「date.」を含む日記

はてなキーワード:date.とは

2025-02-07

■How to Flirton a FirstDate Without Feeling Awkward

Firstdates can be exciting and nerve-wrackingall at once.You’re meetingsomeone new, learning about their interests, and trying to figureout if there’schemistry between you. And then there’s flirting, that delicate dance of showingsomeone you’re interested without being too forward or awkward.

Flirtingdoesn’t have to be a high-pressuresituation. Infact,it can bethe most fun part ofgetting to know someone. Whetheryou're meetingsomeone on MixerDates orany other platform,the most important thingis to be genuine,stay calm, and let theconnection developnaturally.

Ifyou’ve everfound yourself wondering how to flirton a firstdate without feeling uncomfortable,you’re notalone. Everyonehas their awkwardmoments, but themore you understand theart of flirting, the easierit becomes. In this article, we’ll break down how to flirt in a way that feelsnatural, exciting,and authentic towho you are. So, let'sdive in and learn how tomake the most ofyour firstdate experience—without overthinkingit.

Confidence: TheFound ation of Flirting

Whenit comes to flirting, confidenceis key. But what does it really mean to be confidenton a firstdate? Confidencedoesn’t meanyou need to be perfect, or evenout going—it simply meansbeing comfortable inyour ownskin and showing upas your authentic self.

Haveyou ever noticed how people are drawn to thosewho radiate self-assurance?It’s not about bragging or dominating the conversation—it’s about presentingyourself with ease. Ifyou feel good about yourself,it will naturally show. A great smile,good posture, and eye contact cango a long way in making agoodfirst impression.

For instance, think about thelast time someone walked into a room and immediately caughtyourattention—not because they werethe most attractive person in the room, but because of their energy. They were confident, they were present, and theymade you feel at ease. That’s the kind of confidenceyou want to project on yourdate.

Whenyou're confident,you're not worried about saying the perfect thing. Instead,you focus on enjoying themoment, making the other person feel comfortable, and letting theconnection happennaturally. That’s themagic of confidence—it allowsyou to be present,fun, and,most importantly,yourself.

The Power of Subtlety

Let’s faceit—noonewants tofeel like they’rebeing “worked” or put through a game. That’swhy subtletyis such a powerfultool whenit comes to flirting.It'sall about showing interest without being over-the-top or too obvious.

Flirtingdoesn’talways mean complimentingsomeone non-stop or using cheesy pickup lines. Infact,the most successful flirtingis the kind that happens behind the scenes—subtle, playful, andlighthearted. Think about thelittle moments,like a teasing comment about how theyalways order the same thingat a restaurant or the wayyou laughat a silly joke theymake.

Thekey is to find a balance. Asimple smile or a playful comment can convey interest without being too much. For example, ifyourdate tellsyou theylove hiking but theytend toget lost easily,you could saysomething like, “So,you’re telling meyou need a personal guide? I couldget behind that!”It’slighthearted, humorous, andmost importantly,it keeps the conversation fun without putting too much pressureon thesituation.

By keepingit subtle,you allowyourdate tofeel at ease.It takes the pressure off them to be perfectand a llows both ofyou to enjoy the interaction more naturally. Flirtingdoesn’tneed to be a performance—it’s about creating an environment where both ofyou canfeel comfortableand authentic.

Active Listening: AKey toConnection

Now,let’s talk about something incredibly important in the flirting game:active listening. When we’reon adate, we oftenget caught up in thinking about what to saynext, how we’re coming across, or if we’rebeing interesting enough. But the best way tomake animpression? Truly listening toyourdate.

Active listening meansyou’re fullyengaged in the conversation, givingyourdate your full attention and responding thoughtfully.It’s about showing that you care about what they’re saying and that you’re genuinely interested ingetting to know them better. Whenyou listenactively,you’re also giving them space toopen up, and that can create an immediateconnection.

For example, ifyourdate mentions they recently traveled toJapan, instead of simply saying, “That’scool!”you could follow up withsomething like, “What was the most memorable experienceyou had there?” This shows that you’re not just hearing their words but are genuinely curious and invested in their experiences.It’s a great way to build rapport and let them know you’re not just there toimpress them—you’re there toconnect.

Body Language: SayingMore Than Words Can

Whileyour words are important,body language often speaks louder thananythingyou can say. Whetheryou realize it or not,yourbody is constantly communicating howyou feel. Howyou sit, stand, andmove tellsyourdate whetheryou’rerelaxed,engaged, or distracted.

Small gestures cango a long way in flirting. Alight touchon thearm, a subtle lean in when they’re speaking, or maintaininggood eye contact—all thesebody language cues helpsignal your interest. Andthe great thingis, whendonenaturally, these cues can be justas effectiveas words.

For example, ifyou’resittingat a caféon yourdate andyou lean in slightly when they’re sharing afunnystory,you’re not just showing that you’re interested—you’re inviting them intoyour space.It’s aninvitation toconnect further. And when they respondby leaning in too, that’s when themagic happens—the unspokenconnection that tellsyou both that there’s potential formore.

Flirting throughbody languagedoesn’t mean making grand gestures orbeing overly touchy.It’s about being present and showing that you’reengaged with yourdate in a subtle, but meaningful way.

HaveFun:Don’tTake It Too Seriously

It’s easy toget caught up inoverthinking how to flirt or trying to figureout ifyourdate is intoyou. Buthere’s asecret—whenyou letgo of the pressureand a llowyourself to havefun,everything flows muchmore naturally. Flirtingon a firstdate doesn’tneed tofeel like atest or anas signment.It’s supposed to be afun,lighthearted experience that sets the stage formore great dates ahead.

Whenwas thelast time you had a genuinelyfun date?Was it whenyou were trying too hard toimpress, or whenyou were both laughing, chatting, and enjoying each other's company? Flirting becomes effortless whenyou're present, enjoying themoment, and letting theconnection grownaturally.

Sometimes,it's the small moments—like sharing a laugh or swapping embarrassing stories—that make a firstdate truly special. Whenyou focus on havingfun,you create an environment where both ofyou canrelax, flirt, and let thechemistry grow. That’s thesecret to a great date.

Flirtingwith the RightMatch: How MixerDatesMakesIt Easier

One of the best things about using a platformlike MixerDates is that it takes the guessworkout of the equation.By connecting withsomeone who already sharesyour interests and values,you’vegot a head start on making a realconnection.No more swiping through countless profiles hoping for aspark—on MixerDates,you already know there’ssomething incommon.

Whenyou’re alreadyon the same pagewith yourdate, flirting comesmore easily. There’s less of that awkward, “Are we evenon the same wavelength?”feeling, andmore of thefun, “Wow, we reallyclick!” vibe. Whetheryou’retalking about favorite hobbies, movies, orlife goals, the conversation flowsnaturally, making the flirtingfeel effortless.

Ifyou're looking for a place to meetlike-minded people and build genuineconnections,MixerDates is the perfect platform.It's a great place to findsomeone who appreciatesyou forwho you are andwho you cannaturally flirt with, without the stress.

Ready toTake theLeap?

Flirtingon a firstdate is all about confidence,connection, andfun. Whenyou letgo of the pressure andfocus on enjoyingthe experience, thechemistry will naturally follow. Remember, the best way to flirtis by being yourself—letyour personalityshine through, listen with intention, and embrace themoment.

