Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspicious Discontinuities

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 307 posts

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#51

Post by mdorazio »

robocat wrote: post #45
hammock wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference in height for US age cohorts (among adults, obviously) is driven by ethnicity- and younger cohorts are shorter on average.

Where did you see that? From the link I gave it looks like the average 25 year old is about 2” taller than the average 55 year old. Even anecdotally, the height difference is noticeable (although I am in NZ, the variation between cohorts depends strongly upon what country you are in).

The dataset you linked is from 1971. The older cohorts were born near the turn of the century when nutrition wasn't exactly the greatest for large segments of the population. It's most likely that the skew is due to environmental factors rather than ethnic ones there. See [1]. Age related height declines don't even start until age 40 and are quite small for some time, so it's unlikely to be a factor in dating-related data sets. See [2].

[1] https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/2/473/4664347

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2807265

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#52

Post by toomuchtodo »

lostmsu wrote: post #31
DavidVoid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off-topic but this reminded me of what is perhaps their most depressing pair of graphs. Look at "A woman's age vs. the age of the men sho look best to her" https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1439100617... and then compare that with "A man's age vs. the age of the women who look best to him" https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1439100617...

Why is it depressing? Biologically this must be tuned to the best age for having kids, and men's age hardly matters.

This is depressing to people who expect the dating and sexual marketplace to be some sort of meritocracy, or equality to be exhibited. It's more of a free market than some care to admit. The gritty truth is: people are depreciating assets, and some lose their value (perceived or actual) faster than others.

One of the founders of Okcupid (a data scientist) wrote a book, Dataclysm [1], using data from Okcupid's platform; I highly recommend it (this is where the above comment's [2] graphs are sourced from). You get other "interesting" observations, such that most people don't describe themselves as racist, but a surprisingly high number of people are [3].

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Dataclysm-Identity-What-Online-Offl...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22379741

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/380086/the-uncomfort... (In Online Dating, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist)

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#53

Post by kauffj »

At least to me, the discontinuities in things like TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, etc. are some of the greatest signs of political dysfunction.

There's nothing remotely partisan about these being a bad thing. _Everyone_ should agree that these make no sense and mis-incentivize behavior. Yet these flaws remain for decades despite being known and discussed for approximately the entirety of their existence.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#54

Post by myself248 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #10

> One reason people were looking for ways to lose money was that, in the U.S., there's a hard income cutoff for a health insurance subsidy at $48,560 for individuals (higher for larger households; $100,400 for a family of four). There are a number of factors that can cause the details to vary (age, location, household size, type of plan), but across all circumstances, it wouldn't have been uncommon for an individual…

What's eye-opening is the author's point about _how_ many people go about ditching some income at the last minute -- by buying a particular type of financial product whose value is likely to go to zero.

Which has the effect of transferring their wealth to someone else (the vendor of the financial product) who just sold something that was effectively worth nothing, for a great deal of money.

It's the most bizarre sort of wealth redistribution I've ever heard of.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#55

Post by thedance »

kauffj wrote: post #53

At least to me, the discontinuities in things like TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, etc. are some of the greatest signs of political dysfunction. There's nothing remotely partisan about these being a bad thing. _Everyone_ should agree that these make no sense and mis-incentivize behavior. Yet these flaws remain for decades despite being known and discussed for approximately the entirety of their existence.

It’s the stated goal of the party in power to throw as many kids off food assistance as possible. If the program has quirks that is by design.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#56

Post by userbinator »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #52
lostmsu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it depressing? Biologically this must be tuned to the best age for having kids, and men's age hardly matters.

This is depressing to people who expect the dating and sexual marketplace to be some sort of meritocracy, or equality to be exhibited. It's more of a free market than some care to admit. The gritty truth is: people are depreciating assets, and some lose their value (perceived or actual) faster than others. One of the founders of Okcupid (a data scientist) wrote a book, Dataclysm [1], using data from Okcupid's platfor…

who expect the dating and sexual marketplace to be some sort of meritocracy, or equality to be exhibited

Why/how would people come to think that way? As the parent comment says, this is fundamentally a biological thing.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#57

Post by junar »

myself248 wrote: post #54
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

> One reason people were looking for ways to lose money was that, in the U.S., there's a hard income cutoff for a health insurance subsidy at $48,560 for individuals (higher for larger households; $100,400 for a family of four). There are a number of factors that can cause the details to vary (age, location, household size, type of plan), but across all circumstances, it wouldn't have been uncommon for an individual…

What's eye-opening is the author's point about _how_ many people go about ditching some income at the last minute -- by buying a particular type of financial product whose value is likely to go to zero. Which has the effect of transferring their wealth to someone else (the vendor of the financial product) who just sold something that was effectively worth nothing, for a great deal of money. It's the most bizarre sort…

You can't necessarily do it last minute. You have to realize the loss by the end of the tax year (Dec 31), which may be months away from the day you file taxes.

On the other hand, if you can deduct traditional IRA contributions, you can make prior-year contributions up until the tax filing deadline, and keep your money. If you're eligible for an HSA or solo 401k, you can also use those to similar effect.

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#58

Post by toomuchtodo »

userbinator wrote: post #56
toomuchtodo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is depressing to people who expect the dating and sexual marketplace to be some sort of meritocracy, or equality to be exhibited. It's more of a free market than some care to admit. The gritty truth is: people are depreciating assets, and some lose their value (perceived or actual) faster than others. One of the founders of Okcupid (a data scientist) wrote a book, Dataclysm [1], using data from Okcupid's platfor…

who expect the dating and sexual marketplace to be some sort of meritocracy, or equality to be exhibited Why/how would people come to think that way? As the parent comment says, this is fundamentally a biological thing.

I will leave detailed explanations to domain experts. An example I'd hold up would be when Leonardo DiCaprio catches flak, loudly and publicly, for consistently dating women only in their early to mid 20s [1] [2] [3]. Is it biological? Yes. Is it legal? Absolutely. Do people still vocally decry it? Very much so.

[1] https://www.insider.com/leonardo-dicaprio-girlfriends-reddit...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/azjti7/leo...

[3] https://youtu.be/LCNdTLHZAeo?t=308

Re: Suspicious Discontinuities

#59

Post by meristem »

lostmsu wrote: post #31
DavidVoid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off-topic but this reminded me of what is perhaps their most depressing pair of graphs. Look at "A woman's age vs. the age of the men sho look best to her" https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1439100617... and then compare that with "A man's age vs. the age of the women who look best to him" https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1439100617...

Why is it depressing? Biologically this must be tuned to the best age for having kids, and men's age hardly matters.

Quality of sperm decays with age. Just not in the same curve as egg reserves.
Post reply on HN