They say in the NFL, "Film doesn't lie." If so, this kid would seem to have a great future.
Interesting: I've had Lindt chocolate a couple of times and was unimpressed. I thought I was just weird. But, apparently not.
To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee: "That's not a truck. This is a truck."
"Bioavailability" is key.
Good. I'll take this one off my ever-lengthening worry list.
Well worth remembering when you read about the next big Health Scare.
"Most research findings are false or exaggerated, and the more dramatic the result, the less likely it is to be true . . ."
Not too early, I trust, to get prepared for driving in snow and ice.
Knowing who to trust is difficult. (My suggestion: educate yourself and then trust yourself.)
The subject of retirement is also filled with experts with conflicting points of view.
Good question, one I've had. Current feminism seems to celebrate women's new freedom to imitate the worst behavior of men. That's some achievement.
Also on current gender stuff: "Why are good men so hard to find?"
Not easy, especially given the state of journalism today.
The newspapers love a cancer research story, but many are misleading or won’t affect patients for many years. But there is plenty of progress worth reporting.
. . . is "an emerging and growing phenomena," at least according to the The Beer Professor.
There is no such beast as a new car that “pollutes” — if that word is understood to mean what it ought to mean. That is to say, what it once meant.
Oooooh, call on me, prof! I know, I know!
Fine. Maybe DC real estate prices will come down a little.
Once again it seems like almost all chronic health problems of middle-aged and older people are now being attributed either to inflammation or gut bacteria.
If this is being reported by the Bay Area CBS stations[!], how long will the politicians be able to keep kicking the can down the road?
"Is social justice war coming home to roost at Oberlin, as it did at Mizzou and Evergreen State?"
Good question. I read Obamacare was going to fix that.
Sound good to me.
Modern cosmologists have one tough job.
I have no words.
So I'll borrow Dennis Dodd's: "There is no more academic fraud. Cheating might as well be a major."
Now, to be fair, there were at least two attempts to explain--not excuse, but explain--the decision. One is on Bill Simmons's site: "North Carolina Was Always Going to Get Off in the NCAA’s “Paper Class” Investigation". Here's its key point:
More importantly, the athletes involved did not breach their status as amateurs by taking the paper classes. And that’s a problem for the NCAA, which as an organization really only has the authority to deal with amateurism-related violations.
Excuse me? Why then does the NCAA nominally set academic eligibility requirements which all Division I schools make a huge--huuuuge!--production out of complying with? To wit:
Student-Athletes are required to meet and maintain certain academic standards in order to practice and compete in Division I athletics.
The Academic Performance Program (APP) is designed to ensure Division I student-athletes receive exemplary educational and intercollegiate-athletics experiences. The APP encourages student-athlete graduation through a reward and penalty system directly tied to a team’s academic performance. The APP umbrella covers both the Academic Progress Rate (APR) and Graduation Success Rate (GSR).
I'm sorry, but while we thank you for playing, this explanation is no good.
The other attempted explanation I saw was from the usually extremely insightful Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine, "Widespread Academic Corruption Lets UNC Sports Off the Hook". Paul's argument is that while the charge was that UNC provided "unfair benefits" to the athletes in the form of these phony courses, the phony courses were provided probably with the purpose and certainly with the result of helping all UNC students who shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. Hence, no "unfair benefits" and no penalty.
The charge of "unfair benefits" was made because the enforcement staff thought that that would be a more acceptable charge. Charging fraud would, it was thought, put the NCAA in the position of assessing the academic quality of a member institutions' courses which the NCAA has vehemently said it cannot do.
But fraud it was! There's ample documentary evidence that these were not "easy courses". They were fraudulent courses. (And I think the evidence clearly shows they were conceived and implemented solely to help the athletes not anybody else.) Don't believe me? Allow me to quote from the NCAA's decision memorandum, first page:
Within the academic review of the classes outside the NCAA infractions process, UNC told its accrediting body that the 18 years of academic conduct was "long-standing and egregious academic wrongdoing." It also originally adopted it's accreditor's characterization of the wrongdoing as "academic fraud".
The details are many and are so, so gory. If you want a decent summary, written in a white-hot fury, by a Dukie, I recommend, "A Pitiful Victory: Lies, damned lies and UNC". It ends this way:
How very sad then that after fighting Jim Crow for decades, after fighting for justice and inclusion, how dreadful is that the former champion of the oppressed welcomed African-American students and athletes to campus, only to exploit many of those athletes for their physical talents and money-making abilities and to fail at the one thing a university is supposed to do.
Enjoy your victory, champs.
This is what you wanted, right?
Rep. Steve Scalise had some bad luck followed by some really good luck. Interesting, and uplifting, story.
But generally good work by Utah and the upper Midwest.
Arthur Lewbel, Boston College, forthcoming in JEL:
Well over two dozen different terms for identification appear in the econometrics literature, including set identification, causal identification, local identification, generic identification, weak identification, identification at infinity, and many more. This survey: 1. provides a general framework for characterizing identification concepts, 2. summarizes and compares the zooful of different terms for identification that appear in the literature, and 3. discusses concepts closely related to identification, such as observational equivalence, normalizations, and the differences in identification between structural models and randomization based reduced form (causal) models.
Related: James Heckman and Burton Singer, AER, May 2017:
Abduction is the process of generating and choosing models, hypotheses, and data analyzed in response to surprising findings. All good empirical economists abduct. Explanations usually evolve as studies evolve. The abductive approach challenges economists to step outside the framework of received notions about the "identification problem" that rigidly separates the act of model and hypothesis creation from the act of inference from data. It asks the analyst to engage models and data in an iterative dynamic process, using multiple models and sources of data in a back and forth where both models and data are augmented as learning evolves.
I don't know about "soon," but it does seem like choice is, finally, winning.
But if those charters don't get with the Liberals' program in California--real quick--I'll bet bad stuff will happen: "Fewer charter schools choosing CalSTRS pensions".