Can anyone explain the findings? A quick google of 'excess burden' term didn't yield a clear definition, there is a similar term in taxation, but that seems unrelated.
I believe that 'excess burden' is essentially how many more people than expected would show these outcomes. IE, if normally you'd expect to see 5/1000 people in a control group experience a stroke, but observe stokes in 15/1000 people in your non-control group, the excess burden would be 10/1000.
HR appears to be 'hazard ratio' which is simply a ratio between the two groups. The above example would have a hazard ratio of 3, as three times as many people presented with the outcome than expected.
I went that route on a school PC in 1998. There was no floppy drive, so I installed a Linux distro (also Slackware, iirc) onto the Windows partition, then resized the Windows partition with Partition Magic and used the existing Linux as a bootstrap for a fresh install on its own partition. It was so incredibly magical. No one had any idea I was doing it, and I felt part of the hacker culture :) I tinkered with it for a few of months at least, and eventually was compiling my own kernels, playing with boot/swap partitions, etc. Never got X to work, though.
I don't think you can reasonably conclude either that a) anti-vaxxer propaganda is effective insofar it attracts statistically significant number of new people under its bannder, or b) that FB blocking their pages effectively reverses the effect of (a).
Personally, I hold the opinion that anti-vaxxers are more of a natural product of their environments than anything else. You can clearly see the distinction along the religious and educational boundaries, for example. Limiting the freedom of speech in attempt to silence them is not going to work, like it's not working in stopping any other kind of speech you don't like. Censorship is dangerous: it alienates people and prevents communication, effectively radicalizing those affected.
Deplatforming has proved very effective, at least in the cases of ISIS[1], and I would argue deplatforming Trump has helped to deescalate tensions to some degree (or at least, given the media something else to talk about than his rants).
Whether it’s the right choice is obviously subject to debate.
Take a step back. Why did Moderna founders invest in research and technology? Are they selfless idealists? Probably not, at least that is not the only driving motivator. And even if they are, they still want the company to earn money in order to invest it into more research.
Bottom line is they want the company to be successful, so their long-term plan is to profit from making drugs. If they lived in a socialist economy where no such profit was possible, they would not have bothered, and then there would be no cure. If that is the world you prefer to live in, you have options (North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela currently, the rest having collapsed or transitioned to free market some time ago).
As far as I understand the term, white privilege means some kind of economical and political advantage of whites over other races. Meaning that the outcomes are different, depending on one's race. From a brief glimpse of the paper, it is quite clear that the authors push for equality of outcome and label their position as 'liberal'. However, many people disagree. The classical liberal position is granting every person equality of opportunity, saying nothing about equality of outcome. And for a good reason: you actually can't have both. Either everyone is equal at the start of the game and then the more successful achieve more, or everyone is equal at the end, and for that you have to make their opportunities unequal.
When you think about it this way, equality of outcome is essentially a Marxist rhetoric. So it's quite understandable why many people don't like politicians who advocate this controversial position.
If, the other hand, what politicians really want is a greater equality of opportunity, they really should make that clear. But I don't think they usually mean that, given that people who talk about white privilege are usually the ones who push for so-called 'affirmative action', which clearly reduces equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome.
I think a important advance is being able to build neural networks in a modular fashion by constructing a toolkit of components and techniques one can reasonably expect, when combined, to produce certain result. As the field advances, this toolbox will become richer and better defined and delineated, forming basic building blocks. Just like functions, loops and virtual methods came out of the chaos of assembly.
The article is behind the paywall, but it can be accessed through Sci-Hub. Some of the most interesting findings:
- 43% respondents did not agree with "Advocacy and research should be kept as separate as possible to protect the objectivity of the research".
- 45% respondents did not agree with "It is plausible that women's greater representation than men in people-oriented professions (social work, nursing, etc.) is due in part to a biological component".
- 31% respondents did agree with "It is not plausible to conclude that gender discrimination in the workplace has disappeared until men and women are (at least roughly) equally represented in virtually all occupational categories."
Right, this is also why it doesn't work in Safari. That's fixed now, but imperfectly (I don't know how to do the equivalent of setPointerCapture in ancient browsers, and also it only adds a mouse, not a touch handler, so still doesn't work in mobile Safari). Thanks!
I think JoeAltmaier is right on point. There are way more disadvantageous traits than skin color, and some of them are just as bad. E.g. having low IQ. It's just as unfixable as the skin color is and probably way worse. How about being much older than everyone else? That's quite a bad thing in a workplace, even if you're just as smart and capable. But even traits such as having AIDS, having a scar through one's face or even just having really bad teeth can be unfixable for many people. Then it's correct to ask the question: why would society as a whole place the skin color at the center of its attention?
In my opinion, humans are inherently xenophobic and suspicious of anything that is unfamiliar or an outlier. Evolution shaped us this way. So you cannot eradicate all the pain, fear and suffering caused by xenophobia, not by a long shot. People with negative traits (in other people's eyes) need to learn to live with them, and they do it all the time. I am not by any means arguing for racism, of course. We still need to teach that racism is bad, but at the same time we should ask ourselves: are we blowing this thing out of proportions? If we as a society are already near the point of maximum tolerance, then insisting on further corrective measures (such as so called "affirmative action", i.e. discrimination to groups seen as the oppressors) may make things worse for everyone by raising resentment and heating up the hate as opposed to reducing it.
