Tuesday Tweets

These next few tweets go to a longstanding problem with the New York Times and its place in the ecosystem. As many including Josh Marshall have observed, the NYT has a way of coming late to a story and downplaying the work that came before. Because of the paper's standing, from that point on, it's "as reported by the New York Times."

in case i wasn't clear: THIS VERY NYT STORY rips off a Vox story, which the Times merely alludes to airily in passing, a dozen or more paragraphs in, without saying THIS IS THE EXACT SAME STORY. O the irony. https://t.co/ZYGFvSiubC

— Marjorie Ingall (@MarjorieIngall) February 15, 2020

here's one of the more egregious examples I know of but there are tons.

Buzzfeed (Apr 7): https://t.co/R1wmd8YjWq
NYT (Apr 21) https://t.co/Itm31NcCsF

— James Palmer (@BeijingPalmer) February 15, 2020

My impression is that the conservative think tank world initially built up Hanson as a deep thinker assuming he'd be useful for moving the Overton Window, Unfortunately, Hanson has been too big of a attention junkie/clown to be effective.

I'm going to retweet this every time @NoahHaber starts on about economists being smarter than epidemiologists. https://t.co/JmnyXmpmKO

— George Savva (@georgemsavva) February 15, 2020

In 1632, Rasputin would have been considered mildly unlucky.

Life came with challenges back in 1632.
“Kil’d by several accidents” seems a tough way to buy it. https://t.co/T6z5rsLjQs

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) February 15, 2020

I know I'm not supposed to call Robin Hanson creepy because that would be mean. How about this? Can I call this creepy?

Great lede and great story by @JamesVGrimaldi, Brody Mullins and @johndmckinnon https://t.co/kQzSQRcj5F pic.twitter.com/wnVl4XxS0Y

— Joe Palazzolo (@joe_palazzolo) February 13, 2020

Could Bernie's branding help him in the primaries but hurt him in the general?

Bernie Sanders Isn’t a Socialist https://t.co/VGxWuWGeAX

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 13, 2020

Worth a look.

"It works just like Google Trends, the popular tool that displays and compares terms that people are searching for with Google, except that MuckRack Trends looks only at news articles." https://t.co/8C60scF7CI Pretty useful for people in my business.

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) February 14, 2020

As we've been pointing out for the past decade, the black and white, us vs them worldview of the education reform movement left it vulnerable to corruption.

In a damning audit, Indiana calls on two virtual schools to repay $85 million in misspent state funds https://t.co/JgBYFdc29d

— Jersey Jazzman (@jerseyjazzman) February 13, 2020

NEW: Arizona charter school principal pleads guilty in $2.5 million enrollment scheme https://t.co/d2mW8Z3Zwz via @azcentral

— Craig Harris (@charrisazrep) February 14, 2020

'“We remain neutral on geopolitical disputes and make every effort to objectively display disputed areas,” Russell said in the statement. “In countries where we have local versions of Google Maps, we follow local legislation when displaying names and borders.”'

Google redraws the borders on maps depending on who’s looking https://t.co/siDhFbGuWh

— Paul Staniland (@pstanpolitics) February 14, 2020

My favorites are the pundits who go from one set of absolute certainties to another completely contradictory set without the slightest pause for doubt, humility or reflection.

Lots of potential explanations for it, but maybe worth noting: On twitter I see tons of political scientists (and others) confidently stating which dem candidates are more or less electable. In offline conversations, the political scientists I talk to are far more uncertain.

— Andrew Little (@anthlittle) February 13, 2020





I'm not saying I'd never use the phrase "surge to third place in New Hampshire" unironically, but I promise to feel bad about myself if I do. https://t.co/BTImXfNsxb

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 13, 2020

 

I think that captures it. And there's an impatience that they're fighting each other - even though that's what a primary is - because people want to move on to running against Trump.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) February 11, 2020

  

High SF housing prices are forcing Silicon Valley workers to make slightly shorter commutes

Just to get the obvious out of the way, California needs to build more housing. Rents are too high and the situation with the homeless is becoming a genuine humanitarian crisis. Unfortunately, as with climate change, the very seriousness of the problem sometimes makes people reluctant to criticize bad arguments, lest they be accused of minimizing the issue (see the reaction to the collected works of David Wallace Wells). The result is some truly silly ideas have lodged themselves into the standard narrative.

