3 ms·
Ah, I remembered that bit incorrectly. I should have gone back and read the article again in full. His having taken sides on that issue colored how I read and r
by lotyrin 13y ago
Ah, I remembered that bit incorrectly. I should have gone back and read the article again in full. His having taken sides on that issue colored how I read and remembered the article.
I definitely did not walk away from reading it the first time with the impression that it was a simple illustrative example of how one might bring evidence into policy debate and how simulation can provide evidence when other forms aren't available. I'll try a re-read with that in mind, as I would have quite enjoyed that conclusion. Perhaps opponents to BI were able to get to that bit undeterred.
It might be that unassuming squiggly imprecise graphs might be only the beginning of the required revisions if that was to be the core takeaway.
- wutbrodo 13y agoI'm pretty strongly in support of a basic income (or at least the exploration of the idea), but it's possible that the version I read was after some updates to the article that made his intent more clear (e.g. the PS and PPS appear to have been added after the initial publication).
- yummyfajitas 13y agoIt's not even about bringing evidence to the debate. I had planned on doing that in a followup blog post about Markov Chain Monte Carlo, but I haven't gotten around to finishing that one yet. This post was simply about clearly and quantitatively expressing your beliefs.