Dutch's Pseudoscience Pages are essays by a University of Wisconsin-Green Bay geologist on pseudoscience, value systems, anti-intellectualism, and technology.
HN links it for the essay on the toxic honor value system, with one commenter relating it to people they met in Russia, and for an analysis of a situation.
I think they mean that blocking problems that would prevent the implementation of their favorite policy are the tragedies.
Public transport does not work, and this is just one more reason why. Every few years the police feels the need to spend a month or two catching pickpockets (or worse) on public transport. Train stations in all the big cities are hotbeds of criminal activity. That is a major problem that is not, and probably won't ever be, solved.
For me personally public transport fails in 3 massive ways:
1) public transport means I cannot do groceries, shopping for furniture, tvs or other big goods, move houses, ... so I still need a car, public transport or not.
2) governments just don't build out public transport. Even in places with "excellent" public transport, when I pass there (the Netherlands, for example), there are severe capacity problems that COULD have been solved, but aren't.
In many places like London or New York, there aren't capacity problems, you're actually unlikely to NOT be delayed at some point.
3) it's not actually cheaper once you take into account that you have to bring 2 kids to school, then go to work. Taking the cost/inconvenience/risk of public transport doesn't even provide a monetary or time reward.
This also means that using public transport for family trips is out : driving across Europe (e.g. Netherlands -> South of France) for a weekend or holiday ... train is a LOT more expensive than using a car.
(That said, it can provide a…
Wikipedia is not accepted as a source by universities.
http://library.williams.edu/citing/wikipedia.php
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305
http://theminaretonline.com/2007/04/19/article1475
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/paperref.htm
In fact, Wikipedia had a scandal recently. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/
Not only that but they get some facts wrong and refuse to correct them:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html
I don't really see why Wikipedia is considered a valid source of anything in academia or learning things.
I don't think it is 'easy' to write an article, in fact I know it is hard and difficult without making mistakes and having logical fallacies bad grammar and other things. I was a computer programmer and became sick and disabled and took up writing. I don't have the money to continue my college, so I have to rely on what is on the Internet. But I often find what is on the Internet is either, wrong, has errors, uses logical fallacies, is inaccurate, make nonsense, or leaves things out.
I am starting to find that books are better and more accurate and easier to understand and read than your typical collection of articles at Wikipedia, or posts on Reddit or anywhere else for that matter. The best responses I got on this thread…
A quote from
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM
The science, reduced to its simplest terms, is that carbon dioxide
is known to be effective at trapping solar heat. So are water
vapor (the source of 90% of earth's natural greenhouse effect),
methane, and other gases. The natural carbon dioxide content of the
atmosphere has doubled in the last 200 years, climate is getting
warmer, so the logical conclusion is that there is a connection
between the two trends. If you feel uncomfortably warm at night and
wake up to find someone has put another blanket over you, you don't
need to look beyond that to identify the source of the warming.
* Nobody - nobody - argues with the carbon dioxide trend. It's
established beyond doubt.
* The debate over whether climate is getting warmer is mostly over.
* The debate now is over whether the connection between warming and
human emission of carbon dioxide is real, or whether there are other
causes of climate change at work.
* The real issue is whether the benefits of taking action will
outweigh the costs and regulatory burdens.
* There are some who argue that warming will be beneficial by
reducing energy demands for heating, lengthening growing seasons,
and creating larger habitable and arable territory.
The case for human-caused global warming is simultaneously a lot
clearer than George W. Bush believes, and a whole lot less so than
…
Having commuted to work in Brussels, a city often described as having great mass transit (and when it's not busy, that's absolutely true)
Here's my observations :
1) despite not paying for itself (the state pays hundreds of millions yearly to make up for the losses of the public transport system) it's a little bit more expensive, per kilometer, than taking a car (train + metro vs gas). Even for longer distances, planes are actually cheaper than trains. If you get a company car and just pay for fuel, it's half the price. Otoh, parking in some places drives the price back up (but then you can park near a metro station and only use public transport for the last kilometer or so. Or a folding bike, I've had colleagues who did that).
2) when you want to use them to commute, they're not just busy, they're off the scale full. You can only stand and sometimes you miss your train because you literally can't squeeze in. (I tried first class for a week, but that makes it a multiple of the price of using a car, and you still need to stand)
3) the comfort level, compared to a car, is off the scale worse. You can take things along in a car, whereas there is a clear and very small capacity limit to what you can take on public transport. 40kg, backpack size, no more, groceries for a week is doable, furniture, electronics, not really doable (I tend to put those on a bike and walk home beside it). And I'm a 200 pound guy, I'd hate to think what the limits are if you're 80 pounds.
4) In…
From an erstwhile therapy procrastinator:
First of all, don’t stress about explaining “what’s wrong” to a therapist before you meet them, or let this become a barrier to you getting started (I fell into this trap for years myself). A simple “Hi my name is X and I’ve been been thinking about finding a therapist to work on some issues with. When would you be available for an initial call?” is perfectly sufficient.
A thing people say about therapy is that it’s like a bit like dating. Don’t be discouraged if it takes a few tries to find someone who is accepting new patients and feels like a good fit (most will offer a free consultation as well to help you evaluate this). Give them a fair shot, a few sessions at least (I was skeptical of a therapist I was randomly assigned ~10yrs ago, but he swiftly cured a very acute case of hypochondria that had bubbled up out of nowhere. However, you should move on to the next one if it really isn’t working—unlike dating, your therapist won’t be hurt (or if they are, then they have the tools to deal with it right?). This is probably the best directory for finding local therapists: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists
Most will give you a set of questionnaires to complete before or during your first appointment (e.g.: https://www.uwgb.edu/UWGBCMS/media/Continueing-Professional-Education/files/Assess-Pkt-1-Burns-Depression-Checklist.pdf). This gives them a coarse baseline of what’s going on.
The conversation simply evolves from…
Example of the problem with mass transit : http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm
1) Money: generally speaking, depending on the number of passengers mass transit is a little cheaper (1 person), about the same (2 pers) or much more expensive (a family of 4-5) than public transport.
If you take into account that home -> work -> shopping -> home with public transport turns into home -> city center -> other city center -> work -> city center -> shopping -> city center -> other city center -> home ... The point is that there are many kinds of trips where the routes taken by public transport cause it to be more expensive than a car.
In the cities where I've worked, mass transit (2x bus + train) was only 20-30% cheaper than a car and only if you lived out in the suburbs and worked in the city. The other way around (living in city, working a bit out of the city), mass transit was more expensive than the car. Living in city, working in city, a fold-up bike was far more convenient.
2) Time: mass transit doesn't go where I live, and doesn't leave/arrive when I need to leave/arrive. Furthermore, it's regularly non-operative when I need it. This limits what I can do (I stayed late, we ordered in pizza, then hang out with a friend ... oops it's 22h30 ... no more buses to my place until 6 am. Yes it only happened to me maybe 5 times over a decade but fuck that shit)
3) Baggage limits: when using mass transit I can carry 25 kilograms. If I don't care about comfort of…