Case in point.  [Emphasis added]

Welcome to life on Silicon Valley's new frontier. When tech companies first introduced private shuttles for their employees more than a decade ago, they served the affluent neighborhoods in San Francisco and the Peninsula. Now the buses reach as far as the almond orchards of Salida and the garlic fields of Gilroy.

…

"That just tells you the story of the Bay Area," said Russell Hancock, president and CEO of regional think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley. "We're going to be in these farther-flung places, and that's our reality because we're not going to be able to create affordable housing."

...


A few miles into Alameda County, a fairgrounds parking lot has been transformed into a massive park-and-ride operation. A laundry list of tech companies — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and others — send shuttles here or nearby train stations, according to a report prepared for the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Around 7 a.m., people in puffy jackets and backpacks jog to a silver bus with its destination displayed as Wolfe Road in Sunnyvale, where Apple has a large campus.

We need to talk about the word “farther” because in this context, it is more of a cultural than a physical concept. Go online and check out the distance and rush-hour driving times from Silicon Valley towns like Sunnyvale to either San Francisco or Gilroy and you’ll find that the differences aren’t great and that Gilroy is often closer.

A great deal of the discussion of Bay Area housing and infrastructure is based on the implicit assumption that Silicon Valley is next to San Francisco rather than 40 or so miles away. It’s not even the closest big city (San Jose is considerably larger).

Nonetheless, Bay Area residents still refer to it as “the City” and the other towns continue to have an inferiority complex that as an Angeleno I’ve always found a bit odd, as if it were 1900 and it was the only outpost of culture west of the Continental Divide.

Whatever its origins, the mystique of San Francisco has badly muddled people's thinking about the housing crisis, and this is a problem that requires clear thinking.

RIP Robert Conrad, good work Kai Ryssdal

At the risk of getting lots of angry comments, Star Trek makes the top ten my best of 60s TV list. This spy-fi/proto-steampunk series makes the top five.






This episode of Marketplace had three stories I was thinking about blogging...

The business and business metrics of music and streaming about 10 minutes in. If nothing else, check out the chutzpah of Justin Bieber.

Wal-Mart will now deliver to your home while you're not there about 20 minutes in. It's not quite as creepy as it sounds but, with the tight margins of the grocery business, it's not easy to see how they expect to turn a profit. Given that the two big players in this are Wal-Mart and Amazon, I wouldn't rule out a purely anti-competitve play to drive smaller competitors out of business.

And finally the show ends with an interesting new hiring policy at the Body Shop retail chain.

The Saudi sovereign wealth fund bet big on Uber.. That didn’t work out too well for them. Then they backed WeWork. This time though, I think they picked a winner.

As I've said before, serious money is starting to change hands here.

"Saudi Arabia, Virgin Hyperloop One to conduct world’s first national hyperloop study"

RIYADH: A groundbreaking study will be conducted to build the world’s longest hyperloop track,  the Ministry of Transport announced on Thursday.

It said an agreement with Virgin Hyperloop One (VHO), the world’s leading hyperloop company, would see a groundbreaking pre-feasibility study conducted on the use of hyperloop technology, laying the groundwork for a network of routes across Saudi Arabia.

The study is the first to be carried out anywhere in the world [I assume they mean the first on this scalee – MP] and will examine viable routes, expected demand, anticipated costs and explore the socioeconomic impact, such as the creation of jobs and environmental effects.

...

“We have a vision for the Kingdom, and that vision is of connecting it and the Gulf with the ability to travel from Riyadh to Jeddah in 46 minutes, to Neom from Jeddah in 40 minutes, from Riyadh to Dammam and Jubail in 28 minutes, and to go beyond the Kingdom, from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi, in 48 minutes.     

“It’s not just about providing a future transportation system, it’s the ecosystem behind it. What we want to do is to be able to bring technology to the Kingdom to be able to share and develop that knowledge. We signed an agreement with King Abdullah Economic City in October last year specifically to look at manufacturing, how we can actually bring technology, and that is expected to create about 124,000 jobs.”

Saudi Minister of Transport Saleh Al-Jasser said: “Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has outlined the role of transport in shaping the future of the Kingdom’s economy within Vision 2030. As we enter a new decade, we intend to make rapid progress in building the infrastructure required to define mobility for the future, enabling the efficient movement of people and goods. With the transformative hyperloop technology, Saudi Arabia will not only unlock unparalleled benefits for its people and the economy but will continue to lead the region into an era of prosperity.”

I started to make a "Vulture" joke, but I realized carrion play an important role in the ecosystem

This screen grab does a great job capturing so much of what’s wrong with the New York Magazine family and with business and entertainment journalism in general.

