though i guess really it doesn't need to be that P(B1) = 0.5 and P(B2) = 0.5. It's really just sufficient that P(B1) + P(B2) = 1.0
A1 being particle A in polarization state 1
A2 being particle A in polarization state 2
B1 being particle B in polarization state 1
B2 being particle B in polarization state 2
This fits with what I have in my head and am trying to wrap numbers around, I think, I just need to generalise it.
Calling it a day with it now for the moment.
What's interesting is that I think I have answered the rest of the question at various stages of my working, it's just this bit that I'm hung up on. Can feel the shape of the solution but can't quite express it
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
there were some who seemed to have been inspired to a better place - cleaner living, a healthier outlook, a greater sense of moral agency and responsibility, a stronger sense of compassion. and there have been some whose religious belief seemed to drive them to a worse place - zealotry, bigotry, intolerance, arrogance.
sometimes both at the same time, even.
Part of my greater (and admittedly personal) problem with many of the purportedly good things about religion is that I don't like the mentality and worldview they foster. I'm speaking largely about the practice of prayer, and how it's basically become the Christian version of voodoo. People come to think of the good things in their life as rewards for behavior, and bad things as tests of faith, with prayer as the currency for both.
"My dad's really sick and in the hospital. Pray for him, will ya, guys?"
I mean, I don't get this on a fundamental level. What are we supposed to be praying for? His health? His recovery? His spirit passing on to heaven? A peaceful death? None of those things are within our control, and if you're a fundamentalist you believe those outcomes are preordained by God already.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
How far can you watch before you feel like murdering?
2 seconds
thumbnail was enough for me
Nexus must really, really hate this Kirsten Powers.
What's funny is that I think BillO expected agrees from her, and even SHE was all lolwut at his statements of "women are DIFFERENT! They cant be president because Iran won't like us!"
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
there were some who seemed to have been inspired to a better place - cleaner living, a healthier outlook, a greater sense of moral agency and responsibility, a stronger sense of compassion. and there have been some whose religious belief seemed to drive them to a worse place - zealotry, bigotry, intolerance, arrogance.
sometimes both at the same time, even.
Part of my greater (and admittedly personal) problem with many of the purportedly good things about religion is that I don't like the mentality and worldview they foster. I'm speaking largely about the practice of prayer, and how it's basically become the Christian version of voodoo. People come to think of the good things in their life as rewards for behavior, and bad things as tests of faith, with prayer as the currency for both.
"My dad's really sick and in the hospital. Pray for him, will ya, guys?"
I mean, I don't get this on a fundamental level. What are we supposed to be praying for? His health? His recovery? His spirit passing on to heaven? A peaceful death? None of those things are within our control, and if you're a fundamentalist you believe those outcomes are preordained by God already.
Acceptance and goodwill, basically.
+3
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
there were some who seemed to have been inspired to a better place - cleaner living, a healthier outlook, a greater sense of moral agency and responsibility, a stronger sense of compassion. and there have been some whose religious belief seemed to drive them to a worse place - zealotry, bigotry, intolerance, arrogance.
sometimes both at the same time, even.
Part of my greater (and admittedly personal) problem with many of the purportedly good things about religion is that I don't like the mentality and worldview they foster. I'm speaking largely about the practice of prayer, and how it's basically become the Christian version of voodoo. People come to think of the good things in their life as rewards for behavior, and bad things as tests of faith, with prayer as the currency for both.
"My dad's really sick and in the hospital. Pray for him, will ya, guys?"
I mean, I don't get this on a fundamental level. What are we supposed to be praying for? His health? His recovery? His spirit passing on to heaven? A peaceful death? None of those things are within our control, and if you're a fundamentalist you believe those outcomes are preordained by God already.
so of course i don't believe in the metaphysical efficacy of prayer. it doesn't do anything outside the effects it has on the person who prays. sometimes, where it is used to the exclusion of practical measures, it can be very bad.
otoh, the practice of praying does seem to in many cases focus the individual's sense of well-being and optimism. it can force a kind of moral focus, give hope, illustrate positive outcomes, and often yields a kind of serenity. all those studies revolving around religious people being somewhat happier give credence to this concept.
i guess i don't see it, in general, as much different from some kinds of meditation. if you're focusing on hoping someone's uncle recovers from surgery, it helps build your capacity for empathy and compassion. if you know your friends are focusing well-wishes to your uncle, it helps build community and elevate our better natures.
though, of course, it's no substitute for actual medicine as well.