And ifyou’re ready to meetsomeone new,who’s justas interested in making aconnection as you are,MixerDates is the perfect place to start. Sogo ahead,take theleap, and see where it leads.Who knows?Yournext great connection might be just aclick away.

Permalink |記事への反応(0) | 12:01

ツイートシェア

2025-02-02

■Chatgptが答えた異星人の存在 可能性とのそのロジック

Please consider the histroy ofhuman ity from biologicalperpsecitve and currentknown fact in nearby universe, whichexpo-planet (from theSol systemperspective)is most likely to have civlizaedsociety? Pleaseadd percentagenext toit in the chart

ChatGPT

Reas oned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う

Evaluatingplanetary prospects

OK, I’mlookingat the likelihood of a civilizedsociety on an exoplanet within ourSolar System.I’ll consider biologicalhistory and current space knowledge,aiming to identifythe most promising candid ate.

Identifying potential candid ates

I'm considering exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from ourSolar System.

Assessing potential candid ates

I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard'sStar, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIS T-1,focusingon their habitablezonesand available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilizedsociety likelihoods.

Identifying promising exoplanets

I’m notingkey exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1, which haveEarth-like characteristicsand are in habitablezones. This narrows down the potential candid ates for advancedcivilizations.

Assessing habitablezones

I'm gathering infoon planetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1, consideringfactorslike magnetic fields,atmospheres, and proximity to G-typestars for their potential to support advancedcivilizations.

Evaluating exoplanet prospects

I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despitebeing closeand around ared dwarfstar, might supportlife ifit has amagnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.

Charting probabilities

I'm estimatingcivilization probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1 e, using speculativepercentagesbasedon the Drake equation and the lack ofevidence for intelligentlife.

Charting speculative odds

I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names andcivilization likelihoodpercentages, grounded in the longtimeline oflife'sevolution, despite the speculativenature of these figures.

Identifying exoplanet contenders

I’m evaluating exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIS T-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering theirstar types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advancedcivilizations from oursolar system'sviewpoint.

Weighing proximity and observation

I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due toits closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about itsflare star dynamics. TRAPPIS T-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.

Revis iting exoplanet options

I'mfocusingon exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIS T-1 e/f/g, andK2-18b,aiming to chart theirlikelihood of hosting a civilizedsociety basedon current knowledge.

Assessing exoplanet potentials

I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety.

Refining speculative probabilities

I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety, consideringEarth's long biologicalhistory.

Refining odds

I'm considering theastronomicaltimeline for intelligentlife on Earth,leading me toassign evenlower speculative odds for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1 e.

Clarifying speculativenature

I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrarypercentages, clearly noting the speculativenature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience'sbasic understanding of the topic.

Mappingout speculative odds

I’m charting arbitrarypercentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculativenature, and ensuring the datais accessible foryoung audiences with minimal scientific detail.

Crafting a chart

I’m creating amarkdown table with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of civilizedlife on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoreticalnature and considering the understandinglevel of an 8-year-old.

Integrating speculative analysis

I’m mappingout amarkdown chart with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of a civilizedsociety on exoplanets, mindful of thecomplex ity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.

Assessinglikelihoods

I’m piecingtogether markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b'sreduced civilizedlife chance due to thered dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculativenature of the analysis.

Piecingtogether speculative odds

I’m detailing amarkdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challengesand a dding a disclaimer about the speculativenature and lack ofevidence.

Piecingtogether

I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b forits proximity and silentstar, butI’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advancedcivilizations' hypotheticallikelihood.

Assessingcivilization probabilities

I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligentlife on Earth, which suggests that the odds ofany habitableplanet developing acomplex civilization might beas low as a fewpercent.

Below is a very speculative chart that—basedon what we know about Earth’s long, windingpath fromsimple life to a “civilizedsociety” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives somefun,made‑uppercentage chances for a few of our best candid ate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists havenot yet found any proof oflife (let al one advancedcivilizations)on any exoplanet. Thesenumbers are just playful estimates to helpyou think about theideas!

Speculative Chances of Finding an AdvancedCivilization on Nearby Exoplanets

Exoplanet EstimatedLikelihood of a CivilizedSociety

Proxima Centauri b ~2%

TRAPPIS T-1 e ~1.5%

TRAPPIS T-1 f ~1%

TRAPPIS T-1 g ~1%

LHS 1140 b ~0.5%

HowDid We (Very Roughly) Guess TheseNumbers?

Earth’s Example:

On Earth,life beganas simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This longjourney suggests that—even if aplanet is in the “habitablezone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilizedsociety might be rare.

Nearby Exoplanets:

Proxima Centauri b:

This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even thoughitsstar (Proxima Centauri)is ared dwarf that sometimes sendsout strongflares (which might harmlife),its closeness makesit one of ourmost interesting candid ates. That’swhy we giveit a slightly higher guess (~2%).

TRAPPIS T-1 System (e, f, g):

Theseplanets are part of agroup orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaningone sidealways faces thestar), so the chance of acomplex, advancedcivilization might be abit lower.

LHS 1140 b:

This planet is promising in some ways butis alittle fartheraway and around a dimmerstar, so our playful estimateis evenlower.

AFinal Note

All of thesepercentages are extremely rough guessesbasedon what little we understand about the conditions forlife andintelligence. Scientists useideaslike the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concreteevidence, thesenumbers remain just forfun and imagination.

Enjoy exploring theseideas—and remember, spaceis full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!

あなた:

Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate ormore opition in the equation you will use

ChatGPT

Reas oned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う

re-examining the Drake Equation

evaluating the Drake Equation'svalue

Clarifying the Drake Equation

OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula;it'smore of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrialcivilizations.

Assessing the Drake Equation

Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluatingits conceptualnature,its uncertain parameters, andits crit ic ism to concludeon its reliabilityas an accurate pred ictivemodel.

Understanding the Drake Equation

I’m mappingout the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailingits parameters, which are oftenbasedon estimates or opinions, to evaluateits reliability for pred icting extraterrestrialcivilizations.

The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating thenumber of detectable extraterrestrialcivilizations in ourgalaxy. However, when welook at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptualframework or heuristic tool than a precise, pred ictive formula.Let’s break downwhy:

The Drake Equation

The equation is usually writtenas:

𝑁

𝑅

∗

𝑓

𝑝

𝑛

𝑒

𝑓

𝑙

𝑓

𝑖

𝑓

𝑐

𝐿

N=R

∗

×f

×n

×f

×L

Where:

𝑅

∗

: The averagerate ofstar formation per year in ourgalaxy.

𝑓

𝑝

: The fraction of thosestars that haveplanetary systems.

𝑛

𝑒

: The averagenumber ofplanets that could potentially supportlife per star withplanets.

𝑓

𝑙

: The fraction of thoseplanets where life actually develops.

𝑓

𝑖

: The fraction ofplanets withlife where intelligentlife evolves.

𝑓

𝑐

: The fraction ofcivilizations that develop technology that releases detectablesignals into space.

𝐿

L: The length oftime suchcivilizations release detectablesignals.

Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula

Uncertain Inputs:

Well-Known Parameters:

Somefactors,like

𝑅

∗

(star formation rate) and

𝑓

𝑝

(fraction ofstars withplanets), have become better known through modernastronomy.

