Are 3 ways to pick: FREE - person/orgs make own picks, VOTE - pick together (direct or via reps), & RULER - authorities pick, keep job for life, pick successors.
Each of next 16 polls gives you a type of choice. For each one, say which way to pick make most sense for that type.
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Building wood beam width
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Age at which can marry
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Who gets which job
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Topics kids learn age 10
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Topics learn to be doctor
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Car rearview mirror size
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Type med experiment allow
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Meanings of common words
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
H20 amt per toilet flush
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Standard CPU voltage
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Space betw. planes in sky
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Web search privacy level
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
New clothes color fashion
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Smoke detect. sensitivity
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
Court evidence type allow
Which way to pick makes most sense for:
When use FREE/VOTE/RULER
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Striking facts:
- US is going broke on extreme med spending (18% of GDP, biggest govt spend)
- US medical specialists who've looked at data know that medicine has very low marginal health value
- They mostly ignore this when talking to wider publics or considering health policy
The 2nd half of med spending, which costs 9% of GDP, at best gives maybe ~1% mortality cut, which adds ~2mo. of life, or one part in 400 of a lifespan. But a healthy lifeyear is typically worth ~3x annual income. Not a good deal at all.
4 randomized experiments, each vary aggregate medicine, saw no net effect on health:
'74-'82 RAND: 7.7K US folks split evenly to cheap medicine or not, 3-5yrs
'08 Oregon: 8.7K/26K US folks got Medicaid or not, 2yrs
'15-18 Karnataka: 52,292 Indians split evenly, got cheap hospital insurance or not, 3yrs.
'19 US tax letter: 4.5M/0.6M got tax warning letter or not.
"explanation for the absence of widespread prediction markets [PM] … 3 groups … each is largely uninterested …
Savers: who enter markets to build wealth. …
Gamblers: who enter markets for thrills. …
Sharps: who enter markets to profit from superior analysis." worksinprogress.co/issue/why-pred…
I agree regulation isn't main obstacle to PM, & that valuable markets have subsidies, coming from 4th group: those willing to pay for info to inform decisions. Main obstacle is usual one in innovation: not enough concrete trials to work out practical details, show success.
Yes there is "free rider" problem if many value the same info, which is why early trials should focus on cases of concentrated info demand. There are many such.
The most popular explanation I see of UFOs/UAPs is that personal testimony just can't be trusted, and if you ignore that you always find a mundane way to explain all videos, etc. Yet we trust personal testimony in courts all the time; should we stop doing that?
Yes of course non-testimony evidence also matters a lot in courts, but the testimony often makes a big difference to the final verdict. But they why not let that also make a big difference re UFOs/UAPs?
Roughly one in a thousand people are murdered, and maybe a thousand people who might have done it. The prior in UFOs/UAPs cases can't be much less than in murder accusations.
In order to promote diversity, cut homogenization, & get better data, we could, some % of the time, randomly replace winners with losers or with random candidates. In the next 14 polls, say what random % of time to make such replacements in each case.
In elections, what % of the time should the candidate who got the fewest votes be the one who takes office?
When employers rank candidates for a job, what % of the time should they have to hire their worse ranked candidate?
Why don't old retired people do more drugs than young people? After all, the risks of physical harm and social unreliability or shame seems less for them. Are the potential gains from feeling good smaller by an even larger ratio?
“most popular functions for use were using to: relax (96.7%), become intoxicated (96.4%), keep awake at night while socializing (95.9%), enhance an activity (88.5%) and alleviate depressed mood (86.8%)” academic.oup.com/her/article/16…