majromax's recent activity
-
Comment on The sham legacy of Richard Feynman in ~science
-
Comment on Heat pumps used to struggle in the cold. Not anymore. in ~enviro
majromax Link ParentTo be fair, I also suspect there's some design difference regarding condensation or icing. An air conditioner operating in a hot climate shouldn't be seeing ice buildup.The only difference between a “heat pump” and an AC is a cheap valve that allows it to run backwards.
To be fair, I also suspect there's some design difference regarding condensation or icing. An air conditioner operating in a hot climate shouldn't be seeing ice buildup.
-
Comment on Two sides of the same coin in ~humanities
majromax (edited )LinkNo, and in fact by Bayes Theorem you should be slightly more suspicious that the coin is a double-headed coin. On the other hand, you should now be confident that the coin is not a double-tailed...Without picking the coin up to confirm the side that is down is tails. Could you ever know that it is tails ?
No, and in fact by Bayes Theorem you should be slightly more suspicious that the coin is a double-headed coin. On the other hand, you should now be confident that the coin is not a double-tailed coin, and if your initial suspicion was symmetric that's where the increased skepticism would come from.
Suppose you start by thinking that there's a 1-in-a-million chance that a randomly-tossed coin is double-headed, the same chance that it's double-tailed, and the residual (999,998-in-a-million) that it's a fair coin.
After the toss, you observe that one side of the coin is heads. If the coin was double-headed, the probability of it being double-headed was 100%, if it was fair then 50%, and if it was double-tailed then 0%. To write this in conditional probability notation, where P(A|B) means "probability of A if B is true/observed:"
- P(heads | 2 head coin) = 100%
- P(heads | fair coin) = 50%
- P(heads | 2 tail coin) = 0%
We also know that absent any information about the coin, we'd expect P(heads) = 50%.
Bayes' theorem states P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B), essentially allowing us to reverse the way conditioning works. Rather than "probability of observation given an assumption about the underlying truth", we end up with "probability of the underlying truth given an assumption" (and our previously-existing belief!).
Running this through with our numbers gives:
- P(2 head coin | heads) = P(heads | 2 head coin) * P(2 head coin) / P(heads) = 100% * 1e-6 / 50% = 2e-6 (2 in a million)
- P(fair coin | heads) = P(heads | fair coin) * P(fair coin) / P(heads) = 50% * (1-2e-6) / 50% = (1-2e-6) (999,998 in a million, no change)
- P(2 tail coin | heads) = P(heads | 2 tail coin) * P(2 tail coin) / P(heads) = 0 * 1e-6 / 50% = 0 (no chance)
Now, if the same coin is flipped (without you seeing both sides) and lands on heads again, we start to become slightly more skeptical of the 'fair coin' hypothesis. P(2 heads | fair coin) is 25%. Interestingly, P(2 heads) is not 25% thanks to the very small influence of the unfair coin: it's 25% * P(fair coin) + 100% * P(2 heads) = (25%*(1-1e-6) + 1e-6) = (25% + 0.75e-6)[†].
- P(2 head coin | 2 heads) = P(2 heads | 2 head coin) * P(2 head coin) / P(2 heads) = 100% * (1e-6) / (25% + 0.75e-6) ≈ 4e-6 (4 in a million)
- P(fair coin | 2 heads) = P(2 heads | fair coin) * P(fair coin) / P(2 heads) = 25% * (1-1e-6) / (25% + 0.75e-6) ≈ (1 - 4e-6) (999,996 in a million)
[†] — This seems weird, but the unfair coin contributes disproportionately to this result. Consider P(1 billion heads): this will essentially only happen if the coin is a double-headed coin, so if we know nothing about the coin ahead of time then we must assume that the chance of 1 billion heads is equal to the chance that the coin is a double-headed coin.
-
Comment on How to build greener, affordable AC for high humidity and hotter summers in ~engineering
majromax Link ParentIn a simple box view of thermodynamics, heat ingress into the home from the outside is proportional to the temperature difference. For example, it it's 80F outside, then a home at 72F would have...An AC doesn't have to work harder to maintain 72 than it does 76 unless it's excessively hot and / or humid outside.
