More notable than how they use tangential evidence to debunk a claim (e.g. citing a drop in rape as evidence it's not the rape capital, and comparing the rate of rape in absolute terms, not per-capita), is which part of a claim they choose to debunk.
According to the Swedish state TV, 58% of all convicted rapists were foreign-born [1], despite being only 19% of the population [2]. They could cite that as supporting "accepting refugees from war-torn regions like Syria would make the United States less safe", and rate the whole statement as a mixture. Instead they meticulously dance around the core of the statement [3], using all sorts of indirect statistics.
You're obviously using HN primarily for ideological battle, and that's against the site guidelines (regardless of whatever it is that you're battling for), so I've banned this account.
Even if the algorithm was correct, the remaining staff will now focus on gaming the perceived productivity metrics. We all know what that means for actual productivity.
Reminds me when I was teasing my coworker in the project that 75% of our source code was written by me - I had committed a bunch of icons as XPM files to our source code :)
(I can't remember whether he consequently reindented all those files...)
I once had a boss who measured productivity in lines of code. We had two developers. A changed line counted, as did a new line.
So... every week, I'd fire up the code formatter and change a setting for indents (2 spaces or 4, new line for curley braces, etc) and reformat all the code. My parter would refactor the most common function names. We were amazingly productive.
One of the bad managers I've recently shifted jobs away from, achieved tons of "productivity" by shifting Confluence pages written by others, so he appears as the author.
The group I'm in is hiring for C/C++ systems. Experience with safety is a huge plus. If you give an email address I can send you some job listings. If you're interested we can go from there. I'm just an engineer so I can't bring you straight to an interview but I know we're having trouble hiring systems engineers; I could at least pass your resume on directly.
US universities also had a history of trying to exclude Jewish people [1]. I say history, because the practice has by all accounts stopped, and the current situation in the Ivy League [2] is as follows (looking only at non-international students):
Ivy League US Ratio
Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16
Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71
White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82
Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65
Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61
White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56
The numbers don't sum to 100% because I did not include multi-ethnic students, a few minor ethnicities (American-Indian, Pacific Islander..), and students categorized as "unknown" or "other" by the universities. Data on university undergraduate demographics was taken from the universities own diversity reports. Jewish representation was was gathered from http://hillel.org/college-guide/list/, https://forward.com/jewish-college-guide/, and https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/how-many-jewish-undergraduat..., taking the lowest estimate when sources conflicted. ejewishphilanthropy.com (eJP) points out flaws in Hillel's data gathering (e.g. showing Harvard as 30% Jewish, when eJP found it only 16%) Hillel seems to have since fixed these flaws, as the estimates they now give are in-line with those of eJP.
No correction has been made to look at only the college-age population of the US, or only at the Northeastern US where all the Ivy League universities are located, so that may be a source of some bias.
Probably because people think he is being anti-Semitic by posting the facts about over-representation of Jewish enrollment in top universities.
When you couple that with the fact that the data shows that "white supremacy" at college universities is kind of a myth and that there is another "supremacy" altogether, albeit one we're not really allowed to talk about in "polite society," you can expect a lot of downvotes.
I didnt downvote, but these stats seem to pop up a lot and often are being used to illustrate that "white people are discriminated against". The key flaw if thats the intention is that students are usually of a certain age, and Americans are more diverse than they used to be since the laws against marrying across races and immigrating when non-white got repealed.
Probably also likely a second generation immigrant effect and there's a lot if people in Asia.
Looking at only the college age 20-24 year age group [1], the numbers change as follows:
Ivy League US Ratio
Jewish* 17.2% 2.1% 8.21
Asian 19.6% 7.1% 2.75
White 33.1% 51.6% 0.64
Hispanic 11.4% 19.4% 0.59
Black** 7.8% 16.5% 0.47
The relative placement of the bottom 3 groups changes, but their individual representation ratios remain approximately the same. Any conclusions about discrimination that you could draw from the first set of numbers, you can draw from this one - the differences are negligible.
