—“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent central tendencies and dispersion. It’s almost as if statistical reasoning doesn’t stop at the door just because we want it to.”—Duke Newcomb
Source: Original Site Post
-
“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent centra
-
“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent centra
—“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent central tendencies and dispersion. It’s almost as if statistical reasoning doesn’t stop at the door just because we want it to.”—Duke Newcomb
-
The Police Are Dependent on Gasoline Too
The Police Are Dependent on Gasoline Too https://t.co/U5VRaKafqZ
-
The Police Are Dependent on Gasoline Too
Oct 30, 2019, 12:17 PM In Houston I have gone 5 days without electricity or EMS/Police service due to hurricanes. The first thing to go is gasoline. It was creepy to listen on my police scanner as they refused 911 calls because they didn’t have enough fuel to drive to the location. Now I fill several 5-gallon fuel cans when a hurricane approaches. Get a few of these and put them in your attic. Fill them when danger approaches… —Bill Shevick Jager
-
The Police Are Dependent on Gasoline Too
Oct 30, 2019, 12:17 PM In Houston I have gone 5 days without electricity or EMS/Police service due to hurricanes. The first thing to go is gasoline. It was creepy to listen on my police scanner as they refused 911 calls because they didn’t have enough fuel to drive to the location. Now I fill several 5-gallon fuel cans when a hurricane approaches. Get a few of these and put them in your attic. Fill them when danger approaches… —Bill Shevick Jager
-
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism https://t.co/JJWU3kp42g
-
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism
—“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉
Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created. ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )
-
The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism
—“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉
Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created. ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )
-
We Have No Choice. Equality in Reciprocity or In Poverty
We Have No Choice. Equality in Reciprocity or In Poverty https://t.co/ydncTZv1JB
-
We Have No Choice. Equality in Reciprocity or In Poverty
Our only possibilities are equality in reciprocity or equality in ignorance, superstition, and absolute poverty. There is no choice. It’s just physics. Humans have memories, predictions from memories, and ability to choose to act on those predictions, so that we can outwit time in ways physical processes lacking memory, prediction, choice, and action cannot. However that only allows us to benefit from physical processes not deny or circumvent them. We are as physically constrained as is the rest of the universe. And our only substantial advantage is that the ability to imitate, empathize, sympathize, predict futures from them, and choose to cooperate on those possible futures, is so much more efficient and provides so many greater returns, that we can do a bit better than the rest of life forms – at least with our limits – to convert more calories, and continuously increase our consumption through continuous expansion of cooperation. But in doing so we form Pareto distributions of influence, in order to obtain Nash equilibriums of rewards. And that is a physical necessity of physical reality. We don’t have any choice. We are not wealthier than cave men, our only asset is time. Through cooperation we have made the purchasing power of time increase over and over again throughout history, although disproportionately so with the invention of aristotielainsim, and even more so with the mastery of heat, steam, electricity, chemistry, and now information.