Highly SpeculativeFactors:

The parameters related to the development oflife andintelligence—

𝑓

𝑙

𝑓

𝑖

𝑓

𝑐

, and

𝐿

L—arebasedon very limited data. For example,Earth is theonlyplanet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a stat istic ally robust estimate for thesefactors. This means that thevalues chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.

Wide Ranges of PossibleValues:

Because many of thesefactors are not well-constrained, ifyou change one of themore uncertain parameters even slightly, thefinal estimate for

𝑁

N (thenumber ofcivilizations) can varyby many orders ofmagnitude. This wide range shows that the equation canlead to very differentoutcomesbasedon personal or theoreticalassumptions.

Heuristic, Not Pred ictive:

The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a preciseanswer. Instead,it servesas a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrialcivilizations.It encourages discussion about the relative importance of differentfactors andhighlights where our scientific knowledgeis limited.

Is the Drake Equation Accurate orMore Opinion-Based?

Accurate?

In thesense ofbeing a strict mathemat icalmodel with well-defined inputs and pred ic table outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate.Its accuracyis limitedby the extreme uncertainties in several ofitskey parameters.

Opinion-Based?

Many of the terms in the equation, especia lly those concerning theevolution oflife andintelligence, arebasedon opinion, interpretation, and the single example ofEarth. Therefore, while thestructure of the equation is logical, thenumbers you put intoit (and hence thefinal result) are oftenmore reflective of our current opinionsand assumptions than of robust empirical data.

Conclusion

The Drake Equation is a valuabletool for framing the question of extraterrestriallife.It helps scientists and enthusiastsbreak down acomplex problem into smaller,more manageable questions. However, because several ofitsfactors are highly uncertain and subject topersonal interpretation,it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate pred iction of thenumber of extraterrestrialcivilizations.

Insummary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the variousfactors that mightlead to the emergence of acivilization,itsoutputs should betaken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.

あなた:

Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the longhistory ofSol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that inonetime intelligentlife emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation

ChatGPT

Reas oned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う

Evaluating non-human intelligence

I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligentlife forms in theSol system and neighboringplanets, and how this mightfactor into the equation.

Piecingtogether possibilities

I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligentlife, possiblyon Mars orEuropa, into the Drake Equation for theSol system and neighboringplanets.

Reflectingon potential

It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligentlife emergingon Mars orVenus, thoughEarth remains theonly knownlife-supportingplanet in thesolar system.

Considering other realms

I'm examining if intelligentlife could have emergedon planetslike Mars,Venus, orEuropa, and how this possibility alignswith the pred ictions of the Drake Equation.

Analyzing parallelevolution

Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligentlife on Mars orVenus could intersect with theassumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems tofocus solelyon Earth-basedevolution.

Evaluatinglife exploration

I’m piecingtogether the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligentlife in thesolar system.Mars,Venus, and Titan present challenges, butEuropa and Enceladus might harbor microbiallife.

Adapting the equ Permalink |記事への反応(0) | 21:12

ツイートシェア

■Chatgptが答えた異星人の存在 可能性とのそのロジック

ChatGPT

Reas oned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う

Evaluatingplanetary prospects

Identifying potential candid ates

I'm considering exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from ourSolar System.

Assessing potential candid ates

Identifying promising exoplanets

Assessing habitablezones

Evaluating exoplanet prospects

I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despitebeing closeand around ared dwarfstar, might supportlife ifit has amagnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.

Charting probabilities

I'm estimatingcivilization probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1 e, using speculativepercentagesbasedon the Drake equation and the lack ofevidence for intelligentlife.

Charting speculative odds

I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names andcivilization likelihoodpercentages, grounded in the longtimeline oflife'sevolution, despite the speculativenature of these figures.

Identifying exoplanet contenders

Weighing proximity and observation

I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due toits closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about itsflare star dynamics. TRAPPIS T-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.

Revis iting exoplanet options

I'mfocusingon exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIS T-1 e/f/g, andK2-18b,aiming to chart theirlikelihood of hosting a civilizedsociety basedon current knowledge.

Assessing exoplanet potentials

Refining speculative probabilities

Refining odds

I'm considering theastronomicaltimeline for intelligentlife on Earth,leading me toassign evenlower speculative odds for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIS T-1 e.

Clarifying speculativenature

I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrarypercentages, clearly noting the speculativenature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience'sbasic understanding of the topic.

Mappingout speculative odds

I’m charting arbitrarypercentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculativenature, and ensuring the datais accessible foryoung audiences with minimal scientific detail.

Crafting a chart

Integrating speculative analysis

I’m mappingout amarkdown chart with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of a civilizedsociety on exoplanets, mindful of thecomplex ity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.

Assessinglikelihoods

I’m piecingtogether markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b'sreduced civilizedlife chance due to thered dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculativenature of the analysis.

Piecingtogether speculative odds

I’m detailing amarkdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challengesand a dding a disclaimer about the speculativenature and lack ofevidence.

Piecingtogether

I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b forits proximity and silentstar, butI’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advancedcivilizations' hypotheticallikelihood.

Assessingcivilization probabilities

I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligentlife on Earth, which suggests that the odds ofany habitableplanet developing acomplex civilization might beas low as a fewpercent.

Speculative Chances of Finding an AdvancedCivilization on Nearby Exoplanets

Exoplanet EstimatedLikelihood of a CivilizedSociety

Proxima Centauri b ~2%

TRAPPIS T-1 e ~1.5%

TRAPPIS T-1 f ~1%

TRAPPIS T-1 g ~1%

LHS 1140 b ~0.5%

HowDid We (Very Roughly) Guess TheseNumbers?

Earth’s Example:

Nearby Exoplanets:

Proxima Centauri b:

TRAPPIS T-1 System (e, f, g):

LHS 1140 b:

This planet is promising in some ways butis alittle fartheraway and around a dimmerstar, so our playful estimateis evenlower.

AFinal Note

Enjoy exploring theseideas—and remember, spaceis full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!

あなた:

Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate ormore opition in the equation you will use

ChatGPT

Reas oned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う

re-examining the Drake Equation

evaluating the Drake Equation'svalue

Clarifying the Drake Equation

OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula;it'smore of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrialcivilizations.

Assessing the Drake Equation

Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluatingits conceptualnature,its uncertain parameters, andits crit ic ism to concludeon its reliabilityas an accurate pred ictivemodel.

Understanding the Drake Equation

The Drake Equation

The equation is usually writtenas:

𝑁

𝑅

∗

𝑓

𝑝

𝑛

𝑒

𝑓

𝑙

𝑓

𝑖

𝑓

𝑐

𝐿

N=R

∗

×f

×n

×f

×L

Where:

𝑅

∗

: The averagerate ofstar formation per year in ourgalaxy.

𝑓

𝑝

: The fraction of thosestars that haveplanetary systems.

𝑛

𝑒

: The averagenumber ofplanets that could potentially supportlife per star withplanets.

𝑓

𝑙

: The fraction of thoseplanets where life actually develops.

𝑓

𝑖

: The fraction ofplanets withlife where intelligentlife evolves.

𝑓

𝑐

: The fraction ofcivilizations that develop technology that releases detectablesignals into space.

𝐿

L: The length oftime suchcivilizations release detectablesignals.

Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula

Uncertain Inputs:

Well-Known Parameters:

Somefactors,like

𝑅

∗

(star formation rate) and

𝑓

𝑝

(fraction ofstars withplanets), have become better known through modernastronomy.

