The most obvious weakness in it is that he criticises numerous regression models (and presumably knows how to build one himself) and even sneers at the concept, but his own arguments are all based on simplistic "the line looks different during the sunspot activity period" generalisations. Which isn't going to impress people on here that work with messy datasets on a daily basis, and know that once you've acknowledged multiple uncorrelated factors impact the variables, the shape of the basic scatter plot doesn't tell you very much.
The scaling of the "to inform, not to scare" graph to show "normal CO2 limits in a confined space" is particularly silly since afaik absolutely no climate scientist has ever speculated we're all about to suffocate from the additional carbon dioxide released.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to his argument that climate forecasts are an inexact science, humanity is perfectly capable of living at higher average global temperatures and engineers might be better focusing attention on structural adjustment problems (like flooding and regional disruption to crops). But this is a polemic rather than a more compelling approach to reading the figures. And the idea mooted at the end that airline certification levels of certainty should be applied to all public policy decisions is just... amusing.
It's not "censorship" if media outlets won't carry messages they disagree with. It's actually pretty fundamental to freedom of speech that they're not obliged to.
It's a lot easier to find radical and controversial material than at any other period in history, including in the parts of the world where people actually do have to search for "how to set up proxy" before viewing hitherto nonexistent detailed written criticisms of their government.
To be honest, I'm struggling to think of any profession which less resembles the concept of wage slavery than programming, Compared with other jobs it pays relatively high salaries, offers more opportunities for remote and flexible working, more opportunities as self-employed contractors and more opportunities to start companies that don't even rely on contracting for others.
In a company of any size, nobody has absolute agency and complete immunity from stupid shit that bosses envision, not even the zillionaire owners of the company who don't have to do performance reviews or attend standup meetings.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that has less to do with nomenclature and more to do with oil, rather than working Alaskans, paying for the Permanent Fund. Plus there can't be too many people aiming to go through life living solely off the Permanent Fund.
To be fair, systematic data on experimental transfer programmes aimed at the extreme poor in developing countries is no better than random anecdotes for confirming or debunking stereotypes of lazy welfare recipients in developed countries with well-established welfare states. This study tells you a fair bit about extreme poverty relief schemes and precisely nothing about how the welfare state affects or doesn't affect people's behaviour in Western Europe and the USA.
Lack of negative behavioural effect from conditional handouts as low as $4 per household per month really doesn't tell you much about the effect of subsidies designed to permit an at least borderline-adequate Western standard of living.
They're trying to fix different issues with different sized budgets.
I don't fully disagree with you, but this is sort of begging the question, since cryonics seems to rely heavily on the chance of unforeseeable advantages.
On top of that, you seem to be committing the common fallacy of equating every minute of life as the same, whether you're suffering terminally in a hospital bed or watching the sunset with friends (this is also why people choose to be taken off the respirator or have DNRs). Using something like QALYs makes infinitely more sense (though switching to QALYs may not quite invalidate your point).
When the only certainty is killing people, I'd question whether the incalculably remote possibility of "unforeseeable advantages" undoing that killing counts for anything at all.
The last thing advocates of euthanasia and DNR for the heavily-suffering should want to see is their ethical arguments muddied by cryogenics salespeople hanging round hospitals persuading people that they'd be better off dying shortly after diagnosis...
> When the only certainty is killing people, I'd question whether the incalculably remote possibility of "unforeseeable advantages" undoing that killing counts for anything at all.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you but I don't think misrepresenting the arguments made by proponents is the same thing as rebutting them, like you did in this second comment.
> The last thing advocates of euthanasia and DNR for the heavily-suffering should want to see is their ethical arguments muddied by cryogenics salespeople hanging round hospitals persuading people that they'd be better off dying shortly after diagnosis...
Uh, that's great and everything but it's not even remotely relevant to the point of whether QALYs are a more appropriate measure than raw years of life for measuring the effectiveness of cryogenics. Sorry if that sounded a little caustic, but I find enormously tiresome the cynical tactic of appealing to "that argument is dangerous, what if someone down the road abuses it?" when one is unwilling or unable to address a point. Particularly because you could come up with some scenario in which pretty much every assertion could be used for ill.
As you seemed to acknowledge yourself, QALYs don't really affect my original argument because unless you're ascribing negative utility to the remainder of the patient's lifespan, hastening a patient's death in the hope that it might have some effect on an incalculably small probability of future resuscitation still has a negative impact on QALYs. A fantasy of massively expanded future lifespan in perfect health multiplied by a probability best estimated at zero is still zero, to the best knowledge of all medics involved in the process.
If patients are making decisions to shorten their lifespan it should be on the basis of suffering less pain rather than subscribing to pseudoscientific twaddle about unforeseeable sufficiently advanced technological magic. The OP seemed to think the latter should have been prioritised if legal.
Its rather tiresome when people accuse me of being "unwilling or unable to address a point" after they've already parenthetically acknowledged it doesn't really change anything.
Sure, they can use it to make it better, but I've yet to see proof that they need it to process your voice. I'm definitely not knowledgeable in this area, but I'd imagine that they could make an internetless standalone product that translates, but choose not to.
I'd have thought the market for gene therapy was blindingly obvious compared with the market for computers 40 years ago: theoretical gene therapies being easier to conceive and more fundamental to human quality and length of life than theoretical everyday uses for calculation devices.
Point mutation diseases impact a relatively small portion of the population. They are trivially addressable if you have a gene therapy that is able to work on arbitrary adult tissue, but it's not that huge a market. I think the largest win is sickle cell anemia, after that cystic fibrosis.
Some way of treating obesity with gene therapy would be a blockbuster financially, but biologically we don't really have that worked out so much.