81–90 of 300 posts
This is blogspam. Here's the original post: https://patrickcollison.com/pollution
Should I upvote despite that, or wait for somebody to post the original? I'm not sure of HN's norms here.
From the original source: > Stock market returns are lower on polluted days. I don't want to dismiss the entire article, but I think this points to possibility that there is some bad statistics going on here. I don't see how daily stock returns are proof of, or even related to, cognitive ability on a daily basis. This is exactly the type of finding you'd expect with p-hacking.
Good. Because you can't cherry-pick one dubious-seeming journal article and use it as a justification to ignore several completely unaffiliated articles.
This really bothers me. I live in a VERY polluted place, and unfortunately moving away won't be an option for me for at least half a decade. What can I do to minimise the health effects of such an atmosphere? I'm planning on getting an indoor air filter for my home.
The hard math of it is that no matter what you do, you aren't going to be able to reduce your exposure by more than 75% or so, because you have to go outside sometimes, so going super high end on filtration makes essentially no difference in terms of total exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The South Coast (California) Air Quality Management District does some really thorough tests on the quality of the various low-cost sensors: https://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec/evaluations/summary-pm
Anyone want to review this table and suggest a currently commercially available option in the $300 and lower price range? I may have time this afternoon but if anyone does go thorough it I'm interested to know.
I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one. Go to a massively unpopulated area and just breath. Feel the difference? Isn't it intoxicating? Who gives a crap if umpires make worse calls? Just fight pollution because it's obvious pollution is bad for humans and the planet. Normally I'm all for extra evidence, but in a situation like this come on. It's basically like immaterial evidence against geno…
Arguments against pollution would be valuable if someone were actually arguing in favour of pollution.
Small particle emissions can be anything, diesel cars emissions, stone dust and flour from bakeries. All small particles are bad for the lungs. Long term exposure of air pollution will lead to health problems.
I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one. Go to a massively unpopulated area and just breath. Feel the difference? Isn't it intoxicating? Who gives a crap if umpires make worse calls? Just fight pollution because it's obvious pollution is bad for humans and the planet. Normally I'm all for extra evidence, but in a situation like this come on. It's basically like immaterial evidence against geno…
I like thinking of it as waste, as opposed to bad. Good-bad is the moral realm. Waste is the realm of practicality. The danger is in causing defensiveness, due to judgment, in people whose open-mindedness would be beneficial. I'm not being apologetic of anyone. It's just that this doesn't have to happen through a dramatic conflict of good v. evil (which probably wouldn't work anyway); there are much better alternativ…
You haven't reduced the complexity, just hidden it behind the facade of taking "pragmatic economic decisions".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who works for a quantitative hedge fund, you wouldn't believe how many similar results I see of researchers showing a statistically significant predictor of stock market returns. Almost every single one of them is garbage. But your point stands. The paper has nothing to do with cognitive ability. So why is it being used as evidence?
> As someone who works for a quantitative hedge fund, you wouldn't believe how many similar results I see of researchers showing a statistically significant predictor of stock market returns. Almost every single one of them is garbage. Are you able to share any that aren't (or weren't) garbage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the linked journal article; the authors don’t actually claim it is about cognitive ability, they attribute it to lower risk taking on those days.
As someone who works for a quantitative hedge fund, you wouldn't believe how many similar results I see of researchers showing a statistically significant predictor of stock market returns. Almost every single one of them is garbage. But your point stands. The paper has nothing to do with cognitive ability. So why is it being used as evidence?