-1=e^ipi

Yes, obviously you want a ranked referendum on this question.

On the other hand, no unnecessary erections and I won't get accused of manspreading. Also, higher life expectancy, more job opportunities, more scholarships, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be a victim of violent crimes (being a victim of assault suffering brain damage is not pleasant), less likely to be murdered, more funding for gender-specific cancers, greater chance of your emotional concerns being taken seriously, full control over my ability to reproduce, genital integrity as an infant, not subject to drafts in any western countries, etc. Edit: I feel this thread is going a bit off topic.

You say that yet the data disagrees with you. Women have a 2:1 hiring advantage in STEM fields: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract Millennial women out earn millennial men in urban areas: http://www.aei.org/publication/the-case-against-the-paycheck-fairness-act/#mbl

Maybe because most of the posters were older and buying into the mainstream narrative. I certainly was too intimidated to post in such a thread until the end. For myself, I would certainly choose to be female given all of the privileges of being female that exist in our society.

Papineau has gone liberal since 1953 in all but 2 years. It's a pretty safe liberal riding. It also helps if you are a pretty boy with Trudeau as your last name.

The empirical evidence paints a different picture than the mainstream narrative you buy into http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34667100/poor-white-boys-get-a-worse-start-in-life-says-equality-report After controlling for poverty white boys perform the worst in schools. Boys are consistently underperforming girls and whites are consistently underperforming non-whites. Maybe the anti-white male ideology being spread in school systems, or the fact that there are lots of scholarships and groups pushing for higher educational attainment for girls and non-whites, but none for white males, has something to do with this outcome.

.........................................................................................................................Really? Okay, I challenge you to go to Tiananmen Square with a sign that says 'Communist Party of China sucks' and tell everyone the Communist Party sucks. Let me know how it goes.

Maybe because the Republic of China isn't the People's Republic of China. But I'm glad that you are pointing out the fact that the Spratly Islands belong to the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China.

What nonsense. The Republic of China is the legal successor of the Republic of China. In case you haven't noticed, the Republic of China is still around.

What would count as an adequate 'position' to you for someone to be able to assess intellectual capabilities? Success? All his accomplishments are due to who his father was.

Should the people of Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Quebec also have the right to self-determination?

Wow the communist propaganda you must have been brainwashed with. China is the world's second largest economy primarily because it has 1.4 billion people. The communists just held China back economically for decades. The only reason China has experienced such rapid economic growth was because they were held back for decades by the communists and what China is experiencing is a catch-up effect. If the Republic of China won the civil war, rather than the People's Republic of China, China would be as rich as South Korea or Taiwan are today. And Mao. You forget Mao. And look at how well that's worked out for the people of North Korea. Thanks PRC for causing decades of impoverishment to the DPRK!

Underestimating him? How? All Justin Trudeau had to do was show up, not be Mulcair or Harper, and enjoy the CBC propaganda machine. Other people run Trudeau's campaign for him. Same with George Bush. I guess that means George Bush is a genius. If you say so.

Not all of the Spratly Islands are artificial. And if you look at the land claims, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has the best claim to the Islands. As far as I am concerned, without the permission of Taiwan, the US is trespassing. Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei's claims all depend on the islands becoming res nullius after WW2, which is absurd, the Spratly Islands were part of Taiwan administered by Japan at the end of WW2, and then Taiwan was given back to the Republic of China after WW2. Vietnam gave up claim to the Spratly islands in 1887 after the French-Sino war and China never ceded their claim. The Republic of China was awarded the Islands after WW2. That leaves the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Given that the Republic of China had control over China before the civil war, and the People's Republic of China never conquered the Spratly Islands nor Taiwan during the civil war, the Spratly Islands nor Taiwan can be considered territory of the People's Republic of China.

Given that I don't support either the tories nor the NDP, you have a strange definition of 'people like me'. Well I guess if you add clearly to a claim it makes it true. *sarcasm*

You have an interesting definition of intelligent.