In a simple box view of thermodynamics, heat ingress into the home from the outside is proportional to the temperature difference. For example, it it's 80F outside, then a home at 72F would have about double the natural heating flux from the outdoors than a home at 76F.
I presume you're rejecting or at least heavily nuancing this view? I suppose this would be less true for heavily-insulated homes, where the largest share of heating comes from interior energy use (both electrical equipment and mammal metabolism) or temperature-independent fluxes like direct insolation.
-
Comment on The spectacular failure of the Star Wars hotel in ~movies
majromax Link ParentI'm deeply confused by the cost structure implied by the failure. Per her calculations at the beginning, at something close to the 'base' rate she was paying $120 per hour of scheduled time....unbelievably overpriced, cashing in on their brand to fleece customers for every penny they can.
I'm deeply confused by the cost structure implied by the failure.
Per her calculations at the beginning, at something close to the 'base' rate she was paying $120 per hour of scheduled time. Suppose a full two-thirds of that goes towards both the "cruise" or "resort"-style experience plus the additional depreciation from the effects-heavy environment. That would leave $40/hr as the experience premium.
That rate should have allowed Disney to hire at least one staff member per party to monitor/assist nearly full-time! How could the operation have thus been blind to any guest (like Nicholson) struggling to engage with the experience? Since the hotel's conceit is that it's a cruise liner, there would even be an in-setting justification for heavy concierge service.
Yet the hotel failed, so badly that Disney outright pulled the plug rather than let it fade away. Something about it must have cost much more than predicted, but I can't understand where the money went.
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
majromax Link ParentWhat profit? Remember that in the thought experiment above, the subsidy problem still happens even if there's no profit left for the owners. Then, the subsidy comes at the expense of other, more...The only difference is that your business gets to profit off however many widgets they can make per hour without covering their ability to subsist.
What profit? Remember that in the thought experiment above, the subsidy problem still happens even if there's no profit left for the owners. Then, the subsidy comes at the expense of other, more productive workers.
Besides that, if the disabled worker would be a 'ward of the state either way,' it does affect the state's budget whether it's on the hook for the equivalent of $30/hr (a full 'living wage' equivalent) or just $10 (the difference between the paid wage and a living one).
The fact that you refer to new workers undergoing training is a great example here -- it is absolutely normal to not expect workers to be productive while they're still being trained, and it would be fucking dystopian not to pay them a living wage during their training.
Or, I don't hire trainees, and instead I use the cross-subsidy saved to improve the wages of expert employees. The factory across the street can pay its trainees a living wage, but as soon as they're competent I'll hire them away with a nice pay increase.
As a Nash equilibrium, this ends up with no company providing training. Instead, we all demand that prospective workers complete a community college curriculum on widget-making at their own expense, perhaps with an un(der)paid internship for credit. Even if we can't completely eliminate training, we can minimize the period for which we're on hook to pay the trainees.
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
majromax Link ParentSuppose I run a widget factory. Net of material inputs and capital costs (maintenance, depreciation), I can sell widgets for a gross profit of $10 apiece. The living wage in my area is $30/hr. If...There is a reading of what you said that involve treating groups such as the disabled as second class workers who should be paid less and I'm sure that is not what you intended.
Suppose I run a widget factory. Net of material inputs and capital costs (maintenance, depreciation), I can sell widgets for a gross profit of $10 apiece. The living wage in my area is $30/hr.
If I have workers who produce at least 3 widgets an hour, then I'm capable of paying them a living wage, and whether or not I do that is a matter of relative bargaining power. The law and regulations can push here in the workers' favour.
However, what if I have a worker who can't produce 3 widgets per hour? This could be someone with a disability, or it could also be a new worker undergoing training who just isn't yet proficient. In either case, their output isn't capable of supporting a living wage. The living wage law would force me to take a net loss on the worker, subsidizing the living wage out of either profits (the intention, presumably) or the wages of other, more productive workers. It's to my advantage to just not hire these underperforming workers, leaving them as someone else's problem or as wards of the state.
This does not seem a desirable outcome. Extra widgets don't get made, and the workers who could most use the living wage don't receive one at all.