Is there some specific reason that the vast majority of work is on a per-hour wage basis, and not a per-unit basis? I had a looong discussion/argument with a friend of mine about it tonight.
He insists that switching most work to a per-unit-produced basis (ie. widgets made) to tie it to individual productivity would mean more incentive for labor and more productivity for capital.
I told him that incentives for both sides are geared toward the wage system: labor wants the consistency and (theoretically) reduced workload of an hourly wage, and capital wants predictable payroll and the ability to squeeze as much productivity out of labor as possible without having to pay them extra for it.
hamurabi
this is an old debate. To puzzle you even more, there is a decent amount of evidence that it does actually increase productivity (with the note that "the ability to squeeze as much productivity out of labor as possible without having to pay them extra for it" is not, in this context, a coherent objection. Aside from the fact that it would get more productivity for piece work, it contradicts the first objection of an increased workload - which is also itself problematic under a strict observation that it is increased incentive to work, not increased supply of work).
There are a couple of explanations floating about. One typical one is that employees are risk averse whereas employers are risk neutral (i.e., your consistency remark), and that productivity is a volatile process. You or your coworkers might have a bad mood some days, feel tired, etc. Therefore, the employee eventually demands a wage premium for absorbing the risk. The employer avoids paying that premium by instead absorbing the risk instead. And the moral hazard, which may be made small through other ways of monitoring employee effort. This one is elegant because there are other reasons to suspect differing attitudes toward risk - e.g., the observation of unemployment at equilibrium.
In fact, even if productivity is not a volatile process, a foreseeable increase in productivity still causes problems if employees are sensitive to foreseen downward adjustments in their pay (also something we have good aggregate evidence for). If labour becomes more productive, an hourly wage allows the employer to consume less labour by increasing the wage appropriately but retrenching some of the employees, since output per unit effort has increased. But a piece rate requires that the employer reduce the piece rate (and also retrench some of the employees, or cut their hours), since it has become easier per unit output! That's not good for morale, which is not good for productivity.
Another is that that workers have a preference for the appearance of egalitarianism in the workplace, which piece rate compensation undermines. Likewise, the employer avoids the premium by hiding unequal effort and letting the employees enforce it amongst themselves. e.g., if you have a lazy colleague, you may feel more empowered punishing their laziness yourself rather than if the employer stepped in. More cynically, if you're a charismatic and influential employee in a position to cause trouble for the employer, if you're tacitly allowed to manipulate your weaker colleagues into absorbing some of your workload, you may be less likely to cause trouble. The employer is rarely in a good position to keep track of exactly who the restive employees are, so they have to devolve such group self-discipline anyway.
A common labour objection is that the piece rate measurement system is imperfect in some way. This explanation is problematic because no compensation system is perfect, and we are rarely told about why it is relatively so imperfect. Duly note the previous remark on charisma. But it is also the case that a change to piece work, or a change back the hourly wage, is an opportunity for employers to undermine existing labour organization (seniority-based loyalty schemes are hard under piece work, good-faith elections are hard amongst workers with highly different roles in the office being paid in a way not related to marginal output) or extant tacit bargains over the appropriate degree of labour compensation.
ronya
Thanks @EconoDog. To my reading, most of those were things that came up in our (hour-long) discussion. I didn't stress capital-side flexibility as much, but it stands to reason that accounting becomes substantially more complicated if you have to account for the possibility that your employees will have a Really Good Day at some point and productivity will temporarily peak, potentially causing cash flow issues because of payroll.
no, no... employees are risk averse. Employers are risk neutral. If employers are more risk averse than employees, then it should piece rate work should be more expensive, reflecting the premium for shifting the risk to employees
Wouldn't it be a pain to have to hold a lot of extra cash-on-hand to account for the possibility of higher-than-expected productivity? Or would that just become the equivalent of extra payroll for overtime?
0
Options
GonmunHe keeps kickin' me inthe dickRegistered Userregular
So, that lady who quit her job on the news and called out Putin...
is she gonna be okay?
for the time being, yes
after everyone stops paying attention to Russia?
probably not
WELL THEN SHE BETTER GET HER BUTT OUT OF THERE.