Highly SpeculativeFactors:

The parameters related to the development oflife andintelligence—

𝑓

𝑙

𝑓

𝑖

𝑓

𝑐

, and

𝐿

Wide Ranges of PossibleValues:

Because many of thesefactors are not well-constrained, ifyou change one of themore uncertain parameters even slightly, thefinal estimate for

𝑁

N (thenumber ofcivilizations) can varyby many orders ofmagnitude. This wide range shows that the equation canlead to very differentoutcomesbasedon personal or theoreticalassumptions.

Heuristic, Not Pred ictive:

Is the Drake Equation Accurate orMore Opinion-Based?

Accurate?

Opinion-Based?

Conclusion

あなた:

ChatGPT

Reas oned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う

Evaluating non-human intelligence

I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligentlife forms in theSol system and neighboringplanets, and how this mightfactor into the equation.

Piecingtogether possibilities

I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligentlife, possiblyon Mars orEuropa, into the Drake Equation for theSol system and neighboringplanets.

Reflectingon potential

It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligentlife emergingon Mars orVenus, thoughEarth remains theonly knownlife-supportingplanet in thesolar system.

Considering other realms

I'm examining if intelligentlife could have emergedon planetslike Mars,Venus, orEuropa, and how this possibility alignswith the pred ictions of the Drake Equation.

Analyzing parallelevolution

Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligentlife on Mars orVenus could intersect with theassumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems tofocus solelyon Earth-basedevolution.

Evaluatinglife exploration

I’m piecingtogether the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligentlife in thesolar system.Mars,Venus, and Titan present challenges, butEuropa and Enceladus might harbor microbiallife.

Adapting the equ Permalink |記事への反応(0) | 21:12

ツイートシェア

2024-11-17

■日本のマスコミが伝えない

➤「救いようが最もうない、極東の自称他称の〝ジャーナリスト〟や〝学者〟、〝知米派〟は読まなくても構い。読んでもその肥大化した自己承認欲求、度し難い自己愛性人格では読むことはできないし、理解もできない。ただ見下した目線で見やるだけで、そこに自分が利用できる素材がなければ鼻で嗤うだけだ。この文章は、我がU.S.を領りたい、領ろうと下向きの反省的眼光で欲する諸君に読んで貰いたい。

I Traveled to 46States inAmerica This Summer.Here’sWhy Trump Won.

By Frank S. Zhou

By Ezekiel A. Wells

Ezekiel A. Wells ’27is aDouble Concentrator in Environment Science & Engineering and Economics in EliotHouse. He spentlast summer traveling to 46Americanstates conductinginterviews forhis YouTube series, “Cross roadsAmerica.”

3days ago

A week after Democrats’ election loss, accusations have flown in every direction within their Party. Some fault President Joe Biden for an ego istic refusal todrop out of therace earlier. Someblame the Harris campaign for failing to servekey demographics and communicate a clearvision for the country. And someblame Americans, claiming that racism and sexism drove voters towardTrump.

These factors certainly exist, but we’remissing a largerpiece of the picture.

Over thesummer, I traveled to 46states in the U.S., creating aYouTube series highlighting slices oflife across the country. In conversations from my nearly three-monthroad trip, I spoke with Republicanswho were certain that inflation is entirely Biden’s fault and Democratswho, despite their frustrations with corporate profits and desires foruniversal healthcare, hoped for amore moderate candidate. From supporters ofall candidates, I heard a shockingamount of misinformation.

After combing through hundreds of hours ofinterview footage fromswing state Trump voters, Iam certain that,as muchas other factors influenced theoutcome of the election, our crumbling media landscape — whichhas caused arift in our democracy —is most toblame.

In the postwar period,news was dominatedby threemain channels, and because ofthe FairnessDoctrine, eachstation reported the same stories and covered multiple sides of eachissue.Viewers picked which channels they watchedmainly basedon their preferences fornews anchors’ personalities. Of course, this model hadits problems, but,at the end of the day,it meant that Americans worked with a sharedset of facts.

A sharedset of factsis notthe world welive intoday.

Throughout myinterviews, conspiracy theories were rampant, andon at leastfive separate occasions across separate states, Iwas told that Bill Gates tampers with ourfood, adding plastic to our fruits and vegetables tomake his medical investmentsmore profitable.

In conversations with voters, neither side seemed able toname many specific policyissues they cared about; everyone just seemed to repeat the words of theirfavorite pundits,podcast hosts, andinternet personalities.

Although this behavioris harmful, Idon’tblame everydayAmericans.Blame fallson the media that has ostracized, disillusioned, and misinformed them.

I firstsaw this trend withlow-wage workers in West Virginia,who — despitefalling inflation rates — have seen stagnated salaries and clear increases infood costs. Channelslike Fox News bred anger and resentment formany of them.

Take July of this summer, for example, when for the firsttime inhis presidency, prices actually fell under the Biden administration. Traditional media establishments rushed tocelebrate this victory, withone article fromCNN declaring, “The White House can finallycross out ‘inflation’on its list ofpresidential liabilities.” However,outside these bubbles, I observedmanyAmericans held a differentview.

In lateJuly, Iwas welcomedat a massive familyreunion in Tylertown, Mississippi, where oneTrump voter — a middle-aged, Black, familyman, pastor, andsoul food enthusiast —made this clear.

“When Igo in the grocery stores, and Igotta spend mylast toget groceries,you mean totell me I’m notgonnalook and seewho’sgonna vote to help me? I voted forTrump and I’d vote forhim again, because he put money in ourpocket,” he told me.

In their coverage,mainstream news organizations obsessover the Federal Reserve’s next rate cuts while failing toconnect with people concernedwith theirnext meals.With t itleslike “Vance:YoungAmericans ‘Are Becoming Paupers’ Due To Inflation, High Housing Costs,” siteslike The DailyWire had their fingerson the pulse ofAmerican sentiment, welcoming new readership from thosewho felt neglectedby traditional media.

This problemwas not just confined to the economy. While Biden’s mentalstate was deteriorating,liberal mediaoutlets seemed to under-cover these stories, shelteringhim from scrutiny ofhis declining capabilities, until theinfamous presidential debate.

Formerly trusted networksslowly made themselves indigestible to the polarizedAmerican public, and in 2024, for the third year in a row, a Gallup pollfound that more Americans indicated having “no trust” in the media than thosewho trustit a “great deal/fairamount”.

So where does the averageAmerican turn when thenation’s media cannot be trusted? Formany people,it was YouTube talk shows,Newsmax, andpodcasters suchas Joe Rogan.

While Democrats seek toblame various internal factors for this election’s loss, I cannot help but think ofJoe Rogan’s Trump endorsement, themany blind lies I heard from ordinary citizens across the country, and declining trust inAmerican journalism.

As Harvard students and members of highereducation institutions, we have a part to play in the problem.At Harvard’s Institute ofPolitics, thosewho denied the 2020 election results have been precluded from speakingat theJFK Jr. Forum. While thegoalis understandable,it shields students from understanding theAmericanviewpoints they represent.

There is adifference between platforming intentional andmanipulative misinformation and listening to and learning about where people are and what theybelieve.

As a pipeline tomainstream media,Harvard, andits future journalists, have to consider the audience they lose when theystay inside of their bubble and ignore theissues of everydayAmericans.

