Lots of statistical skulduggery around, regarding the threshold income for 'poverty' and the resulting trend. But we can sidestep binary gerrymandering entirely by plotting the distribution over time. Max Roser:
I am not a Swedish corporate lawyer but:
Does IKEA own itself?
There are some human beneficiaries, so it's not the full-blown Gibsonian nightmare... (Beneficiaries besides the customers and employees I mean.)
Maybe-adequate self-defence on the cheap
Good brain security advice: "Zone 4 is the web content area. Nothing in this area is to be believed."
Most intellectuals focus on what's wrong - which is good - but then conclude that the world is gettting worse - which is mostly wrong. Pinker & Roser are odd because they push back, & with dramatic data.
One thing even they neglect is the sheer intellectual wealth of our time. It's not visible unless you look; hidden in Springer yellow books, in unprecedented huge open datasets, in the vast public domain of Gutenberg and Github. Another source of joy and hope. Never a better time to think.
Out of curiosity:
Discussing our taxonomy of Markov decision processes, my friend noted that some philosophers (the finitists) don't believe in infinities; maybe we should leave it out.
I noted in response that some philosophers (Eleatics, Zuseans) don't believe in continuousness; many don't believe in randomness (determinists - these days superdeterminists); & that, come to think of it, some (e.g. Parmenideans) don't believe in moving things.
So to be fully uncontroversial, we'd have to prune the whole tree.
A Mastodon instance for maths people. The kind of people who make \(\pi z^2 \times a\) jokes.
\) for inline LaTeX, and
\] for display mode.