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
majromax Link ParentAgain, could someone please define exploitation? How can I look at an employment contract and decide if it's exploitative, in a policy-meaningful sense? First, that would seem to lead to the poor...Other than the social issues their exploitation of people's labour has caused in the first place, of course.
Again, could someone please define exploitation? How can I look at an employment contract and decide if it's exploitative, in a policy-meaningful sense?
Perhaps we make sure that all jobs are paid such that nobody working a reasonable amount of hours (let's say 35 hours a week) needs state support to not starve and have basics like shelter, heating and so on.. that's a broad-power, whole-society move and should be reasonably inescapable.
First, that would seem to lead to the poor effects alleged in the here-linked article. For living-wage laws to result in a truly living wage, you need to presuppose that full-time work is generally available. Under conventional economics, that's not a given when the minimum wage is raised too far.
Second, I'm not sure this is even a desirable outcome because of the free exchange it restricts. Should I be forbidden from paying the neighbour's teen $50 to watch my kids for the evening, solely because at an annualized 35hr/wk rate it doesn't result in a living wage?
Third, what of genuine self-employment? New business-owners often can't pay themselves a wage at all, let alone a living one, while their business starts before they have clients/customers. A freelancer who takes a job with a fixed project fee might underestimate the amount of work it will take, resulting in a non-living wage through only their own actions. It seems coercive to have the government come in and tell these people that they're criminal for underpaying themselves.
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
majromax Link ParentThat begs the question that the city is a reasonable jurisdiction to implement this goal. Cities are obviously best-placed to handle local issues, but I'm not sure if values-alignment of...However, this law is Seattle's attempt to force companies to align their businesses with society's values.
That begs the question that the city is a reasonable jurisdiction to implement this goal.
Cities are obviously best-placed to handle local issues, but I'm not sure if values-alignment of businesses (or economic redistribution, depending on your framing) is truly a local issue.
-
Comment on Is Nebula worth it? in ~tech
majromax Link ParentBecause the site knows what it has, but you can only guess. This is also the fundamental legitimate purpose of advertising: to make the would-be customer aware of a choice. This can easily become...I agree but I would also additionally add that why does it need to be a site initiated recommendation?
Because the site knows what it has, but you can only guess. This is also the fundamental legitimate purpose of advertising: to make the would-be customer aware of a choice.
This can easily become exploitative, but fortunately that kind of exploitation is contrary to Nebula's business model. Ad-driven social media profits from view-time (through advertisements), but Nebula profits from its subscription fee. Nebula profits most if you remain interested enough to renew your subscription, but beyond that your watch-time is just a cost (hosting/bandwidth).
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
majromax Link ParentYou seem to be operating from one hidden premise, that it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that the employee doesn't starve. This isn't outlandish, but it's also not obvious. If my...I think your premise is flawed. It's working from the basis that these people don't provide enough value to earn a living wage. People shouldn't be required to provide value to live
You seem to be operating from one hidden premise, that it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that the employee doesn't starve.
This isn't outlandish, but it's also not obvious. If my employer just has to pay me for time worked, then my life is my own. If my employer also has a responsibility to make sure I don't starve, then arguably they should have much more control over my life, such as coercing me to make "wise" choices like buy healthy vegetables rather than beer.
This idea is also pre-modern, in the sense that it fits well in a quasi-feudal society with land-owning manor lords and land-renting peasantry. Again, this kind of society is organized around that economic hierarchy, so the rich are not just economic Big Men but also expressly at the top of the social hierarchy.
In the modern market economy, we also have the problem that jobs aren't fixed. A land-owning nobleman needs a relatively fixed quantity of labour to farm the fields, and if they don't have that labour the fields lay fallow. A factory, however, can be built in many places, and many service jobs are even more flexible (not needing heavy infrastructure).
If the law forces companies to take unwanted responsibility for social problems, then many companies can simply relocate or not enter the market, leaving the region to a weird kind of autarky.
The goal of general welfare is laudable, but I don't think it can be achieved by devolving individual responsibility to the unwilling. It needs to be treated at the whole-society level, using the broadest powers that offer the fewest avenues for escape. In particular:
You're basically making the same argument that Walmart makes when they don't pay their workers enough and they still have to rely on food stamps.
