dandekadt.bsky.social
Social and data science at the London School of Economics
Democracy, behaviour, meta-science, 🇿🇦🇺🇲
Won't interact with anon accounts.
www.ddekadt.com
1,687 posts
4,629 followers
1,116 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
RETVRN
comment in response to
post
Truly a sad timeline we’re in
comment in response to
post
I struggle with this genre of paper a lot (there are quite a few like this).
Basically, if the finding is (roughly) right, why has no enterprising politician been able to capture this missing electorate? Why do Rs and Ds who defy their parties get so effectively primaried? Etc.
comment in response to
post
Bring back RishI
(Not really ofc)
comment in response to
post
Could also produce some crowding out dynamics at the most elite journals. Will look forward to the next paper too!
comment in response to
post
Anyway, just got home and will try to read the whole thing carefully (instead of on my phone on a bus 😑)!
comment in response to
post
If the most productivity scholars are much more productive today than the most productive scholars twenty years ago, that may only account for a tiny portion of all scholars and a tiny portion of all papers. Yet it certainly changes the market, possibly quite dramatically?
comment in response to
post
I don’t think this is inconsistent with what I am suggesting (based on my impressions).
There can be a small group of very high productivity scholars who drive little of the overall uptick in productivity, but have outsized effects in the job market/competition space.
comment in response to
post
Apologies if you test this, I didn’t see it but am reading on my phone.
I think a useful figure would be author-level histograms faceted by cohort. I’d imagine new cohorts increasingly right-skewed. That is, a small number of “elite” extreme producers, where in the past fewer of those people exist.
comment in response to
post
This bit feels hard to square with my own experiences. My experiences may mislead, but I wonder if this concl. is a little off given that the massive growth in the total number of authors includes many who leave the discipline.
So the mean (papers/year) will include a lot of very small numbers.
comment in response to
post
An 80 year old senator criticized a 91 year old senator by pointing out that the 79 year old president is doing no better than the 82 year old former president. Lord almighty.
comment in response to
post
Yep, as usual my academic takes are of the form "please don't respond to incentives"
comment in response to
post
Yes, I know you aren't being serious (or at least, you are offering a commentary, not approval!)
comment in response to
post
These things would ideally be agreed before any interviews took place in the protocols for consent and data storage that were proposed by the researcher.
Transparency/openness are big issues for qual research, but I'm not sure this is the answer. Barriers to fraud might be better than detection.
comment in response to
post
Call that a vengeful god? *This* is a vengeful god.
comment in response to
post
a vengeful god, as usual
comment in response to
post
That's right, and then I switch on the highlights of the 1999 cricket world cup and cry myself to sleep
comment in response to
post
Every time I watch Bluey (e.g. yesterday for five hours) I come to the view that Australia is the greatest place on earth.
Then to detox I watch some Mad Max
comment in response to
post
Yes, @bradleveck.bsky.social pointed out above that the print edition had it on the front page. That is good and imo appropriate. I wondered if it may be a domestic (print) vs. global (digital) market thing.
comment in response to
post
That's kind of a relief! Maybe they frontload domestic politics more in print?
comment in response to
post
I think some comparative perspective is useful here. The immunity judgment looks completely nuts in comparison to how other democracies hold the executive accountability. And the manner in which the Trump admin has disregarded court orders is quite startling.
comment in response to
post
I hope you're right. US democracy in a very bad place atm.
The courts have clearly given way to a degree already -- Trump vs. US being a big one, but many other examples.
The Republicans have given way as a party. The Democrats have not, but they also have not found a way.
comment in response to
post
Maybe it doesn't matter (that seems to be your inclination, and tbth, it is probably mine too, but I feel very fatalistic at the moment). But it feels important and noteworthy nonetheless. Ones our parties and institutions give way, all we have left is civil society.
comment in response to
post
Maybe that's all it is. My feeling is that a lot of us recognize we are living through what is very likely an historical moment. It's strange to watch the NYT (which is a newspaper I like and have subscribed to for a long time) fail to account for the moment in real time.
comment in response to
post
Sure, but you said it is as a justification for the NYT's ed decision.
Idk what to tell you - in ~any other country 2% of the pop getting on the streets to protest the incumbent govt. would be a major domestic news story.
Maybe just an artefact of a big news day, but certainly strange to me.
comment in response to
post
Surely by this logic protests against him are newsworthy too?
I'm not bsky, I'm just a dude. But I personally find the NYT fascinating because there is a very clear editorial effort from the top to do *something* (not sure what -- neutrality? business as usual?) particular and it's weird.
comment in response to
post
Fwiw I got to at least 15 articles about the parade just in the last few days (but my counting rules may differ to yours).
comment in response to
post
It's an editorial choice to say 2% of the US population organizing to protest is just "some boomers and bluesky people who hate Trump."
Trump is an historically unpopular president doing historically unconstitutional/illegal/dangerous things. Seems like big protests against that are v important.
comment in response to
post
I dunno I'd say that protests involving 2% of the US population are pretty important domestic news?
The assassination seems like the most important domestic news. Israel/Iran is important, but happening 15,000 miles away. Trump's birthday parade and a profile of Amy C-B, not so much?
comment in response to
post
Is that a lot? They have articles on it, but none of them made it past third place on their digital front page.
I know because I live abroad and was checking NYT regularly yesterday in the hopes of seeing news about the protests. It barely broke through.
comment in response to
post
Absolutely igneous!
comment in response to
post
@sarahbrierley.bsky.social and @gofosu.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
This is *very* kind of you.
comment in response to
post
Kennedy and gang have already blocked/stymied development of a bunch of vaccines. Won't be long before they start trying to pull certifications, even for those who can pay.
comment in response to
post
As someone just casually interested in aviation, I'm very sorry but this article is full of BS and is completely unprincipled journalism (wild speculation based on limited facts, and connecting disparate pieces of info to mislead).
Wait until more hard info emerges before spreading this stuff.