iheartblocks

Who needs an appetite suppressant when they have comments like these?

The concept of state sovereignty wouldn't come about until (approximately) the Treaty of Westphalia, but Romans of this time period would have certainly understood what the government-prescribed religion is

What was the valuation of the private transactions and when were they?

Does anyone know what the efficiency is, and what the consumables are?

I'm currently watching The Wire, and this aspect of people juking the stats to move up the ranks is a deep underlying theme. It's gotten me to thinking: what is the best alternative to focusing on metrics? Surely, relying on something other than data would be no improvement over the status quo.

The only thought I've had is to: 1) Rely on a spectrum of metrics, to get a more holistic perspective. Instead of just seeing "crime is down x%" administrators would see how many reports end up classified as a lower-level infractions, how civilians rate the safety of their area, etc. 2) Add common-sense restrictions to make stat-pumping more difficult. For example, bringing in classroom inspections on random days 3) Penalizing institutions and individuals who are clearly attempting to juke the stats. Enforcement would certainly be difficult, but simply having something to this effect on the books would, imho, reduce schools dedicating time to studying for a standardized test

One possibility would be to have a government body fine media outlets and social media platforms that leave people misinformed, or more likely to become extremized.

The largest risk that I see with that plan is that it implies a level of government censorship, something that is an undeniably risky proposition. On one hand, a malevolent political party could wield that power to their own advantage, and on the other hand political gridlock could neuter any real progress being made.

To address this, I'm imagining a new branch of government run via sortition. In this system, qualifying citizens would be selected by lottery, and would serve on a committee to oversee it's proper execution.

This way, companies would have a vested interest in giving their users access to the truth, and an incentive to puncture the knowledge bubble that fosters extremism.

I see this study referenced frequently, and it's always seemed dubious. Why would there be a spike at exactly 7 days of abstinence, before returning to baseline? It's possible that the measuring apparatus was improperly calibrated on that day. Has this study been reproduced?

I believe that the reduction in temperature is generally attributed to lower levels of inflammation, which in turn is likely caused by reduced exposure to disease

This seems rather dubious to me; what selection pressure exists that's increasing fitness for people with three arteries? The fact that it's progressing so rapidly suggests that this is either bad data, or environmental changes