I think this is something closer to a policy success: people are better off than if unemployed, and they also don't starve. Even under the framework that Wal-Mart's profits are exploitation, it seems like the simpler answer is to tax the profits to fund the welfare programs. If we're unable to come to come to a consensus as a society that we need to appropriately fund welfare programs, that's an indictment of us rather than of Wal-Mart.
-
Comment on Seattle’s law mandating higher pay for food delivery workers is a case study in backfire economics in ~finance
majromax Link ParentShould you be allowed to pay the neighbour kid $20 to mow your lawn, or $50 and some pizza to babysit your kids for the evening? How about buying a case of beer for your buddies who help you move?...- Exemplary
If people being paid a living wage means the "solution" isn't feasible anymore, then was it a solution in the first place?
Should you be allowed to pay the neighbour kid $20 to mow your lawn, or $50 and some pizza to babysit your kids for the evening? How about buying a case of beer for your buddies who help you move?
Should it be legal for you to volunteer to clean up the park, but illegal if you receive a token $10 for a day's work? Does the answer differ if you're an idle tech millionaire versus a homeless person who often sleeps in the park?
None of these are living wages, but all of them are economic exchanges.
Or was it exploitation?
What is exploitation?
Modern market economics valorizes the voluntary exchange. If two people come to a free agreement to exchange one thing for another, then there's a strong assumption that neither party is left worse off, and often both benefit.
This isn't always true – there could be hidden coercion, or an asymmetry of information could mean that one party knows more than the other. However, mere difference of bargaining power doesn't change the basis calculation. It can change the distribution of gains from the exchange, but it still won't force someone to make a trade that knowingly leaves them worse off.
You might be thinking of exploitation in the sense of profit as exploitation, but Marx was a better sociologist than economist[1]. Regulation can affect bargaining power to some degree, but it can't force companies to offer work where they don't want to. The choice of "work or starve" just becomes "or starve", since a company that doesn't enter a market doesn't owe anything to the people it doesn't hire.
But there are ways to speed up delivery without breaking the law or being unsafe.
Batched deliveries would do the trick, but that would give up on some of the instant gratification of on-demand delivery. Informally, many drivers operated in this way under the table (even if by stacking deliveries from different apps) in order to boost effective wages.
[1] — Mind you, Marx was working at the dawn of modern economics, so he deserves a lot of credit as a historical figure. However, much as Freud's psychological theories have either been absorbed into the modern orthodoxy or abandoned, there's very little left to take from Marxist economics as a coherent theory.)
-
Comment on Confused about headphone impedance in ~tech
majromax (edited )Link ParentThe problem is that impedance varies with frequency, you want your headphones to have an (electrically) flat response, and the headphones and amplifier make a voltage divider. Suppose the...- Exemplary
The problem is that impedance varies with frequency, you want your headphones to have an (electrically) flat response, and the headphones and amplifier make a voltage divider.
Suppose the amplifier and your headphones are each nominally 50Ω output, but they vary by ± 20% over the audio band. Also suppose for simple math that the amplifier outputs about 1V.
If the impedance of the headphones and amplifier were both exactly the nominal rating, the amplifier would output 1V and the headphones would see 1*50/(50+50) = 0.5V of that.
However, if at (say) 1kHz the headphones are really 60Ω and the amplifier is really 40Ω, then the headphones will instead see 60/(60+40) = 0.6V. If the situation reverses at another frequency, then the headphones will see 40/(40+60)=0.4V. Some frequencies will be 20% louder than they should be, and others 20% quieter.
Now, if instead the output amplifier has low impedance (say 5Ω), the situation is much nicer. The headphones will nominally see 1*50/(50+5) = 0.91V, and at the extremes they might see 1*60/(60+4) = 0.938V and 1*40/(40+6) = 0.870V. The fluctuation is within ±5%, simply because the amplifier output has lower impedance.
There's nothing special about an 8:1 ratio, but it's a reasonable balance balance between noticeable reduction of distortion and technical feasibility at a modest cost.