The sad thing is, though unproven, there have been instances where it's suspected the russians have killed people even outside of their country that have done things to go against the government. I believe there was a defector or something akin to it that died in England and there was a radioactive isotope that was suspected of being used to kill him.
there were some who seemed to have been inspired to a better place - cleaner living, a healthier outlook, a greater sense of moral agency and responsibility, a stronger sense of compassion. and there have been some whose religious belief seemed to drive them to a worse place - zealotry, bigotry, intolerance, arrogance.
sometimes both at the same time, even.
Part of my greater (and admittedly personal) problem with many of the purportedly good things about religion is that I don't like the mentality and worldview they foster. I'm speaking largely about the practice of prayer, and how it's basically become the Christian version of voodoo. People come to think of the good things in their life as rewards for behavior, and bad things as tests of faith, with prayer as the currency for both.
"My dad's really sick and in the hospital. Pray for him, will ya, guys?"
I mean, I don't get this on a fundamental level. What are we supposed to be praying for? His health? His recovery? His spirit passing on to heaven? A peaceful death? None of those things are within our control, and if you're a fundamentalist you believe those outcomes are preordained by God already.
so of course i don't believe in the metaphysical efficacy of prayer. it doesn't do anything outside the effects it has on the person who prays. sometimes, where it is used to the exclusion of practical measures, it can be very bad.
otoh, the practice of praying does seem to in many cases focus the individual's sense of well-being and optimism. it can force a kind of moral focus, give hope, illustrate positive outcomes, and often yields a kind of serenity. all those studies revolving around religious people being somewhat happier give credence to this concept.
i guess i don't see it, in general, as much different from some kinds of meditation. if you're focusing on hoping someone's uncle recovers from surgery, it helps build your capacity for empathy and compassion. if you know your friends are focusing well-wishes to your uncle, it helps build community and elevate our better natures.
though, of course, it's no substitute for actual medicine as well.
And while I agree with the truth in all this, I think my own admittedly personal problem is actualizing the need for it.
However, especially in fundamentalist/evangelical circles, prayer is a super big deal taken very seriously.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
i guess really it comes down to this for me:
i probably disagree with the Truth of most religious people's metaphysical outlooks. I don't believe a god exists and I don't believe in a higher plan or the essential universal importance of humanity. i guess i feel like we don't have to have individual galactic importance in order to be important to one another.
but you know? most people believe in something different. i think they're probably wrong, and that is okay. their wrong beliefs will cause them to behave in certain ways. where those behaviors are good, i think it's great. where those behaviors are bad, i think it's terrible.
in aggregate, i haven't particularly noticed the nonreligious behaving any better than the religious in aggregate. there are often tradeoffs for certain types of belief, but i don't think there is much correlation between the reasonability of a belief structure and its tendency to motivate good behavior.
the best (most moral, warmest, most compassionate, etc) individuals i've met in aggregated philosophical/ religious groups have been mormons and mennonites. and their metaphysical beliefs are extraordinary silly and absurd, even among the field of admittedly silly and absurd theologies.
so maybe what i'm saying is that "knowing the truth" and "being a good person" aren't generally correlated traits and that the second trait is way more important to me in other people than the first.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Is there some specific reason that the vast majority of work is on a per-hour wage basis, and not a per-unit basis? I had a looong discussion/argument with a friend of mine about it tonight.
He insists that switching most work to a per-unit-produced basis (ie. widgets made) to tie it to individual productivity would mean more incentive for labor and more productivity for capital.
I told him that incentives for both sides are geared toward the wage system: labor wants the consistency and (theoretically) reduced workload of an hourly wage, and capital wants predictable payroll and the ability to squeeze as much productivity out of labor as possible without having to pay them extra for it.
hamurabi
this is an old debate. To puzzle you even more, there is a decent amount of evidence that it does actually increase productivity (with the note that "the ability to squeeze as much productivity out of labor as possible without having to pay them extra for it" is not, in this context, a coherent objection. Aside from the fact that it would get more productivity for piece work, it contradicts the first objection of an increased workload - which is also itself problematic under a strict observation that it is increased incentive to work, not increased supply of work).
