Which book?

"Logic has been flatly imposed on Troy Weaver's path", according to the opening sentence of the article.

I'm just glad the logic wasn't imposed in a bendy way.

That’s not true! Some of it will make its way to E Jean Carroll!

(You just know he’s going to defame her again in a speech at some point.)

Can I just get some clarification about your view. It strikes me that there are a few possible reasons you could hold it. Which statement below best describes your feeling?

1. NO WAR IS EVER JUSTIFIED - Given that every war will result in the death of innocents, including children, any country involved in a war must be condemned.
2. SOME WARS ARE JUSTIFIED, BUT NOT THIS ONE - While war is sometimes necessary, Israel was not justified in going to war after October 7th.
3. THIS WAR MAY BE JUSTIFIED, BUT ISRAEL ISN'T CONDUCTING IT ETHICALLY - In principle, Israel has a right to declare war on Hamas after October 7th. It's just that they haven't done it in an ethical way. There are standards of conduct that other countries meet that Israel doesn't.

Which of the statements align with your view? (Or perhaps is there a fourth logical possibility that I've left off)

That's not a ranch. That's a meadow!

So what you're arguing is that race is a factor that you have to take into account if you're doing a top-down analysis. That's fine. The good thing about statistics is that if you think something might be an important predictor, you can check if it is, and also find out how important.

Great question! On average, poor people have worse health (and lower height) than rich people, even if they all live in the same country. So a white kid from a rich family would have better chances to make it to the NBA than someone from the deep south. But you have to take into account what percentage of each community play basketball as well.

For more on how being poor affects your life, even compared to other people inside the same country, check out this amazing video about the British census.

Agreed. They're so bad it's comically evil.

• The country needed Japanese language teachers. So they kidnapped some Japanese civilians and forced them to do the teaching.
• The economy was bad. So the state started an international heroin trafficking ring.
• They have actual concentration camps that you can find all over Google maps, such as in Yodok and Kangdong. This led to some hilarious (but now taken down) Google Reviews, such as "Lacks wi-fi" and "I'm afraid the staff weren't very attentive to my towel needs, so I'm going to have to dock them a star".

For a fuller taste of the horrors of living in North Korea, check out the book "The Aquariums of Pyongyang" by Chol-hwan Kang.

There's two ways to figure this out.

The first way is bottom up. You look at scouting reports, check who are the best young French prospects, and try and figure out how high they'll go in their draft. This is a useful approach for this year's draft, and maybe next year's. But the further into the future you go, the harder it is to predict how good the individual players will be, and the more likely they'll be overtaken by someone not even on anyone's radar yet.

The second (and better) way is top down. What are the characteristics of whole countries that make them better at sport? What percentage of young people play basketball in that country? Therefore, how big is the pool of basketball prospects coming out of each country? The more basketball prospects a country produces, the higher the chances of a number one draft pick.

The second approach has been used to predict national success at the FIFA World Cup, as described in the book "Why England Lose". It turns out that in soccer, the best predictors of national success are a country's population size, and its income per capita. The theory is that the richer the country is, the better the healthcare the population gets. This is important because if you have diseases in childhood, it stunts your growth. That's why the average height in poorer countries is less than in rich countries. As a result, the pool of healthy athletes is bigger in rich countries, so you get more chances at getting someone who will be drafted in the lottery.

The reason this approach works so well for soccer, but not necessarily for basketball, is because soccer is absolutely the most popular sport in basically all of Europe and South America, so more top athletes from there are likely to choose to play soccer. But perhaps this will change in the future. If the NBA does their marketing right, perhaps more European children will start to idolize basketball players like Wemby, and you'll get a higher percentage of them choosing to play basketball in future. At that point, France will generate the number of lottery draft picks that their population and income per capita would predict.

The last British person to be convicted of witchcraft was Helen Duncan, in 1944.

She did seances for a living. At one party, one guest was related to someone in the navy. In a dramatic flourish, Helen said “Your relative wants to contact you from the beyond!” to freak the guests out.

Unfortunately, his ship actually had been sunk, but it was still classified information. So the navy charged her with witchcraft (which was still on the books) as it was easier than charging her with espionage.

If I wanted valuable roughage, I’d listen to my cousin talk about Bitcoin. Now there’s a guy who’s completely full of fiber.

But our jams are too important to be mixed up with seeds. Particularly in this economy. Morello Cherry > Raspberry.

This makes sense.

If an animal finds itself in a dangerous environment, it can move somewhere else. But if it’s a plant, it has to stay in that environment and adapt as fast as possible.

So it makes sense to carry around a whole bunch of DNA the species only needs to use when conditions make them needed.

An air hostess, being a human being, is a mammal. She flies in an aeroplane. But you’d expect the answer to be an entire species that can fly by itself without the use of aeroplanes.

The Police Academy movies.

(Police Academy VIII makes Police Academy IV look like Police Academy VII.)

That's fair.

I'm trying to figure out how to change your view. You've made quite a few assertions. If I were to show that one of them is false or a misunderstanding, would that be enough to change your view? If not, what would someone in this thread have to do to change it?

If you wear a white undershirt with a deep V neck underneath a white shirt, your shirt will look much better. It will be brighter and look cleaner.

As an example, look at Uniqlo Airism. But avoid Bonds, because their V sits too high, so you can see it under your shirt if you have the top button undone.

Not on this sub.

You’re supposed to make an argument that changes someone’s view. You’re breaking rule 2 and rule 5.

You’re not even making an argument, just spewing hatred.

For those wondering if maybe she has a point:

Research is where you look at the world and figure out how it works. Your end product is an explanation.

Engineering is where you take an explanation about how the world works, and use it to build something.

You can’t do engineering unless someone has done research first, because you can’t engineer without an explanation of the area you’re engineering.

Fire is the things, just in the process of changing form.

AI can't even draw hands ... so far.

Your goal is not to get a job of some kind. Your goal is to get a better life, for the long term. And not every college degree will get you that better life, even if does make you more employable in a general sense.

To illustrate, here is webpage is from the Australian tax office, where you can download a spreadsheet that lists the average taxable income for each occupation (as of 2019-20). And don't worry if you don't live in Australia, the difference in income between one type of job and another would probably be roughly the same in every other country. Notice on table 15A the difference in income between the poorly paid professions and the highly paid ones. The average music teacher makes $47,591 a year, and you really have to study music and teaching at uni to get into that job. But if you spent the same amount of time studying dentistry, you could earn $213,308 a year on average. This leads to a much better life with many more options.

But should you just base your degree on what pays the most? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Here's why.

Every degree is interesting. Great classes give you a new way of thinking about the world. And once you start to take on that way of thinking, you will love it, and it will become part of your personality. It won't matter which one you do. So if you're going to study for three to four years, you may as well study something that will give you the best life, not just a mediocre one.

The Thunder have their own app?

LeBron James is overrated! He'll be out of the league by 2004. The Cavs should draft a more reliable prospect, like Darko Miličić.