> "When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations"
Curious if you have a way to back up the claim the accusers are severely disadvantaged?
Based on how it is at Stanford and many universities in the US, the system is certainly stacked in the accuser's favor. See, for example: https://www.thefire.org/stanford-trains-student-jurors-that-.... This leads to terrible mistakes, Joe Lonsdale comes to mind (it was since reversed, but the damage is likely done by then).
The accusers (victims) are disadvantaged in court (i.e. where facts matter and where there is a very high standard of proof), whereas the accused are disadvantaged outside of courts (and in college "kangaroo" courts), where the standards of proof are much lower and and perceptions matter more than facts.
"Rape culture" advocates claim that courts should become more like kangaroo courts.
There are several well regarded sources that show that the crime -> conviction rate for rape is shockingly low, the main bottlenecks being: reporting (because the victims are heavily disincentivized from reporting for a variety of reasons), decision to bring charges or not by prosecutors, and conviction rates once in trial. I don't have them handy but I'll try to come back to this tomorrow.
Because no one should have to explain to you that universities and incredibly famous cases like this are the exception. I shouldn't have to back up climate change every time I down vote someone "just asking" about clean coal or some shit every time that conversation happens either.
These are horror stories - they hit home IMO because so many men would never dream of assaulting anyone so it's scary to feel lumped into that group, because of the shame that comes with the crime and because the idea of being stuck in a criminal system you don't belong in is infuriating. But much like terrorism, home invasion murders, car jackings and shark attacks the likelihood of being accused of a sexual crime you didn't commit is basically zero.
It's okay guys, we can admit there is a problem without having to get grouped in as a rapist. It's not like any of this changes the fact that 90.5% of the murders in the US are apparently committed by men[0] (which also does not make us all murderers)
We are talking about universities here, presumably, since the title is "college sex-assault trials belong in court". So, dismissing them as an "exception" is neither helpful nor relevant.
I have no idea about how fair the system is out of college. My point was about how unfair it is _in_ college.
It was set up there precisely because there was a lot of water available... it used to be an oasis.
Las Vegas is probably way better at water management than say the Bay Area, which most people don't criticize for this, even though we ship water from a billion miles away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy).
To say that it is a "bit slower" than an Aventador is very misleading. In a 0-60 straight line drag race, maybe. But that's not particularly hard to do (that's why Mustangs are cheap), and also not the point of any serious supercar.
Well Shelby GT350 is not particularly cheap at 70K yet can't touch those numbers either :). The point of serious supercar is to demonstrate the status of the owner :). If it was track performance then GTR Nismo is making majority of super cars look very bad and at 1/4 to 1/20 of the cost.
From the video linked, it sounds like they can (legally) switch bikes during the race, so they could just switch back to a legit bike close to the finish.
Even with a big lead you would be hard-pressed to have a mechanical requiring a bike change and still win. Yes you can switch bikes but you will be trailing the peloton by then (where the support cars are.) Early or mid-race you could catch up to the peloton and possibly make it back up front with a lot of effort but probably not within the last 20km or more.
Or, you know, just X-Ray them. Aren't most competition-level bikes using carbon fibre frames these days? For metal frames, ultrasound would work just as well.
X-Ray would work on the thing aluminum chassis of a low end racing bike too. You might have to crank the power up a little, but it's going to see those powerful little magnets clear as day.
It's an interesting article, but how exactly is "skill" measured for things like [1]? I couldn't find a description of this in the article or the linked paper (that I skimmed).
Furthermore, how does this account for personal preference for less dangerous jobs for example? I'd much rather be a waiter than a coal miner, even though you could say both require the same/no skill.
Pay is only one of many different aspects of compensation (a more dangerous/stressful job will likely pay more even if it requires the same skill; many teaching jobs have a lot of vacation which you might value more than a pay increase, and so on).
When I talked to drivers, I came to the conclusion that the drivers are paid more than the passengers are charged, which makes sense. Uber makes huge losses every year.
The hope is that this can last long enough before the drivers can all be fired and replaced with automated cars, or at least that the system will get better (i.e. better at stuffing cars full of people, more demand by training people to order the carpools, etc.).
"When I talked to drivers, I came to the conclusion that the drivers are paid more than the passengers are charged"
That isn't true in general for an Uber driver. What you might have been seeing is that when Uber goes into a new city they guarantee a minimum amount of pay per hour for a driver during certain times if they are logged into the app accepting fares. It is only a temporary measure until they get established in a local market. Once they stop subsidizing earnings for drivers drop precipitously.
Oh, yes of course. I meant to say that I came to this conclusion for the super cheap pools which this question was about (Lyft had (has?) $5 rides in SF, Uber had something similar).
> If you own a gun you are statistically more likely to get shot or killed.
Or is it that if you have reason to believe you might get shot or killed, you are more likely to buy a gun?
I don't have an account, but I just made one because I'm genuinely curious about whether you have a good source for this claim. The usual study referenced for this is deeply flawed; if I remember correctly it examines people who were shot and checks whether they owned a gun. Of course that study is completely invalid because of the selection bias involved. P(X owns a gun | X gets shot) is not the same as P(X gets shot | X owns a gun).
While agreeing with you that there are some statistically terrible high profile studies (such as failure to control for cases where the subject acquired a gun explicitly because they thought someone was planning to shoot them), I think it is still true that owning a gun causally increases your likelihood of being shot.
The biggest reason is suicide. If you don't own a gun, you are much less likely to intentionally shoot yourself. The second reason is accidental shootings. If there is no gun in your house, there is practically no chance that you will accidentally shoot yourself, or that your toddler will accidentally shoot you.
Of course, the question that's really being asked is whether an individual is at greater risk of being shot intentionally by someone else if they own a gun or not. This is where the data is much thinner. This seems like a solid review article: http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20o...
Their conclusion at the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 is even after "controlling for illicit drug use, fights, arrests, living alone, and whether or not the home was rented", that "Yes, owning a gun increases your risk of death by gunshot". Still, I'd be interested in seeing a study that breaks apart statistics for hand guns and long guns.
