When Pandemic Threat Does Not Stoke Xenophobia: Evidence from a Panel Survey around COVID-19 in Colombia

How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected attitudes of host citizens towards refugees and migrants? A large literature, mostly in Global North contexts, links disease threat with increased xenophobia. Indeed, recent studies on the effects of COVID-19 have found an increase in hate crimes and anti-migrant attitudes, particularly when political elites exclude and blame migrants for the pandemic. We examine the case of Venezuelan migrants in Colombia, in which elite rhetoric and immigration policies have been largely inclusive. Using a panel experimental survey of 374 Colombian respondents, supplemented by 550 new respondents at endline, we find no evidence that exposure to COVID-19 changes Colombians' attitudes towards Venezuelans, even if the respondents were directly affected by COVID. In fact, we find some evidence of empathy. Our research implies that xenophobia in reaction to pandemics is not a foregone conclusion, but likely a product of political scapegoating.

Robot Responsibility and Moral Community

It is almost a foregone conclusion that robots cannot be morally responsible agents, both because they lack traditional features of moral agency like consciousness, intentionality, or empathy and because of the apparent senselessness of holding them accountable. Moreover, although some theorists include them in the moral community as moral patients, on the Strawsonian picture of moral community as requiring moral responsibility, robots are typically excluded from membership. By looking closely at our actual moral responsibility practices, however, I determine that the agency reflected and cultivated by them is limited to the kind of moral agency of which some robots are capable, not the philosophically demanding sort behind the traditional view. Hence, moral rule-abiding robots (if feasible) can be sufficiently morally responsible and thus moral community members, despite certain deficits. Alternative accountability structures could address these deficits, which I argue ought to be in place for those existing moral community members who share these deficits.

Single Balloon Enteroscopy-Guided Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Surgically Altered Anatomy: Long vs. Short Type

Traditionally, enteroscopy-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was considered as troublesome procedure with high risk of complications in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA). However, recent studies have suggested that it might not have to be a foregone conclusion. In addition, various enteroscopes have been used for enteroscopy-guided ERCP in patients with SAA showing promising results. Among them, long type single balloon enteroscopes (SBE) have mostly been used for enteroscopy-guided ERCP in Korea. Recently, short type SBE can come in handy all around. Two major points should be considered when to choose between long type and short type SBE in SAA. First, it is the figurative difference between the two types of SBE that effects on actual results of enteroscopy-guided ERCP. Second, it is clinical studies using short type and/or long type SBE for enteroscopy-guided ERCP in patients with SAA. Conclusively speaking, short type SBE should be considered at first for enteroscopy-guided ERCP in most patients with SAA.

A Critical Evaluation of the FBST ev for Bayesian Hypothesis Testing

The “Full Bayesian Significance Test e-value”, henceforth FBST ev, has received increasing attention across a range of disciplines including psychology. We show that the FBST ev leads to four problems: (1) the FBST ev cannot quantify evidence in favor of a null hypothesis and therefore also cannot discriminate “evidence of absence” from “absence of evidence”; (2) the FBST ev is susceptible to sampling to a foregone conclusion; (3) the FBST ev violates the principle of predictive irrelevance, such that it is affected by data that are equally likely to occur under the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis; (4) the FBST ev suffers from the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox in that it does not include a correction for selection. These problems also plague the frequentist p-value. We conclude that although the FBST ev may be an improvement over the p-value, it does not provide a reasonable measure of evidence against the null hypothesis.

Legal Legwork

During the Second World War, London hosted eight European governments in exile as well as the French National Committee. For these politicians and diplomats their recognition as the legitimate and legal representatives of their respective countries was of supreme importance, yet no foregone conclusion. Such claims needed to be rooted in international law and supported by titles and documents, especially in those cases where rivalling bodies claimed the same status. Legal experts and jurists were indispensable to formulate these arguments, and the interplay of official channels, informal diplomatic avenues, and academic exchange was crucial. Scholarly expertise in particular proved a diplomatic resource. In the course of this protracted process émigré lawyers became an influential force in defining and preserving statehood, even in the absence of significant political or military power.

Trump impeachment trial has foregone conclusion

Headline UNITED STATES: Impeachment has foregone conclusion

A Critical Evaluation of the FBST ev for Bayesian Hypothesis Testing

he “Full Bayesian Significance Test e-value”, henceforth FBST ev, has received increasing attention across a range of disciplines including psychology. We show that the FBST ev leads to four problems: (1) the FBST ev cannot quantify evidence in favor of a null hypothesis and therefore also cannot discriminate “evidence of absence” from “absence of evidence”; (2) the FBST ev is susceptible to sampling to a foregone conclusion; (3) the FBST ev violates the principle of predictive irrelevance, such that it is affected by data that are equally likely to occur under the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis; (4) the FBST ev suffers from the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox in that it does not include a correction for selection. These problems also plague the frequentist p-value. We conclude that although the FBST ev may be an improvement over the p-value, it does not provide a reasonable measure of evidence against the null hypothesis.

SUSPENSION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR A TAX LIABILITY IN PROCEEDINGS WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE TAXPAYER’S REPRESENTATIVE – RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF MARCH 18, 2019, FILE REF. ACT I FPS 3/18

Discrepancies in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court and Voivodship Administrative Courts concerning the issue of the effectiveness of suspension of the limitation period for a tax liability in a case in which the taxpayer is represented by an attorney, led to a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court adopting a resolution in the case no act I FPS 3/18. This resolution was a foregone conclusion on the role of the representative appointed by the party in the proceedings before the tax authority, stating that the omission of the representative in the proceedings has the same effects as the omission of the party, hence the delivery of the notice to the party about the suspension of the limitation period for the tax liability without taking into account the representative is ineffective. The position of the Supreme Administrative Court leads to the implementation of the principle of active participation of a party in tax proceedings, expressed in the right to appoint a representative in all activities of the proceedings that do not require their personal participation, including, of course, receiving notices sent to a party pursuant to Art. 70c the Tax Ordinance even if the notification is made by the tax authority, before which no proceedings with the participation of the party’s representative are pending. In addition, the legal issue presented for resolution as relating to the issue of the limitation period is extremely important for the actions taken by tax authorities. It also plays an invaluable role for the jurisprudence of administrative courts and, above all, for strengthening the taxpayer’s ability to effectively invoke the statute of limitations on tax liabilities.