Maybe this from US/European language differences and that Spotify is a European firm. Using "Holiday"/"Holidays" to mean "Christmas" is a soft-secular move that only seems to happen in north America---e.g. saying "Happy holidays" instead of "Happy Christmas" or "Merry Christmas".
If I Spotify search for "Christmas" there is the genre "Happy Christmas" with playlists "Christmas hits", "Christmas carols", "Christmas pop", "Cozy Christmas jazz" and maybe another 50 giving all sorts of subtle variations (the christmas jazz playlists are pretty good!). @George_E_Hale, if you do a search for "Christmas" do you get a good set of results?
Edit: didn't see UrgentSloth's reply before posting. Under the hood "Happy Holidays" and "Happy Christmas" seem to index the same spotify christmas playlists, and yes "Happy Holidays" comes up from a search for "holidays" so this all seems pretty easy, no?
asd
6mo ago
I'm sure you've seen the Gwern essay on embryo selection where these lines of argument are touched on (https://gwern.net/embryo-selection). The whole thing is ofc great, and on this point the TLDR is: yes absolutely selecting myopically on a single trait can go wrong (especially over long timescales and/or small populations) but given the size of our population and existing genetic variation it's not a pressing worry at all. Further it seems that presently IQ correlates are other "good things" like overall health, so the tradeoff does not even arise.
Selecting only on one trait means that almost all of the available genotype information is being ignored; at best, this is a lost opportunity, and at worst, in some cases it is harmful—in the long run (dozens of generations), selection only on one trait, particularly in a very small breeding population like often used in agriculture (albeit irrelevant to humans), will have “unintended consequences” like greater disease rates, shorter lifespans, etc (see Falconer 1960’s Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Ch. 19 “Correlated Characters”, & Lynch & Walsh 1998’sCh. 21 “Correlations Between Characters” on genetic correlations). When breeding is done out of ignorance or with regard only to a few traits or on tiny founding populations, one may wind up with problematic breeds like some purebred dog breeds which have serious health issues due to inbreeding, small founding populations, no selection against negative mutations popping up, and variants which increase the selected trait at the expense of another trait.^28 (This is not an immediate concern for humans as we have an enormous population, only weak selection methods, low levels of historical selection, and high heritabilities & much standing variance, but it is a concern for very long-term programs or hypothetical future selection methods like iterated embryo selection.)
The footnote (no. 28) continues the argument:
Although unintended side effects due to bad genetic correlations is frequently raised as an objection to selecting on intelligence, it is not an issue, as the genetic correlations of other traits are so uniformly in desirable directions (with the practically-unimportant exception of myopia, and the dubious exception of autism spectrum disorder symptom checklist scores). In any case, we can note by their behavior that people do not genuinely believe this objection, as they are, among countless other things, not upset by having intelligent children, do not regard successes like childhood vaccination or iodization or lead remediation or improved nutrition or the Flynn Effect as humanitarian disasters, interpret reports of (hollow) gains on intelligence due to formal schooling as reasons to increase funding for formal schooling, are worried by brain-damaging diseases like Zika (thus passing the double reversal test) and would be horrified by a proposal to starve or drop babies on their heads to spare them the supposed terrible unintended side-effects of being above-average.
asd
7mo ago
For people who might doubt that 'Cultural Marxism' was a term happily used by academics referring to the intellectual project there were themselves engaged in, here is an essay that is still up on Douglas Kellner's academic website: Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies.
I am reminded of a line from a Scott Alexander essay replying to Nathan Robinson about SA's supposed misunderstanding of left-wing thought:
The reason I claim people believe this kind of thing is exactly because I do read your magazines where you say it.
Indeed, one can argue perhaps that liberal democratic states can be more dangerous in warfare than autocracies:
Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, 13 May 1901
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1901/may/13/army-organisation#column_1572 (I still find the record keeping involved in this incredible)
More options
Context Copy link