As for there being many people in Asia, that is irrelevant - I excluded international students when calculating Ivy League demographics, so only the US population is relevant.
*I assumed the same age structure for non-Jewish and Jewish whites.
**The census data table gives the total Black population as 47 million for 2017, while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... gives only 40 million, despite citing census.gov as its source. I don't know where the disparity comes from, and that's the only place I've seen such a high estimate of the US Black population.
It is to my knowledge factually correct and on-topic (I upvoted it). That being said, I believe discussion of upvotes/downvotes is against HN guidelines, so we should probably refrain from that here — if you're concerned about abuse you can email hn@ycombinator.com: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Maybe they don't believe the data? And it's very tedious to check. If that's the case, I suggest to check the data for a few individual universities. Cornell and Princeton are slight outliers, but otherwise individual universities don't deviate much from the average. That should give some credence to the numbers.
The presidents of Yale, Pennsylvania, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and Brown are Peter Salovey, Amy Gutmann, Lawrence Bacow, Lee C. Bollinger, Christopher Eisgruber, and Christina Paxson. They are all Jewish (don't take my word for it - check their wikipedia pages).
If you contend they are discriminated against despite holding at least 6 of the 8 presidencies, and despite being by far the most over-represented group, I assume you have some fantastically strong supporting evidence.
> They're the only small group being considered. Of course they're gonna be "by far" something. Many other small groups have above-average representation in academics.
Maybe small in the US as a whole, but in the Ivy League they are 17.2% - the 3rd largest ethnicity, almost as large as Hispanics and Blacks combined.
But lets suppose they are being discriminated against. That would require some other group, that makes up a significant % of the Ivy League, to be unfairly privileged (otherwise it would have a negligible effect on the % of Jewish students).
So which group do you think that is? You said Asians are discriminated against, so they're out. Maybe you think there's too many Hispanic or Black students, despite being 11x less likely to be accepted into the Ivy League? Or is it non-Jewish whites, the most under-represented group, that are also the most privileged?
There's no way to tell whether those numbers are evidence for or against discrimination because there's no control group of culturally blank ivy leagues to compare it against.
Thank you for doing this work. It would be great to have the spreadsheet or code that generates this table available. Would you be willing to share it?
> It’s possible the truth falls somewhere in the middle here.
Only if you believe Facebook has authority to decide what users do with the data Facebook shows them on their own machines. I find this suggestion repellent, the same as if I bought a copy of the New York Times, and afterwards the newspaper tried to forbid me from sharing which ads I saw on its front-page.
People can complain about something, without believing it is illegal, and without already having a legislative or other solution for the problem ready.
If nothing else, it informs others about Youtube censorship - even the most radical libertarians are pro-informed consumers.
> What is stopping people from manufacturing a better ice cream machine? Absolutely nothing. I don't understand this ""right""-to-repair movement.
Do you think that's a viable solution? When the market fails to deliver what consumers and voters want, to ignore what caused or allowed that failure, because "nothing's stopping you"*? And when the new competitor abandons their idealism (or gets bought out) and decides they too will increase profit by sabotaging their machines?
*Except network effects, lock-in, sunk-cost, the significant technological and financial edge of existing companies, startup costs,..
Apple deliberately places itself in a position that make their users powerless against them, then cries when governments predictably force them to abuse that position.
Or see the trouble with Belarus and Apple's decision to support the oppressive regime. Apple demanded that Telegram block protestor channels on the app for iOS.
According to the Swedish state TV, 58% of all convicted rapists were foreign-born [1], despite being only 19% of the population [2]. They could cite that as supporting "accepting refugees from war-torn regions like Syria would make the United States less safe", and rate the whole statement as a mixture. Instead they meticulously dance around the core of the statement [3], using all sorts of indirect statistics.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden
[3] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-...