-
Comment on Why are Americans fighting over no-fault divorce? Maybe they can’t agree what marriage is for. in ~society
majromax LinkI don't see the contradiction here. Contracts can generally be broken by either party on short notice. Even if the breach goes against the term of the contract itself, general damages for breach...If marriage is about love, then a lack of love should be the quintessential reason to divorce. However, if marriage is a contract for benefits, then it isn’t surprising that Crowder and other no-fault critics are outraged that it can be unilaterally broken.
I don't see the contradiction here. Contracts can generally be broken by either party on short notice. Even if the breach goes against the term of the contract itself, general damages for breach of contract relate to actual damages, which could include (judicially reasonable) penalty clauses.
The family law system does an adequate job of implicitly performing this calculation, namely through the division of marital property and (depending on jurisdiction and reasons) awarding spousal support. Couples who want an even more contractual marriage can arrange one through a pre-nup agreement.
Instead, I think the outrage about marriage being "unilaterally broken" comes from an implicitly religious framework. If marriage is a voluntary agreement between two people for mutual benefit, it's reasonable that it could be ended when it no longer provides a mutual benefit. If instead it is a sacrament, then God itself is a third party to the contract who ought to be satisfied. This kind of logic has little place in a secular legal system, and it ought to remain in the chapel.
-
Comment on Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more. They do something worse. in ~enviro
majromax Link ParentIt's less expensive to fix one scratch than 100 scratches, yes. However, the marginal cost of fixing the 100th scratch given that 99 have already happened is nearly nil: you're already repainting...No? It's less expensive to fix one scratch than a hundred, that's common sense.
It's less expensive to fix one scratch than 100 scratches, yes. However, the marginal cost of fixing the 100th scratch given that 99 have already happened is nearly nil: you're already repainting the whole car door.
In the climate context, going from 0° to 4° is of course more costly than going from 0° to 2°, but the 2-4° part is worse than the 0-2° part. The "climate is doomed" perception falsely applies car-door logic to the planet, thinking that since so much damage is already done there's not much more left to do on the margin.
-
Comment on What's the matter with men? They’re floundering at school and in the workplace. Some conservatives blame a crisis of masculinity, but the problems—and their solutions—are far more complex. in ~life.men
majromax Link ParentWith hindsight, I don't think it's all that surprising. We saw the end of the "A woman? With a middle-class job? Because she likes it?" plot lines on TV by the middle to end of the 80s, and a...I would have expected to see that narrowing more over the last two decades. (December 2003 was 86.4% for men and 71.5% for women, a 14.9 point difference.)
With hindsight, I don't think it's all that surprising. We saw the end of the "A woman? With a middle-class job? Because she likes it?" plot lines on TV by the middle to end of the 80s, and a woman who turned 18 in 1985 would be right in the middle of the 18-55 bracket by 2000. From the early 90s onwards, women were fully normalized in the workforce, and remaining barriers that force a family-versus-career choice (notably parental leave policies and daycare subsidization) are more slowly-changing.
-
Comment on What's the matter with men? They’re floundering at school and in the workplace. Some conservatives blame a crisis of masculinity, but the problems—and their solutions—are far more complex. in ~life.men
majromax Link ParentLooking at the various series available, I think you can construct a chart showing stagnation if you look at the aggregate earnings per week, per person, essentially multiplying inflation-adjusted...Looking at the various series available, I think you can construct a chart showing stagnation if you look at the aggregate earnings per week, per person, essentially multiplying inflation-adjusted $/wk by either the employment/population ratio or the prime-age employment ratio.
In both cases, you see an upwards trend halted by Covid, with rough stagnation thereafter as inflation has approximately compensated for nominal wage gains. The overall series looks smoother to my eye than if you exclude the employment ratios; that sees a post-covid bump and an inflationary drop.
-
Comment on Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more. They do something worse. in ~enviro
majromax Link ParentIf you accept this as fact, then in a fun twist of irony this makes your individual action even more important. Climate change is not a binary "safe/doomed" set of outcomes. It's a range, with the...A little bit afraid to say this, but while I am by no means a doomer (by his definition), I certainly am very afraid that this is not going to be solved in anything even closely resembling good time.