The disappearance of factual importance in our worldis alarming and dangerous, but if we,as aspiring journalists, politicians, andengaged citizens, want to betaken seriously in communicatingTrump’s threat to democracy, inflationary tariff policies, and soon, we oweAmerican voters that seriousness, too.

Permalink |記事への反応(1) | 16:45

ツイートシェア

2024-10-15

■「未婚男性の死亡年齢中央値だけが異常に低い件」は間違い？　ちゃんと調べた　その３

その２はここ　https://anond.hatelabo.jp/20241014165955

これまでのあらすじ

・元記事「男性未婚者が短命すぎる、かわいそう」

・大和総研「そんなことなくない？」

・俺「調べてみたら、確かに男性未婚者と短命に相関はあるっぽい」

　離別者も短命になるっぽい、女性も未婚者・離別者は短命気味だけど、男性が顕著

　相関はしてるが因果関係はまだ謎

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

未婚だから短命？貧乏だから短命？

気づいたんだけど、以下の事実があるよね

「男性は、年収が低いほど未婚者が多い傾向にある（女性はあまり傾向がない）」

で、たぶんこれも合ってるよね

「年収が低いほど短命である」

じゃあ、「貧乏な男性である→短命」の疑似相関として「未婚男性→短命」なのでは？という仮説を思いついたので調べた

ただこの件、めんどくさいことに「お年寄りが貧乏かどうか」に端的な指標がない（若いなら年収でいいけど）

なので厳密には調べようがなかった

あくまで「傾向がある」の積み重ねで仮説の可能性を上げるくらい

「貧乏なほど短命である」について調べる

ちゃんとしたデータはアメリカのものしか無かった、アメリカのデータを日本にどれだけ適用できるかは謎だね

「収入の格差」が健康に悪いのか？それとも「貧困」が悪いのか？

https://healthpolicyhealthecon.com/2016/10/14/income-inequality-vs-poverty/

この研究の結果、収入が少ない人の寿命は短く、収入が多い人の寿命は長いということが明らかになりました。収入上位1%の人は下位1%の人と比べると、男性では約15年も、女性では約10年も、収入が高い人の方が寿命が長いことが分かりました（図1）

ここでも男性の方が大きな差が出ているが、これは世帯の収入源が男性が多かったからだろう

一応大和総研のまとめもある

人々の所得や雇用から見る健康格差（2017年）

https://www.dir.co.jp/report/research/introduction/economics/disparity/20170217_011733.pdf

・当然だが世帯収入が高いほどかける保健医療サービスの金額は上がる

・特に男性で、収入が低い人は健康診断の未受験者が多い（おそらく雇用形態の差）

・収入が低い人は医療負担を恐れて病院にいかないケースがある

・年収が低いほど肥満率が高い

・保険加入者は年収による差があまりなかった

当然と言えば当然だが、収入が低いほど健康に積極的ではなくなるので、相関があるのは明らかだと思われる

ただ、「医療費が高すぎて払えない」みたいなのは日本では少なそうだった（1割負担なので医療費が激安なので）

なので「それだけで未婚／既婚で13年もの寿命差がでるのか？」は疑問でもある

参考：死亡前１年間にかかった医療費と介護費の総額は？85歳以上で死亡した人が最も安かった

https://www.tmghig.jp/research/release/2020/0318.html

なお、いちおう「低年収男性ほど未婚率が高い」の図

内閣府　第2-2-6図　男女別にみた年収区分別の未婚率

https://www5.cao.go.jp/j-j/wp/wp-je23/h06_hz020206.html

アメリカでも同様に、既婚男性／未婚男性で収入差が大きい（女性はほぼ同じ）

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/september/taking-closer-look-marital-status-earnings-gap

アメリカでも同じ事象が起こっていた

海外研究も調べてみた（調べたのはChatGPT先生）

さすがアメリカ、いくらでもある、しかも1998年からある

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5018.html

読むと分かるが、「未婚男性は短命（？）」はアメリカでも同様らしい（未婚女性はそうでもないというのも同様）

そして皆が想像するような理由を並べているが、根本的原因は複雑なので不明としている（1998年であることに注意）

ChatGPTにこれもおすすめされたけど、ちょっと違う気がする、これは年次経過観察

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/mortality/mortality_marital_status_10_17.htm

ただこれに載ってる以下が気になる、今夜にでも読んでみる（公開されてたら）

Robards J, Evandrou M, Falkingham J, Vlachantoni A. Marital status, health and mortality. Maturitas 73(4):295–9. 2012.

RendallMS, WedenMM, Favreault MM, Waldron H. The protective effect ofmarriage for survival: Areview and update. Demography 48(2):481–506. 2011.

これも面白い、今回と同じような議論がもう15年以上前にアメリカで起きている

Single vs. Married —Who Really Lives Longer?

https://www.unmarried.org/single-vs-married-who-really-lives-longer/

「独身の皆さん、ご注意ください。独身のままでいると死んでしまいます！」2006 年 9 月号の Journal of Epidemiology and Community Healthに掲載された研究に基づくこの「発見」は、国中の見出しで大々的に取り上げられました。
...
最近の長寿研究は、19歳以上のアメリカ人のサンプルのうち、1989年から 1997年の間に死亡する可能性が最も高かったのは誰かという疑問に答えています。メディアの報道では、既婚者と比較すると、離婚した人は死亡する可能性が27%高く、未亡人は39%高く、ずっと独身だった人は58%高いと報じられています。これらは、未婚者の種類によって意味のある違いがあるように思えますが、実際はそうではありません。
疫学ジャーナルの記事では、その違いは統計的に有意ではないと認めています。

やっぱりというか、「病気な人が未婚のままで居たため」というような因果関係の逆転で疑似相関を排除できない的な話

んで色んな研究があったけどいまいち分からんみたいな結論

では、これまでのところ、この研究で実際にわかったことは次の通りです。8年間の期間において、離婚した、配偶者に先立たれた、あるいはずっと独身だったアメリカ人の死亡率に有意な差はありませんでした。

あれ、このテーマってひょっとして沼では？

もうこれ↓だけでよくね？知らんけど

・貧乏だと死にやすいかも？知らんけど

・独身だと死にやすいかも？知らんけど

・独居だと死にやすいかも？知らんけど

・健康診断ちゃんと受けろ、健康に気を使え

健康診断ちゃんと受けなきゃな

＿＿＿＿

この研究どっか頑張ってやってほしいね

金なのか、パートナーなのか、子なのか、寂しいのか、生活習慣なのか、発見の早さなのか、健康への気遣いなのか、その全部か

でもまあ30年後くらいにハッキリしそうでもあるけどね、選択的未婚者がかなり増えるし、経済的理由なら女性にも差が出てくるはずだから

いやその前に自分が死ぬかｗ

＿＿＿＿

追記：

所得や資産と寿命の相関データ見つからないんだよね、誰か探して

一応人口動態にはないっぽい

都道府県ごとに調べることで収入格差との相関を調べてる人は居るっぽい

国立がん研究センターでは、教育歴と死亡率の相関を調べてるっぽい

あと所得が低い→健康リテラシーが低い　という可能性は俺も考えた

てか疾病関係の統計の論文さ、読んでると頭痛くなってくるよね、医者ってすげーわ

Permalink |記事への反応(8) | 13:01

ツイートシェア

2023-11-19

■anond:20231119000706

例えば、以下のような例文あった場合、waneがわかってなくても前者は何となく推論できるけど、後者はwaneの意味が分かる場合とそうでない場合はかなり差があるんだよね。

Her enthusiasm forthe who le idea was waning rapidly.

