I thought it was a nice example of status quo bias in ethics / deathism and reversal tests. I guess the point of the Onion article was not as obvious as I thought.
I see the core point as philosophical: criticizing an unjustified asymmetry in the way we think about things. It may be funny, but the humor is nonessential and the criticism is essential.
Technology:
“Human Performance”, 2008 JASON (excerpts)
Spreadsheet mistakes
“Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot”, Klein et al 2014
“The Hundred-Year Language”
M50 Ontos
Photoacoustic spectroscopy
“Turing Drawings”: flowing sand
The NSA copes with a volcano
Project Iceworm
“The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator, Visionary and Genius”
Economics:
College major salary premiums
“What Are Foundations For?” (principal-agent conflicts; against perpetuities)
“A lucky little fish turns out to be the solution to iron deficiency among women in Cambodia, a problem solved by a University of Guelph researcher.”
“Should Psychological Neuroscience Research Be Funded?” (discussion)
Kids for cash scandal
“Smart companies try to commoditize their products’ complements.”
“The Coase Theorem is false: contracts depend on tort law”
“One Kind of Lawlessness: Estimating the Welfare Cost of Somali Piracy”
Philosophy:
“Bayesian Adjustment Does Not Defeat Existential Risk Charity”
“Transhumanist Fables”
“Study: Wolf Attacks Still Leading Cause Of Death In U.S.”
“Even More Aphorisms and Ten-Second Essays from Vectors 3.0”, James Richardson
Misc:
“Limits”, Jorge Luis Borges
Great mistakes in history: the scuttling of the German navy
Hollywood Archaeology: The Super Mario Bros. Movie; Unearthing a major disaster to learn the lessons held within
“On Pins and Needles: Stylist Turns Ancient Hairdo Debate on Its Head”
Why is the Onion article under Philosophy?
I thought it was a nice example of status quo bias in ethics / deathism and reversal tests. I guess the point of the Onion article was not as obvious as I thought.
I saw how it was applicable to LW, no doubt. I just thought it would go under Rationality-related humor rather than Philosophy.
I see the core point as philosophical: criticizing an unjustified asymmetry in the way we think about things. It may be funny, but the humor is nonessential and the criticism is essential.