If you accept this as fact, then in a fun twist of irony this makes your individual action even more important.
Climate change is not a binary "safe/doomed" set of outcomes. It's a range, with the cost of mitigation / damages from non-mitigation increasing with the amount of global warming. One study for Canada modeled an $80bn(CDN) cost to Canada by 2100 if global warming were 3° rather than 2°, with an additional $100bn(CDN) for 4° over 3°.
This breaks our intuition. Most things in our life work the opposite way: the first scratch on the car door is "worse" than the 100th, for example. For climate economics over a global scale, however, as warming increases more and more human systems (small things, like city placement) change from "able to cope with climate change with some investment or loss of productivity" to "largely untenable, needing wholesale replacement." Diminishing returns don't set in until civilization-ending levels of climate damage, at which point there wouldn't be many people left to pay the bill.
This fundamentally makes doomism a self-defeating argument. The first bit of emissions reduction accomplishes the most long-term good, no matter how it's achieved. If a set of policies only brings the world from 4° to 3.5°, that's still more damages saved than bringing the world from 2.5° to 2°. That first lone voice in the wilderness reducing carbon emissions does the most direct good.
-
Comment on What's the matter with men? They’re floundering at school and in the workplace. Some conservatives blame a crisis of masculinity, but the problems—and their solutions—are far more complex. in ~life.men
majromax Link ParentYes, but the demographics of today's United States don't match that of the 1980s: the country is older, overall. Older people are more likely to take early retirement, so even with the same...- Exemplary
Yes, but the demographics of today's United States don't match that of the 1980s: the country is older, overall. Older people are more likely to take early retirement, so even with the same employment-rate-per-age the overall employment rate appears to suffer.
My preferred labour statistic is the prime-age employment rate: the employment ratio of people between 25 and 54. This helps control for the demographic shift.
In this case, the current prime-age employment ratio matches other cyclical peaks like 2019, 2007, and 1990, but it's a couple of percentage points below the late 90s peak – highlighting that period as a particular boom.
As another argument against a long-term weakening of the job market, the employment rate for 55-64 year olds is also near a record high. While more people are aging into the early-retirement bracket, fewer are in fact taking early retirement.
-
Comment on A peer reviewed journal with nonsense AI images was just published in ~science
majromax LinkNote that the journal, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, is listed among predatory journals, and the publisher (Frontiers) does not have a good reputation. This is not so much a failure...Note that the journal, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, is listed among predatory journals, and the publisher (Frontiers) does not have a good reputation.
This is not so much a failure of peer review as its absence, and it should not be surprising that a predatory journal publishes nonsense.
From someone who did watch the video, my summary of its thesis statements:
Feynman never wrote a book. All of the books that we have "by Richard Feynman," those books that create the legacy of Feynman as a person in popular consciousness, were written or assembled by others who had their own interests. Feynman's legacy is chiefly the result of Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman, which is the assembly of a bunch of stories told by a then-50s Feynman to a then-20s Richard Leighton. Other books came later as everything Feynman touched became gold.
The stories in Surely You're Joking are not true. Most are completely unverifiable, happening in anonymous places to anonymous people, but when we do have extrinsic evidence it contradicts the story as told. That doesn't mean that Feynman completely made them up, but he did 'workshop' them to retell them for maximal impact. They're closer to tall tales about the fish that got away than an authentic recounting of his life.
Feynman deliberately projected this image; the tales that showed up in Surely were indeed told by him on recording. By all accounts, he was an asshole. However, at least for much of his life he was nicer to people than these stories would suggest, and in later life he recognized that the casual misogyny of his earlier stories was at least inappropriate if not wrong. This reflection is missing from his legacy, presumably since 'brilliant asshole' sells better.
Despite being a genuinely brilliant physicist, there's no physics in Feynman's legacy as a person and media figure. This does a disservice to Feynman fans (including just about every teenager who is pointed towards Surely You're Joking after expressing an interest in science), who are implicitly told that the important part of 'brilliant asshole' is 'asshole'. Feynman had a genuine enthusiasm for new knowledge and worked hard to deeply understand everything he was shown, but those inspiring traits are also lost in his mythos.