They are determined to squeeze thelast ounceout of their waningpower and are frightened to face the people toget a new mandate.

Permalink |記事への反応(1) | 00:22

ツイートシェア

2023-09-19

■anond:20230919113228

横じゃが、こんな感じでいいんかね？ChatGPTじゃなくてBing 先生だが同じ事やろ

わいの問：

今週の水曜日の日付を出力するJavaコードを教えてください。

Bing 先生の答え：(色々細かい解説をしてくれたが省略)

importjava.time.LocalDate;importjava.time.DayOfWeek;importjava.time.format.DateTimeFormatter;public classMain {  public staticvoidmain(String[] args) {    //現在の日付を取得    LocalDatetoday = LocalDate.now();    // 今週の水曜日の日付を取得    LocalDate wednesday =today.with(DayOfWeek.WEDNESDAY);    // 日付をフォーマットして出力    DateTimeFormatter formatter = DateTimeFormatter.ofPattern("yyyy年MM月dd日");    System.out.println(wednesday.format(formatter));  }}

（動かしてはないけど、まあパッと見でおかしい所は無さそうやし、動くやろ。。。）

Permalink |記事への反応(1) | 11:50

ツイートシェア

■anond:20230919114042

もうこのやりとりの時点でダメやん？

ダメじゃねえよ。要件を正確に記述できないならコードなんて書けるわけない。

空気読んでいい感じに読み取ってよというのを求めてるなら、仕様書すら書けないダメプログラマーってことだろ。

コンピューターの中では数字で日付は管理されててそれはJavaでは日付のオブジェクトとして表されるんだけど、「今週＝現在の週の水曜日」を表すオブジェクトが欲しい

やったぞ

Javaの日付オブジェクトとして「今週の水曜日」を表すオブジェクトを返す関数を示してください。

java.time パッケージの LocalDateクラスや TemporalAdjustersクラスを使用して、「今週の水曜日」の日付オブジェクトを取得できます。
以下のコードは、現在の日付に基づいて今週の水曜日の LocalDateオブジェクトを返すJava の関数です。
importjava.time.DayOfWeek;
importjava.time.LocalDate;
importjava.time.temporal.TemporalAdjusters;
public class Main {
public staticvoid main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(getThisWeeksWednesday());
}
public static LocalDate getThisWeeksWednesday() {
LocalDatetoday = LocalDate.now();
returntoday.with(TemporalAdjusters.nextOrSame(DayOfWeek.WEDNESDAY));
}
}
この関数は現在の日付を取得し、それを TemporalAdjusters.nextOrSame(DayOfWeek.WEDNESDAY)メソッドに渡して、今週の水曜日の日付を取得します。今日が水曜日である場合、それが返されます。それ以外の場合は、次の水曜日の日付が返されます。

今日が週内のどの日であったとしても（木曜日や金曜日であったとしても）その週の水曜日を表すオブジェクトを返す関数を示してください。

それには、今週の最初の日を求め、そこから水曜日までの日数を加算するアプローチを使用します。以下のコードでは、週の最初の日を月曜日と仮定しています：
importjava.time.DayOfWeek;
importjava.time.LocalDate;
importjava.time.temporal.TemporalAdjusters;
public class Main {
public staticvoid main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(getThisWeeksWednesday());
}
public static LocalDate getThisWeeksWednesday() {
LocalDatetoday = LocalDate.now();
LocalDatemonday =today.with(TemporalAdjusters.previousOrSame(DayOfWeek.MONDAY));
returnmonday.plusDays(2);
}
}
このコードは、まず今日の日付を取得し、それから TemporalAdjusters.previousOrSame(DayOfWeek.MONDAY)メソッドを使用して今週の月曜日の日付を取得します。そして、月曜日から2日後の日付（水曜日）を取得するために plusDays(2)メソッドを使用します。

Permalink |記事への反応(3) | 11:50

ツイートシェア

2023-02-15

■anond:20230214105828

ChatGPTさんも、そんな考えは時代遅れやって言うてはるぞ。

Sure, I'd behappy to discuss that with you! The question ofwho should payon a firstdate is acommon one and there's noone-size-fits-all answer.It really dependson the situation and the preferences of the people involved.

Tradition ally,it was often expected that theman would pay for the firstdate. However, in moderntimes,many people prefer to split the bill ortake turns paying fordates. Some peoplemay feel strongly about payingon a firstdate as a way to show their interest or to demonstrate their ability to provide for their partner, while othersmay feel that splitting the bill or taking turns payingis more fair and equitable.

Ultimately, the decision ofwho should payon a firstdate should be basedon what both people are comfortable with.It's a goodidea to discussit ahead oftime so that there are no surprises or awkwardmoments at the end of thedate.Communication is key inany relationship, soit's important to beopen and honest about your preferences andexpectations.

Permalink |記事への反応(1) | 12:50

ツイートシェア

2022-12-04

■Chat.OpenAIゲキヤバ。まじでちょっとした処理はググる 必要なくなった

俺：

javascript 言語で、現在時刻のタイムスタンプから MD5のハッシュ値を出力する関数、timeToMd5 を作ってください

JavaScriptでは、次のような関数を作成することができます。

function timeToMd5() {  //現在時刻のタイムスタンプを取得しますconst timestamp =Date.now();  //ハッシュ値を出力するために、MD5ライブラリをロードしますconstmd5 =require('md5');  // timestampを文字列に変換し、それをMD5ハッシュ値に変換して出力しますconst hash =md5(timestamp.toString());  return hash;}

このような関数を作成することで、現在時刻のタイムスタンプから MD5のハッシュ値を出力することができます。

ご参考までに。

俺：

nodeコマンドで実行しましたが、"Error: Cannot findmodule 'md5'" というエラーになってしまいました。なにか解決方法がありますか？

ご質問のように、JavaScriptで定義した関数を実行すると、"Error: Cannot findmodule 'md5'" というエラーが発生しているようです。

このエラーが発生する原因は、JavaScriptのコード内で、MD5 ライブラリをロードしようとしたときに、そのライブラリがインストールされていないためです。

JavaScriptのコードで、MD5 ライブラリを利用するには、まず、そのライブラリをインストールする必要があります。

インストールするには、次のように、nodeコマンドを実行します。

$ npm installmd5

このコマンドを実行することで、MD5 ライブラリがインストールされ、JavaScriptのコードから利用することができるようになります。

また、JavaScriptのコードを実行するには、次のようにnodeコマンドを使用します。

$ node [JavaScriptのファイル名]