There are a couple of explanations floating about. One typical one is that employees are risk averse whereas employers are risk neutral (i.e., your consistency remark), and that productivity is a volatile process. You or your coworkers might have a bad mood some days, feel tired, etc. Therefore, the employee eventually demands a wage premium for absorbing the risk. The employer avoids paying that premium by instead absorbing the risk instead. And the moral hazard, which may be made small through other ways of monitoring employee effort. This one is elegant because there are other reasons to suspect differing attitudes toward risk - e.g., the observation of unemployment at equilibrium.
In fact, even if productivity is not a volatile process, a foreseeable increase in productivity still causes problems if employees are sensitive to foreseen downward adjustments in their pay (also something we have good aggregate evidence for). If labour becomes more productive, an hourly wage allows the employer to consume less labour by increasing the wage appropriately but retrenching some of the employees, since output per unit effort has increased. But a piece rate requires that the employer reduce the piece rate (and also retrench some of the employees, or cut their hours), since it has become easier per unit output! That's not good for morale, which is not good for productivity.
Another is that that workers have a preference for the appearance of egalitarianism in the workplace, which piece rate compensation undermines. Likewise, the employer avoids the premium by hiding unequal effort and letting the employees enforce it amongst themselves. e.g., if you have a lazy colleague, you may feel more empowered punishing their laziness yourself rather than if the employer stepped in. More cynically, if you're a charismatic and influential employee in a position to cause trouble for the employer, if you're tacitly allowed to manipulate your weaker colleagues into absorbing some of your workload, you may be less likely to cause trouble. The employer is rarely in a good position to keep track of exactly who the restive employees are, so they have to devolve such group self-discipline anyway.
A common labour objection is that the piece rate measurement system is imperfect in some way. This explanation is problematic because no compensation system is perfect, and we are rarely told about why it is relatively so imperfect. Duly note the previous remark on charisma. But it is also the case that a change to piece work, or a change back the hourly wage, is an opportunity for employers to undermine existing labour organization (seniority-based loyalty schemes are hard under piece work, good-faith elections are hard amongst workers with highly different roles in the office being paid in a way not related to marginal output) or extant tacit bargains over the appropriate degree of labour compensation.
ronya
Thanks @EconoDog. To my reading, most of those were things that came up in our (hour-long) discussion. I didn't stress capital-side flexibility as much, but it stands to reason that accounting becomes substantially more complicated if you have to account for the possibility that your employees will have a Really Good Day at some point and productivity will temporarily peak, potentially causing cash flow issues because of payroll.
no, no... employees are risk averse. Employers are risk neutral. If employers are more risk averse than employees, then it should piece rate work should be more expensive, reflecting the premium for shifting the risk to employees
Wouldn't it be a pain to have to hold a lot of extra cash-on-hand to account for the possibility of higher-than-expected productivity? Or would that just become the equivalent of extra payroll for overtime?
yes, but you've got extra output to sell too. So just borrow if you need to. The practical difficulty is minute compared to the inconvenience to the employer, who will have even larger liquidity problems by any reasonable measure.
Firms already account for most macroeconomic volatility, not individuals - inventories account for a large share of changes in GDP.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Posts
we should do scotch night
2 seconds
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3oa93017L1ru0qyqo1_500.gif
is she gonna be okay?
thumbnail was enough for me
She basically said that no one was listening to her so she could be the standard token opposing viewpoint who everyone ignores.
Did you laugh at that person's face? Also, were they wearing a tinfoil hat?
for the time being, yes
after everyone stops paying attention to Russia?
probably not
This fits with what I have in my head and am trying to wrap numbers around, I think, I just need to generalise it.
Calling it a day with it now for the moment.
What's interesting is that I think I have answered the rest of the question at various stages of my working, it's just this bit that I'm hung up on. Can feel the shape of the solution but can't quite express it
That's the point where you just leave, but not before giving them the "I'm watching you" gesture as you back out of the room.
Putin shipped a fairly unknown punk band to Siberia for making a bad song about him.
Part of my greater (and admittedly personal) problem with many of the purportedly good things about religion is that I don't like the mentality and worldview they foster. I'm speaking largely about the practice of prayer, and how it's basically become the Christian version of voodoo. People come to think of the good things in their life as rewards for behavior, and bad things as tests of faith, with prayer as the currency for both.
