That depends on how you define "success".

Well, the quote applies to most identity-based movements; there's nothing in it that would be specific to "white" folks. Paul Graham is very clear that keeping one's identity small is often more conducive to success and personal satisfaction.

If you made an incorrect statement and this gets pointed out, you will lose status for admitting it

LW culture is built specifically to encourage and reward correcting oneself.

I would guess the answer is in the prediction in between the Clinton and Sanders nomination predictions: "Hillary to be indicted on criminal charges: 50%". Presumably that would hurt her chances of nomination.

This isn't the whole of it, but it contributes, along with personal issues Clinton is struggling with. The bigger issue is that the coalition is fractured. If Sanders weren't playing softball against Hillary, it wouldn't even be a question, but I think he believes playing hard politics against her would damage his chances against Trump by fracturing the Democratic coalition along gendered lines. The Democratic coalition is at its weakest leaving a Democratic presidency, since anything they have achieved results in a less interested coalition member group whose goals are already at least partially achieved, and anything they haven't achieved results in a frustrated coalition member group whose goals were perceived to be passed over.

United, the Democrats win; their coalition is larger than the Republican base. Unfortunately, they're at their least united right now, and Sanders can't afford to fracture them any further. Hillary, on the other hand, seems perfectly happy to weaken the coalition in order to win the nomination.

That only postpones the problem for a few years, unless you establish a permanent military presence.

The US can keep 100,000+ soldiers on the ground for 7 years, have all of its top military brass focus on that conflict, fight cleverly and aggressively against the opposition, lead the country through the process of drafting a constitution and holding elections, train the new military and police forces, spend tens of billions of dollars helping to build the country's infrastructure (in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars of military spending), gradually remove its troops in an orderly fashion as negotiated with the country's new government, and still have everything go horribly within a couple years of leaving.

Why isn't there empirical evidence in the Wikipedia article on investment strategy? Are the hypothesises financial engineers make unscientific?

The hoverbikes at the link cannot carry people

There are images on the website with a person on the drone and the drone being in the air. The problem for human usage is safety.

It's not clear to me that the other person really was "born on the other side of IQ tracks". (Unless you just mean that she's female and black, I guess?) I mean, she did a PhD in pure mathematics. Some of the things she says about it and about her experience in mathematics are certainly ... such as might incline the cynical to think that she actually just isn't very good at mathematics and is trying some passive-aggressive thing where she half-admits it and half-blames it on The Kyriarchy. But getting to the point at which anyone is willing to consider letting you do a mathematics PhD (incidental note: her supervisor is a very, very good mathematician) implies, I think, a pretty decent IQ.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not myself endorsing the cynic's position above. I haven't looked at her thesis, which may in fact make it clear that she's a very good mathematician indeed. In which case her difficulties might in fact be the result of The Kyriarchy, or might be the result of oversensitivity on her part, or any combination thereof. Or in fact might simply be a useful rhetorical invention.

I agree with gjm that the remark about IQ is wrong. This is about cultures. Let's call them "nerd culture" and "social culture" (those are merely words that came immediately to my mind, I do not insist on using them).

Using the terms of Transactional Analysis, the typical communication modes in "nerd culture" are activity and withdrawal, and the typical communication modes in "social culture" are pastimes and games. This is what people are accustomed to do and to expect from other people in their social circle. It doesn't depend on IQ or gender or color of skin; I guess it depends on personality and on what people in our perceived "tribe" really are doing most of the time. -- If people around you exchange information most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to exchange information with you. If people around you play status games most of the time, it is reasonable to expect that the next person also wants to play a status game with you. -- In a different culture, people are confused and project.

A person coming from "nerd culture" to "social culture" may be oblivious to the status games around them. From an observer's perspective, this person display a serious lack of social skills.

A person coming from "social culture" to "nerd culture" may interpret everything as a part of some devious status game. From an observer's perspective, this person displays symptoms of paranoia.

The "nerd culture" person in a "social culture" will likely sooner or later get burned, which provides them evidence that their approach is wrong. Of course they may also process the evidence the wrong way, and decide e.g. that non-nerds are stupid or insane, and that it is better to avoid them.

Unfortunately, for a "social culture" person in a "nerd culture" it is too easy to interpret the evidence in a way that reinforces their beliefs. Every failure in communication may be interpreted as "someone did a successful status attack on me". The more they focus on trying to decipher the imaginary status games, the more they get out of sync with their information-oriented colleagues, which only provides more "evidence" that there is some kind of conspiracy against them. And even if you try to explain them this, your explanation will be processed as "yet another status move". A person sufficiently stuck in the status-game interpretation of everything may lack the dynamic to process any feedback as something else then (or at least something more than merely) a status move.