Did people stop mentioning George Bush's intelligence after he was elected due to his last name?

Way to continually be dismissive of a group of people on the basis of their race and sex. Oh the irony:

I think you are thinking about this wrong. There's more than just left vs right. NDP can win if they just have sane policies based upon evidence and try to explain why their policies are justified and aren't just based on what is popular. The Liberals are ideologically bankrupt. They just move to whatever position they think will get them the most votes in the short term. They are led by a not very bright individual who got the party leadership position with zero policies and a fancy last name. Also, the NDP's policy recommendations differ quite a bit from more successful socialist political parties in Scandinavia (which try to work with the market rather than control everything like control freaks). Take the issue of CO2 emissions, the NDP absolutely hates taxing CO2 emissions because they somehow don't understand that it can be used to reduce emissions and instead prefer cap-and-trade. Yet cap-and-trade is simply a more expensive option to get the same result, and that's why Norway, Sweden, the Green Party, James Hansen, David Suzuki and basically every economist prefer CO2 emission taxation. Or take the issue of the sales tax. Tax shifting towards a higher consumption tax and lower income tax would be beneficial for our country since it would increase the physical capital stock in the long run and smart countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark have a 25% VAT. Even things like the minimum wage, it would make far more sense to push a basic income than keep increasing a minimum wage to push people out of the labour market; but the NDP's continued ideological adherence to dumb policy just shows how economically illiterate they are.

What are you talking about? Racism has been redefined to be Power + Privilege or whatever, didn't you get the memo? Therefore, it is impossible to be racist to whites or sexist against men. So things like #killallwhitemen don't count as racism or sexism, nor does having white men speak last in class (http://www.westernjournalism.com/canadian-university-professors-make-sure-white-males-last-speak-class/).

That sucks and I wish people would not treat you like that. If informing people to not treat you or others like that was all microaggression policy was about then I wouldn't have any issue with it. Unfortunately, it seems like it is being used to silence dissenting opinion on universities and push identity politics. Would you rather that society strive to be egalitarian and treat people based on their merits, their personality, etc. or would you rather society strive for identity politics everywhere, judge people based on their sex and ethnicity and generalize everyone's experience based upon the category they fit into?

I'm not sure. With respect to California or Texas, their latitude makes it such that they could receive less rainfall due to global warming since global warming causes the jetstreams to shift poleward (which means the Northern Tropical Jetstream will generally be closer to Texas and California). But as for the 10 year lag, I'm not sure how to explain that.

Decisions have to be made at some point, so you might as well use the best available information. Not necessarily large biases, but certainly large uncertainties.

Such an assumption is rarely, if ever satisfied. But in order to quantify uncertainty some base assumptions about random variations need to be made. Assumptions of normally distributed random variables are common in statistics for a good reason (see central limit theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem).The question is how badly violated the assumptions are (and there are ways of testing for violations). If the assumptions are not strongly violated then it isn't a big issue. Of course there are weather stations in the arctic. For example, Alert, Nunavut has one. I disagree. The models don't require high confidence, and decisions can be made under uncertainty. We have probability distributions. To be fair, those estimates were generally not rigorously done and often had biases. Estimates just need to be done more rigorously.

If you want to go through their methodology, it is here: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf But obviously that would take a long time and I haven't bothered to go through it. Kriging makes sense because it results in the estimates being 'best linear unbiased estimates' and from what I have read BEST tries to deal with differences between land and ocean sensitivity (I don't think Cowtan and Way do this). Part of the observed slowdown is due to natural variability such as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and decrease in solar output. But part of it, when it comes to some datasets like HadCRUT4, is due to coverage bias. It's not so much mitigating vs not mitigating, it's also how much. Trying to meet the 2 C target is probably a net negative to humanity relative to no mitigation. But some mitigation does seem preferable to zero mitigation, at least that is the result of integrated assessment models like DICE and FUND. Is it possible that there might be a net benefit? Yes, that is quite possible given all the uncertainty that exists.