yes it was? That's why I said threads - not posts. Threads include the discussion, not just the articles. And like you showed, even the big discussions did not have people mention how bad of a person Rob Monster is or that Epik is that right-leaning instead of just really free-speech.
In every second about a (big) company on HN, folk here mention how bad that company or some execs are - because it is common knowledge / opinion. And it's always one of the top comment threads in the thread.
Rob Monster and Epik being that right-leaning and not just "really free-speech", and also (Christian) nut jobs - was not common knowledge at that point. Which was my initial point "upthread upthread", that Epik had 100% a boat load of users that were just there for cheap domain prices and that did not know about it and were not there to support any of this. And thus are not guilty by association (and even deserve to be in that leak), like some in this thread claim.
The "A personal story of Tanya Khovanova" section at the start of the article itself describes the method more explicity: "One of the methods they used for doing this was to give the unwanted students a different set of problems on their oral exam."
The introduction adds that the Jewish (or otherwise "undesirable") students "were given these problems one after another until they failed one of them, at which point they were given a failing mark."
to claim he absolutely assisted, you actually just need to presume that he did something that helped. You can argue with those other points to try to argue about whether or to what extent it was a bad thing to do, but those arguments, even if valid, do not change the bare fact that he did in fact assist to some extent in Epstein's legal defense as a favour to his friend who was representing Epstein.
Though Pinker himself has said he regrets having provided that aid, so I don't think he himself fully agrees with you if you want to argue against it being something he should not have done.
I’m not sure if you’re speaking of the US or elsewhere, but here in the US this really is not at all how it works.
When my family was on food stamps, if we mismanaged our money and food stamps one month (spent them too inefficiently, accidentally let some food spoil, or such), then, yes, society would absolutely have let us starve (though not in the streets, as we did own our house and were in a rural area). We might have been able to get some further help from family or friends, but not from any form of welfare.
'Cultural Marxism' is an overtly antisemitic conspiracy theory claiming a devious plot by certain Jewish academics a plot to subvert "western civilization" and attributing their influence as the cause of myriad social and political stances/events/developments that the advocates of this conspiracy theory disapprove of.
Even if you don't believe this (I think Jordan Peterson, who is fond of it, is a charlatan but not at all an anti-Semite), the term obviously occludes more than it clarifies, and was deliberately coined as a powerful negative emotional appeal; the choice to include it in a CERN physics workshop presentation is telling.
The fact that Peterson adopted the term does not necessarily imply that Peterson is an anti-Semite, but it definitely confirms that he is an idiot who cannot even be bothered to do basic research on the things he likes to rant about.
I do agree it's important to basic research on the things one likes to rant about. Wikipedia in contemporary usage has become completely useless for controversial or social topics, but it used to be a reasonable source of information. This [1] is an archive of the Wiki page on Cultural Marxism providing some broad information and background. Suffice to say it was not coined in 2002 by anybody.
But that "cultural marxism" label might be neither very cultural nor particularly marxist does not mean that what it labels isn't for the most part senseless bunk either. Oh, and marxism does happen to be more popular in academia than it deserves, too.
What does a simple idea like "stop treating women as though they were all idiots" have to do with any particular culture? If you don't understand the difference between "stop insulting your female colleagues" and Marxist economics or politics, obviously the problem is that there is not too much, but too little Marxism being taught in academia.
Really, the sooner marxism is completely forgotten the better. And what is usually called "cultural marxism" would make Marx and any classic marxist spin in their graves.
I would like to see some references of which groups or individuals, exactly, "treat women as though they were all idiots". Makes for a nice strawman but not anything that Strumia claimed, is it?
How can someone possibly call Jordan Peterson a charlatan? Are we redefining that word now too? Also, describing something as “telling” is a pretty strong signal that one lacks any substantive rebuttals but cannot resist throwing shade. It’s cheap.
Hang on, 'charlatan' is being 'redefined' merely by someone's opinion but the elaborated-upon use of 'telling', a word with a straightforward literal meaning, is fecund with secret malicious bias? It's hard hard to see how both of these can be true.
Have you read Maps of Meaning? I haven’t, but Nathan Robinson did, and wrote a review of the whole Peterson gestalt, which I found wholly convincing and you should find with no trouble at all.
I feel that what I found “telling” about the use of a controversial, poorly defined, culture-war term like “cultural Marxism” was pretty obvious: that the talk wasn’t given in good faith or with an intent that was productive with respect to the attendees.