Thus ends my whitesplaining mansplaining cissplaining status attack against all who challenge the existing order.

EDIT:

Reading the replies I realized there are never enough disclaimers when writing about a controversial topic. For the record, I don't believe that nerds never play status games. (Neither do I believe that non-nerds are completely detached from reality.) Most people are not purely "nerd culture" or purely "social culture". But the two cultures are differently calibrated.

For example, correcting someone has a subtext of a status move. But in the "nerd culture" people focus more on what is correct and what is incorrect, while in the "social culture" people focus more on how agreement or disagreement would affect status and alliances.

If some person says "2+2=3" and other person replies "that's wrong", in the "nerd culture" the most likely conclusion is that someone has spotted a mistake and automatically responded. Yes, there is always the possibility that the person wanted to attack the other person, and really enjoyed the opportunity. Maybe, maybe not.

In the "social culture" the most likely conclusion is the status attack, because people in the "social culture" can tolerate a lot of bullshit from their friends or people they don't want to offend, so it makes sense to look for an extra reason why in this specific case someone has decided to not tolerate the mistake.

As a personal anecdote, I have noticed that in real life, some people consider me extremely arrogant and some people consider me extremely humble. The former have repeatedly seen me correcting someone else's mistake; and the latter have repeatedly seen someone else correcting my mistake, and me admitting the mistake. The idea that both attitudes could exist in the same person (and that the person could consider them to be two aspects of the same thing) is mind-blowing to someone coming from the "social culture", because there these two roles are strictly separated; they are the opposite of each other.

When you hear someone speaking about how the reality is socially constructed, in a sense they are not lying. They are describing the "social culture" they live in; where everyone keeps as many maps as necessary to fit peacefully in every social group they want to belong to. For a LessWronger, the territory is the thing that can disagree with our map when we do an experiment. But for someone living in a "social culture", the disagreement with maps typically comes from enemies and assholes! Friends don't make their friends update their maps; they always keep an extra map for each friend. So if you insist that there is a territory that might disagree with their map, of course they perceive it as a hostility.

Yes, even the nerds can be hostile sometimes. But a person from the "social culture" will be offended all the time, even by a behavior that in the "nerd culture" is considered perfectly friendly. -- As an analogy, imagine a person coming from a foreign culture that also speaks English, but in their culture, ending a sentence with a dot is a sign of disrespect towards the recipient. (Everyone in their culture knows this rule, and it is kinda taboo to talk about it openly.) If you don't know this rule, you will keep offending this person in every single letter you send them, regardless of how friendly you will try to be.

I think Obama's greatest accomplishment was the overhaul of military spending he worked with Secretary Robert Gates on at the start of his administration. I'm also highly supportive of his executive actions on immigration reform.

I find the Affordable Care Act to be difficult to evaluate. They made so many changes at once that it's hard to ascertain their net effect on health care overall. Yes, increases in health care costs have gone down. Yes, younger people are spending more on insurance that they probably don't need. Yes, there are multiple ways to improve the system which are not politically feasible.

I think Obama's biggest failure was Libya. The US should stop supporting rebellions, or invading countries. It's never clear what's going to happen when the revolutionaries take over, or the new regime is in place, and the war itself is always bad.

The issue I find most perplexing is wiretapping. It seems like Obama didn't do anything about it, and nobody really seems to have cared. Other failures can be explained away as the fault of Congress such as his failure to close Guatanamo Bay, but I don't think the wiretapping issue can.

One thing people don't talk about enough is the unprecedented slowdown in the growth of government spending these past few years. Look at what happened with nominal government spending. I think this is principally due to the Tea Party because it coincides with their rise and fall almost exactly, but I still think Obama's role in this brief change is an important one. Alex Tabarrok's views on the subject from 2008 come across to me as prescient.

Exit is the right strategy because if there is any hope for reform it is by casting the Republicans out of power and into the wilderness where they may relearn virtue. Libertarians understand better than anyone that power corrupts. The Republican party illustrates. Lack of power is no guarantee of virtue but Republicans are a far better – more libertarian – party out-of-power than they are in power. When in the wilderness, Republicans turn naturally to a critique of power and they ratchet up libertarian rhetoric about free trade, free enterprise, abuse of government power and even the defense of civil liberties.