このようにすることで、JavaScriptのコードを実行することができます。

ご参考までに。

俺：

ありがとうございます。実行できました😁

おめでとうございます！ご質問いただいた内容について、正しく解決されたようで嬉しいです。

もしまだご質問があるようでしたら、お気軽にお問い合わせください。今後とも、Assistantをご利用いただけますよう、よろしくお願いいたします。

Permalink |記事への反応(1) | 01:31

ツイートシェア

2021-01-11

■anond:20210111172953

草生える

Four years after theFukushima accident,TC screening data from the first and second round (up toDecember 2014) were comparedwith theJapanese nationwide annualTC incidence, andwith the incidence inone area ofFukushima prefecture selectedas reference (Tsuda et al., 2016). The authors reported that the observednumber ofTCswas substantially higher thanthe expectednumber basedon national and regional incidence data, and concluded that this increase could beattributed to ionizing radiation exposure from theaccident. This ecological studyhas been strongly criticizedby scientistsaround the world because of serious methodology limitations; further, the study conclusions are not supportedby the results (Davis, 2016, Jorgensen, 2016, Korblein, 2016, Shibata, 2016,Suzuki, 2016, Takahashiet al., 2016, Takamura, 2016, Wakefordet al., 2016). Limitations of ecological study design are well-known, although the authorsdid not acknowledge theissue of ecologic fallacy.Another criticismwas that the data from theFukushima screening program are not directly comparablewith thecancer registry data from therest ofJapan where systematic advanced ultrasound technologyis not used to detect cases. The authors of these criticisms suggested that though the increasedTC number could beassociatedwith the exposure from radioactivefallout, amore plausible conclusion would be that the screening programis finding an anticipated increase inTC detection across theFukushima prefecture.Indeed,Tsuda and colleaguesdid not consider the latent properties ofTC,nor the fa ct that a prevalentcancer detectedby screening might have had first preclinical manifestations of abnormality before the nuclearaccident.Thereafter, several researchers have analysed the relationshipbetween radiation exposure (with different estimated exposure levels, mostly using an external dose) andTC prevalence and incidence in residents aged ≤18 years in theFukushima prefecture at time of the dis aster (Kato, 2019, Nakayaet al., 2018, Ohiraet al., 2019a, Ohiraet al., 2020, Ohiraet al., 2019b, Ohiraet al., 2016, Ohiraet al., 2018,Suzuki et al., 2016, Tokiet al., 2020, Yamamotoet al., 2019), but no radiation-related risks have been demonstrated todate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020321851

ちなみにこの分野の雑誌にはあまり詳しくないけど、IF3.5で最高峰なの？

ちなみに自分が引用した雑誌は7.9だった。

Permalink |記事への反応(1) | 22:03

ツイートシェア

2019-06-22

■れいわ新選組と立憲民主党　どちらが正しいか　（自民党とどちらが正しいかも追記 しました）

参議院議員選挙が近づき、れいわ新選組の山本太郎議員がした減税のためなら安倍内閣とも組むとの発言が支持者の間で炎上する一方、立憲民主党が経済政策を発表するなど、経済がニュースになった1週間でした。山本太郎議員は「2％を目指して物価を上げる」を公約にし、立憲民主党は「上げるべきは物価ではない、賃金だ」を公約にしています。どちらが正しいのでしょうか？

おまんじゅうが10,000個の経済があったします。1コ100円ならGDPは1,000,000円です。

これが翌年90円に値下がりしたとします。数量が同じであればGDPは900,000円です。物価全体が下がることを「デフレ」といいます。

「名目成長率」はマイナス 10％ですが、これは物価が10％下落したからで、それを差し引いて考えた「実質成長率」は0％で、名目成長率＜実質成長率となりました。

ところでおまんじゅうの値段が下がれば、同じお金でおまんじゅうが余分に買えるようになったのだから、とてもよいことのように思います。でも、来年の物価が下がるとしたら、企業は人を雇うでしょうか。お金を金庫にしまっておけば同じお金でも来年は価値があがって余分に物が買えるようになるのだから、人なんて雇いませんよね。借金して投資するなんてトンデモない。返済の負担が重くなるのですから。投資が落ち込み、雇われる人が少なくなります。雇われる人が少なく、お給料の総額が減れば物を買う人が少なくなり、次の年はさらに消費も落ち込みます。さらに物の値段が下がるのだから、ますますお金は使われなくなります。こうして物価の下落と経済の縮小がらせん階段を下っていくように進むありさまを「デフレスパイラル」といいます。企業の「内部留保」が増えているのはデフレだからです。

民主党政権時代、物価はほぼ全期間下がり続け、名目成長率は常に実質成長率を下回っていました。だから民主党政権時代は、現金を持っている人、安定した職がある人は「物が安くなった」と幸せでも、不安定な職しかつけなかった人、これから職に就こうとする人にとっては最悪で－デフレになれば売上も下がりますが仕入れも下がります。ただ同じように下がらないものがあります。それは「借金」と「賃金」です。借金は物価が下がっても減りませんし、正社員の賃金には下方硬直性があります。それゆえデフレ化で企業にとって借金と並んで一番負担に感じられるのは賃金です。だからデフレになると新卒の採用と不安定な就労層の雇用が一番打撃を受けるのです。－安月給で長時間労働を強いるブラック企業が全盛でした。

物価が上がればどうでしょうか？お金を持ったままだと来年価値が減ってしまいますから、人を雇ってより儲けなければなりません。だから企業はより人を雇うようになります。

デフレを放置した民主党政権下で雇用がヘロヘロだったのも、2014年に成長率の名実逆転を解消し（17年ぶり）、2017年に需給ギャップを解消した（9年ぶり）安倍政権下で雇用が劇的に改善したのも、経済学的にはまったく理に適っています（なお、先日朝日新聞に"年収 200万円未満が75％　非正規のリアルに政治は"という記事がありましたが、この記事がアベノミクスによっても雇用に成果がでていないというのであれば明確に誤りです。また雇用環境が改善したのは少子高齢化や団塊世代の大量退職のせいだという人がいますが、それも誤りです。この記事はその点を説明するためのものではないので、詳しくは論じませんが、失業率の分母は生産年齢人口ではなくて労働力人口で、労働力人口は民主党政権化では増えておらず、安倍政権下では増え続けているとだけ指摘しておきます。）。

党首討論で、枝野議員は、「経済の数字の最終成績はどこなのかと言ったら、やはり実質経済成長率。2010年から 12年の実質経済成長率は1.8%。2013年から18年は1.1%。これが客観的な経済のトータルの総合成績であることは、自信をもって申し上げたい。」と発言し、安倍首相に「実質成長の自慢をなされたが、名実逆転をしている実質成長の伸びは、デフレ自慢にしかならない。」と諭されていましたが、まさにそのとおりです。立憲民主党は物価を上げずに賃金をあげて雇用も増やすとしていますが、それは卵を割らずにオムレツを作りますといってるのと同じです。

では、上がった方がいいとして、毎年10％も20％も上がるのがよろしくないのは当然として、なぜ2％なのでしょうか？

理由は3つです。まず、それが経済成長にとって最適というのが現時点のコンセンサスだからであり、為替レートの安定のためであり、デフレに陥らないためです。

世界各国の中央銀行のインフレ目標は2％です。

FRBは「年2％」が物価の安定と雇用の最大化という2つのマンデートを達成するには最適としています。

"TheFOMC noted inits statement that the Committee judges that inflation at therate of 2percent (as measuredby the annualchange in the priceindex forpersonal consumption expenditures, or PCE)is most consistentover the longerrun with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate."

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12848.htm

ECB（欧州中央銀行）は中期的に「2％を超えない、但しそこに近いところ」を目指しています。

"The primary objective of theECB’s monetary policyis to maintain price stability. TheECB aims at inflation rates of below, but close to, 2%over themedium term."

