Actually, it seems like the argument is subtly different. Instead of trying to guess what we're looking for, this would try to answer what we've explicitly asked about. It's like the difference between your friends randomly telling you what car you should buy and them answering in response to your question about what car you should buy.
In a linear regression model, r-squared represents how correlated the model is with the data, while beta indicates the relationship between an outcome (e.g., revenue) to an input (e.g., GDP). Thus, a r-squared of one in a model where profit is the dependent variable and GDP is the single independent variable suggests that profit is 100% correlated with GDP. A beta of 1 indicates that profit moves in the same direction and to the same degree as GDP.
If you read Reason enough, you'll know that they take this position -- that market liberalization makes the world better -- on pretty much every issue.
Which has no bearing on the validity of this particular piece, right? It's just a blanket statement about the source. You would take this particular piece and argue it on its merits, right? Not imply that because the publication has one pattern or another, the reasoning (ugh) is somehow tainted.
I just want to make sure that you are simply making an observation, and not trying to impeach the article by casting aspersions on the source.
Pointing out a pattern of dogmatic reasoning unmoved by evidence to the contrary is hardly an ad hominem. It is a way of warning that this article adds no information, if you are already acquainted with the dogma. Also, if you believe that you have a convincing argument against the dogma, it will probably apply to this article.
In a similar fashion, if I tell you that an article recounts the same old many-worlds hypothesis, and you are acquainted with the many-worlds hypothesis, you may skip the article.
In a similar fashion, if I tell you that an article recounts the same old many-worlds hypothesis, and you are acquainted with the many-worlds hypothesis, you may skip the article.
How about the case in which I am mistaken, and have never been exposed to a many-worlds argument that was well reasoned and persuasive?
I don't know if I would want to listen to an argument that claimed, for instance, that spirits lived in rocks. But if I were part of a community which found such an article interesting, I would find it more useful in terms of understanding both the posters and the cultural nature of the submission to take the argument on face value and submit a few kindly-worded criticisms. After all, maybe the other guy has never heard a clear, reasoned, and persuasive argument either, right?
I think we are talking about two different kinds of arguments. I think the Reason article is more expository than polemical, which is a major part of my problem with it.
Suppose I tell you instead at the top of my article that the following starts from the premise that rocks are alive. Then I proceed to argue that you should destroy your computer and throw it into the ocean to preserve the rights of the minerals therein. The logic is sound and it's written in a witty, convincing style.
Sure, that's only one article, and it sounds pretty novel. Now imagine there is a Rocks First! organization that puts out pamphlets, magazines, books, and press releases on rock rights and the mineral personhood amendment, and reinterprets recent history in terms of the silent rock genocides that humans have perpetrated against their inert brethren. You can be pretty sure of the position before you read the material; it is derived from their fundamental beliefs.
In such a case, an argument at the core of the fundamental beliefs might sway an organi-centrist to become rock-conscious, but not peripheral stuff about a recent amendment defining marriage as between a human and a human.
The Reason article, I think, is just what you would expect someone to say who believed dogmatically in the power of the free market. It doesn't take opposing viewpoints into account on market deregulation, nor does it attempt to address the core issues that convince them this is the proper interpretation of the Clinton years. It leaves a lot of important questions unmentioned and unanswered.
Perhaps this should be entitled "The Perils of Market Efficiency" instead, because this is more about market liberalization than improved productivity.
Although this article highlights some of the consequences of market liberalization, I think it's dangerously to extrapolate this case more broadly. First, structural readjustment programs took place in sub-Saharan countries that lacked necessary markets, transit infrastructure, and other prerequisites for private business growth. This differs from in the United States, where such infrastructure is substantially more mature. Second, many of these countries lack sufficient crop diversification, which when coupled with limited purchasing power, exacerbates famine during droughts.
If you think the American government is coercive, then imagine what would transpire in its absence. Regardless, voting reduces the coercive power of the state by affording citizens the right to change government.
Remember that this is about teaching students to program and not about producing code for a business on deadline. I learned much more about how to program by doing things myself from scratch than using the relevant libraries. Also, I find learning the low-level stuff much more interesting that memorizing libraries and reading documentation.
It seems like the core message (apart from getting to profitability quickly) is pretty important to YC startups keen on getting acquired - "in a poor economy, companies really need to find better, cheaper, and more efficient ways of operating."
In other words, stop making widgets that turn your Facebook friends into zombies and start creating ones that make it easier for people to sell or make things.
>- "in a poor economy, companies really need to find better, cheaper, and more efficient ways of operating."
The economy isn't that poor, though. Ignore the headlines. Watch GDP, GDP per capita, and unemployment. If those things aren't going negative, then people are still going to spend money.
Politicians live by demagoguery and fear. Businessmen should look at facts.
In other words, stop making widgets that turn your Facebook friends into zombies and start creating ones that make it easier for people to sell or make things.
1. To bid on your DVD player, I had to randomly guess the lowest price. The only reason I would pay more than the lowest price on Onista is out of frustration from having to guess the price. Unless the prices were wildly cheaper, I'd just go to eBay and "buy it now" and avoid the hassle.
2. Before you promote your site, get a copy editor. I am very cautious about paying - let alone registering - on sites that have lots of typos.
3. Cut out as many features as you can. This probably starts with the "social network." Not only is the sheer volume of options confusing, but it's also impossible to maintain such complexity with three part-time developers. There are a lot of broken links and titles that don't accurately reflect the content they link to (such as category links that say there are multiple listings, when there are in fact none, and vice-versa). I'd rather have one simple and well-done feature than 10 half-baked ones.
Here's a question for anyone that does angel investment: How much does this decrease in availability of VC capital and exit options affect your decision to invest in fledgling startups?