"My dad's really sick and in the hospital. Pray for him, will ya, guys?"
I mean, I don't get this on a fundamental level. What are we supposed to be praying for? His health? His recovery? His spirit passing on to heaven? A peaceful death? None of those things are within our control, and if you're a fundamentalist you believe those outcomes are preordained by God already.
Headline News has the unique distinction of being the only news channel I hate more than Fox.
WELL THEN SHE BETTER GET HER BUTT OUT OF THERE.
Nexus must really, really hate this Kirsten Powers.
What's funny is that I think BillO expected agrees from her, and even SHE was all lolwut at his statements of "women are DIFFERENT! They cant be president because Iran won't like us!"
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Acceptance and goodwill, basically.
so of course i don't believe in the metaphysical efficacy of prayer. it doesn't do anything outside the effects it has on the person who prays. sometimes, where it is used to the exclusion of practical measures, it can be very bad.
otoh, the practice of praying does seem to in many cases focus the individual's sense of well-being and optimism. it can force a kind of moral focus, give hope, illustrate positive outcomes, and often yields a kind of serenity. all those studies revolving around religious people being somewhat happier give credence to this concept.
i guess i don't see it, in general, as much different from some kinds of meditation. if you're focusing on hoping someone's uncle recovers from surgery, it helps build your capacity for empathy and compassion. if you know your friends are focusing well-wishes to your uncle, it helps build community and elevate our better natures.
though, of course, it's no substitute for actual medicine as well.
@ronya
Well even practically, though.
Wouldn't it be a pain to have to hold a lot of extra cash-on-hand to account for the possibility of higher-than-expected productivity? Or would that just become the equivalent of extra payroll for overtime?
The sad thing is, though unproven, there have been instances where it's suspected the russians have killed people even outside of their country that have done things to go against the government. I believe there was a defector or something akin to it that died in England and there was a radioactive isotope that was suspected of being used to kill him.
And while I agree with the truth in all this, I think my own admittedly personal problem is actualizing the need for it.
However, especially in fundamentalist/evangelical circles, prayer is a super big deal taken very seriously.
Shaq Fu sequel!
i probably disagree with the Truth of most religious people's metaphysical outlooks. I don't believe a god exists and I don't believe in a higher plan or the essential universal importance of humanity. i guess i feel like we don't have to have individual galactic importance in order to be important to one another.
but you know? most people believe in something different. i think they're probably wrong, and that is okay. their wrong beliefs will cause them to behave in certain ways. where those behaviors are good, i think it's great. where those behaviors are bad, i think it's terrible.
in aggregate, i haven't particularly noticed the nonreligious behaving any better than the religious in aggregate. there are often tradeoffs for certain types of belief, but i don't think there is much correlation between the reasonability of a belief structure and its tendency to motivate good behavior.
the best (most moral, warmest, most compassionate, etc) individuals i've met in aggregated philosophical/ religious groups have been mormons and mennonites. and their metaphysical beliefs are extraordinary silly and absurd, even among the field of admittedly silly and absurd theologies.
so maybe what i'm saying is that "knowing the truth" and "being a good person" aren't generally correlated traits and that the second trait is way more important to me in other people than the first.
Um . . .
UMM . . .
*points at self*
yes, but you've got extra output to sell too. So just borrow if you need to. The practical difficulty is minute compared to the inconvenience to the employer, who will have even larger liquidity problems by any reasonable measure.
Firms already account for most macroeconomic volatility, not individuals - inventories account for a large share of changes in GDP.
IDGI
twitch.tv/tehsloth
I love the small dog syndrome that giant dogs have
no no see i can fit, i'm the baby, let me sit here
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Good work, EA.
if you're asking if she's gonna get gulag'd i doubt it
she's an American, it wouldn't be very smart
she'll go home and get a job in America
Until the VMA's, when everyone started slut shaming her because they were disappointed that she wasn't Disney anymore.
This naturally made me like her, because fuck people and their skewed expectations of child stars/ also fuck slutshaming.
From what I can see, she seems pretty cool and on the level, which you wouldn't expect but whatever.
I don't think she would be a great kisser though.
These are my thoughts chat.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k