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/html/index.en.html

イングランド銀行（イギリスの中央銀行）もすべての人の将来の計画を立てるのに資するとして「2％」をターゲットにしています。

"To keep inflation low and stable, the Government sets us an inflation target of 2%. This helps everyone plan forthe future."

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation

オーストラリア準備銀行（オーストラリアの中央銀行）も「2～3％」のインフレ率を目指しています。

"The Governor and the Treasurer have agreed that the appropriate target for monetary policy inAustralia is to achieve an inflation rate of 2–3per cent,on average,over time. This is arate of inflation sufficientlylow that it does not materially distort economic decisions in the community. "

https://www.rba.gov.au/inflation/inflation-target.html

世界の中銀が2％にしているのはそれが経済成長と物価の安定のためには最適というのがコンセンサスだからですが（1つめ）、そのなかで日本だけがそれより低い目標を掲げるということは、ちょっと物価が上がると他国に先駆けて引き締めますと事前にアナウンスしているのと同じことになりますから、事あるごとに円高が進んでしまいます（2つめ）。

3つめの理由は、いったんデフレに落ち込むとなかなか抜け出せないからです。日本の経営者はアベノミクスでデフレが解消しても内部留保を取り崩すことには慎重なままです。経営者もマクロ経済学を理解しているわけではないので、この20年間合理的だった経営＝金をできるだけ使わない＝が行動原理として染みついてしまっています。そして高齢化が進行し、低成長が常態になって、常にデフレ圧力がかかっている環境で、インフレ目標をたとえば1％などに設定して、低い物価上昇率をもって金融緩和を止めてしまうと、すぐにデフレに陥ってしまうのです。その失敗を日本は2000年と2006年に経験済みで、最近だと昨年末にECBが同じミスを犯しました。

麻生財務大臣から財界の幹部や朝日新聞まで、ことあるごとに「2％なんて無理なんだからさっさとその目標を放棄せよ」と提言していますが、彼らより山本議員の方が正確に経済を理解しています。

物価が上がった方がいいというのは、私たちが生活で感じる直感とは異なります。私も物の値段は下がった方がうれしいです。但し、直感にしたがった行動が、悪い結果をもたらすことはしばしばあります。法学、経済学、社会学、それを知ることに学問の価値があるのだと思います。

（追記）

dc42jk現在の経済状況からは金融緩和と財政拡張政策の両方が必要だと思う。その両方を掲げているのはれいわしかない。自民も金融政策に触れてないし立民は金融引締めを示唆している。

まさに。賃金の上昇はどうしても物価の上昇に遅れますし、デフレ脳に染まった経営者を変えるのは簡単ではないので、デフレ脱却の過程ではどうしても、特に安定した雇用を得ていた層の実質賃金が低下します（新たに職を得た人が増えたので、総雇用者所得は増えてはいますが）。それを補うために積極的な財政支出が求められるのですが、1年目を除き高齢化に伴う社会保障費増以外の財政支出の拡大を渋ったのが安部政権の最大の問題点です。現在、国債は新規発行のたびに0.1％程度しかクーポンがつかないのにその4倍も5倍も札が入り（落札利回りはマイナス）、政府債務の調達はただ同然、これはデフレ現象そのものである民間部門の過剰貯蓄、特に企業のIS バランスのI＜S化と表裏一体です。ご指摘のとおり金融緩和とあわせて財政拡張をしない手はないのに、その両方を掲げているのは国債を財源に、奨学金をチャラにして、最低賃金1500円を政府が補償し、公務員を増やし、公共事業を積極的に行いますとしているれいわ新撰組だけです。

（ご参考）

「日本の財政政策の選択肢」オリヴィエ・ブランシャール・田代毅（2019年5月）

https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb19-7japanese.pdf

「景気の回復が感じられないのはなぜかー長期停滞論争」ローレンス・サマーズ、ベン・バーナンキ、ポール・クルーグマン、アルヴィン・ハンセン（山形浩生：翻訳)（2019年4月）

https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E6%99%AF%E6%B0%97%E3%81%AE%E5%9B%9E%E5%BE%A9%E3%81%8C%E6%84%9F%E3%81%98%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AF%E3%81%AA%E3%81%9C%E3%81%8B%E3%83%BC%E9%95%B7%E6%9C%9F%E5%81%9C%E6%BB%9E%E8%AB%96%E4%BA%89-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B5%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BA/dp/4790717313

"Macroeconomics"(12th Edition) " Robert J Gordon （2013年）

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-12th-Pearson-Economics-Hardcover/dp/0138014914

（未翻訳ですがアメリカの代表的なマクロ経済学の教科書です。IS-LM分析の箇所で日本に対する処方箋が取り上げられています。"combined monetary-fiscal policy expansion""TheIS and LMcurves shift rightwardtogether"れいわの政策はそれに合致しています。）

（追記２）

左派・リベラルはほんとうに山本太郎に乗ってほしい。今まで何か提言する度に、財源はどうするんだ、そんなことして景気はだいじょうぶなのかと突っ込まれ、やれ法人税の増税だ、富裕層の増税だ、行政改革で埋蔵金だと、見当外れなことを言うだけで（法人税は支払うのは企業ですが負担するのは庶民です。富裕層の増税は格差縮小の意味はあっても財源にはなりません。埋蔵金なんて結局みつからなかったし、公務員減らせば貧しくなるだけです）、結局有効な提案を何ひとつできませんでした。何を言っても信用されないのはそのせいです。

そこに、自民党と異なる価値観を唱えながら、景気はむしろ良くします、財源はありますという政治家が現れました。しかもブランシャールやサマーズ、ゴードンのような権威ある学者の提案と軌を一にしている。これに乗らない手はないでしょ？

（追記３）

立憲民主党は「アベノミクスによって事実上の財政ファイナンス化した弛緩した金融政策について、市場と丁寧に対話しつつ、正常化を図っていく。」要するに、日銀による長期国債の買い入れ＝量的緩和は財政ファイナンスであり、やめますとしています。そのうえで消費税増税凍結を訴えています。国債発行も減らして消費税増税分の2兆円もあきらめる、足りない分は金融所得と法人税に課税するというのだから、その二つの税金は大幅にアップするということになります。金融所得に対する課税強化はリスクプレミアムを高めるので、日銀による買入れ縮小と同じく金融引き締め効果があります。すべての経済学の教科書に書いてあるとおり、法人税を支払うのは企業ですが、負担するのは庶民です。

彼らの政策を実現したらどうなるか。FRBが利下げを示唆し、ECBが量的緩和への復帰を口にしているなか、日本だけ量的緩和をやめます、リスクプレミアムを高めます、金融は大幅に引き締めますというのだから、円高が急速に進みます。物価上昇率は下落し、またデフレに戻るでしょう。企業業績は悪化し、円高で特に製造業が打撃を受け、そこに増税が追い打ちをかける。雇用がシュリンクし、製造業の海外移転が拍車をかける。特に地方の高学歴でない層の雇用やこれから就職する人たちの雇用環境が大幅に悪くなります。民主党政権のころの方が実質成長率が高かったから良かったと今でも主張する人たちなので当然なのかも知れませんが、彼らは要するに民主党政権当時に戻します、と言っています。同じく消費税増税に反対していても、デフレが最大の問題だとするれいわ新選組（「新撰組」じゃなくて「新選組」でした。ややこしいのは良くないと思いますが…）とは方向性がまったく違います。