Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Dustin Wyatt
21,726 followers -
...nothing occurs contrary to nature except the impossible, and that never occurs.
...nothing occurs contrary to nature except the impossible, and that never occurs.

21,726 followers
About
Dustin Wyatt's posts

Post has attachment
Hey, if you want to hear a sound that will cause you anxiety (who doesn't want that?!?), go to this page.

For me, at least, it's freakish how much it affects how I feel.

Post has shared content
Billionaire hero fighting to reform science:

> ... in July 2012, Nosek received an email from an institution whose name he didn’t recognize: the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. [...] As Nosek tells it, John Arnold had read about the Reproducibility Project in The Chronicle of Higher Education and wanted to talk. By the following year, Nosek was cofounding an institution called the Center for Open Science with an initial $5.25 million grant from the Arnold Foundation. [...] The Reproducibility Project, meanwhile, swelled to include more than 270 researchers working to reproduce 100 psychology experiments—and in August 2015, Nosek revealed its results. Ultimately his army of volunteers could verify the findings of only about 40 percent of the studies. Media reports declared the field of psychology, if not all of science, to be in a state of crisis. It became one of the biggest science stories of the year.

> But as it happens, Nosek is just one of many researchers who have received unsolicited emails from the Arnold Foundation in the past few years—researchers involved in similar rounds of soul-searching and critique in their own fields, who have loosely amounted to a movement to fix science.

> John Ioannidis was put in touch with the Arnolds in 2013. A childhood math prodigy turned medical researcher, Ioannidis became a kind of godfather to the science reform crowd in 2005, when he published two devastating papers—one of them titled simply “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” Now, with a $6 million initial grant from the Arnold Foundation, Ioannidis and his colleague Steven Goodman are setting out to turn the study of scientific practice—known as meta-research—into a full-fledged field in its own right, with a new research center at Stanford.

> British doctor Ben Gold­acre also got an email from the Arnold Foundation in 2013. Famous in England as a sharp-witted scourge of “bad science,” Goldacre spent years building up a case that pharmaceutical companies, by refusing to reveal all their data, have essentially deceived the public into paying for worthless therapies. Now, with multiple grants from the Arnolds, he is leading an effort to build an open, searchable database that will link all publicly available information on every clinical trial in the world. [...]

> A number of the Arnolds’ reform efforts have focused on fixing nutrition science. [...] And those are just a few of the people who are calling out iffy science with Arnold funding. Laura and John Arnold didn’t start the movement to reform science, but they have done more than anyone else to amplify its capabilities—typically by approaching researchers out of the blue and asking whether they might be able to do more with more money. “The Arnold Foundation has been the Medici of meta-research,” Ioannidis says. All told, the foundation’s Research Integrity initiative has given more than $80 million to science critics and reformers in the past five years alone.

Post has attachment
Photo

Post has attachment
Dylan Matthews says the two biggest critiques of universal basic income are wrong. Those two critiques:

Making the case for universal basic income (UBI) has always required advocates to address two criticisms of the idea:

1. Giving people cash will cause them to work less, hurt the economy, and deprive them of the meaning that work provides in life.
2. Providing an income floor set at a reasonable level for everyone is unaffordable.

Call these the work critique and the cost critique. These are attractive arguments to liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have worried about the work disincentive effects of welfare programs for decades, of course, but some liberals, like Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden, have attacked UBI on similar grounds, arguing that by discouraging work it separates ordinary people from a powerful source of meaning in life. Of course, that’s only true if UBI does, in fact, cause people to stop working en masse

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
The always-excellent Scott Alexander takes on an article in the Financial Times that sorta criticizes the idea (and the people espousing the idea) that we should be worried about the future of AI.

It’s like a general who refuses to post sentries, because we can’t be certain of anything in this world, so therefore we can’t be certain the enemy will launch an attack tonight. The general isn’t being skeptical and hard-headed. He’s just being insane.

Post has attachment
Man your brain really doesn't want to see inside-out faces! Though, it turns out that it might be the case that transgender people, schizophrenic people, and autistic people have slightly different response rates to optical illusions like these. See here for more: http://w4t.pw/48
Animated Photo

Post has attachment
Animated Photo
Wait while more posts are being loaded