First off, there’s the article itself. Billed as an explainer, it’s nothing more than an especially embarrassing press release for a business model that makes WeWork look well thought out. It will take more than one post to explore the full awfulness of Quibi as an investment. For here, I’ll just say that this is possibly the stupidest proposal you’ll read involving the streaming industry, and that’s a high bar to clear.

Then there’s the sidebar. I’m sure I could think of a celebrity of comparable stature more despicable than  Gwyneth Paltrow if I tried, but none come to mind (and, no, that’s not an invitation for suggestions. I already spend too much time thinking about horrible people). She uses the press’ sycophancy toward the rich and famous and fascination with lifestyle porn to push flaky and sometimes  dangerous pseudoscience. The New York Magazine group has been playing footsie with quacks and new age charlatans for years (see here and here)

Finally there’s Netflix’s minor but still notable accomplishment of making the normal monthly cycling of shows in and out of rotation into a respectable news genre. Even HBO, which has long been extraordinarily good at working the press, was never able to get this kind of steady, extensive PR out of routine programming changes. We can’t exactly single out Vulture for this one but they certainly seem willing to play along.

Tuesday Tweets

Because sometimes I just like to dominate the conversation

The casts of next season's CBC shows will just be Tatiana Maslany

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 2, 2020

 

just might be the best qualifier ive EVER heard! 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

— T (@CheddarBo) February 8, 2020

  

When management consultants start bringing out the mindset, you know they mean business. https://t.co/NweBR0csJw

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 8, 2020

 

I wonder if they'll use more CGI on the dog or on Ford

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 8, 2020

buttigieg talks completely in platitudes! it is maddening!

— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) February 8, 2020

One of the things we've learned from the primary so far is that many journalists had no idea what management Consultants actually do. This is it.

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 9, 2020

  

The Saudis have been big backers of the hyperloop, Uber, WeWorks and I strongly suspect they secretly financed Cats.

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 9, 2020

 

Since it's probably quicker to list the people who aren't losing their goddamn minds, let's start with Paul Campos

Even more than normal for primary season, we've seen a remarkable amount of panic and wild shifts in assumptions, the latter often driven by nothing but noise.

We could debate the odds endlessly, but at this point no one really has any great insight into who's going to win either the Democratic primary or the general election. Neither side is doomed and anyone who tells you _____ has ______ locked up is probably not someone you should be listening to.

Over at LGM, Campos takes on the current wave of WE'VE-PICKED-A-FLAWED-CANDIDATE-WE'RE-ALL-DOOMED hysteria.

You get the idea. Every one of these candidates has serious potential flaws in the general because EVERY CANDIDATE has serious potential flaws. Because they’re human beings, not LARP fantasy figures.

And the problem is losing to Trump is not an acceptable option. Can’t happen. So none of these candidates is the right candidate because they have serious flaws so they could lose, and that can’t happen. So everyone is freaked out right now, and instantly focuses on how what can’t happen could very much happen if X is the candidate.

But the problem aren’t these particular candidates — not really. The problem is that when American political system combines with the contemporary American media environment and then the two of them meet the American voter, you get Donald Trump as president. That’s the problem. And that problem isn’t going away, unless we stop freaking out and do everything we can to make it go away, temporarily, no matter who gets the nomination. All of them could lose but all of them could also win, and if you think any of these people can’t win you’re just panicking. Don’t panic.

RIP Kirk Douglas -- Don't watch the trailer...

... Unless you've seen the movie.







I was going to post just the trailer, but I checked it out and it was absolutely terrible, a complete misrepresentation of the film.




Of course, this was a picture that needed considerable misrepresentation in 1951. Even by 2020 standards, it's a stunningly hard-edged, cynical, mean piece of work. You can imagine the horror the PR department must have felt when they first saw what they were supposed to promote.

More appetizing than Milton Friedman's Underwear Index

The BBC has a list of oddball economic indicators centered around fast food. I was familiar with the Big Mac Index, and of course, I knew about the Waffle House Index. (I don't like to brag, but I grew up in a two WF town). The rest of these, however, are new to me.

Mars Bars

In 1932, a factory in Slough produced the world’s first Mars bar. Fifty years later, Financial Times writer Nico Colchester pointed out that the price of the confectionary in Britain was neatly correlated with the buying power of pound sterling. By measuring the cost of things in Mars Bars, Colechester noted how graduate salaries had improved slightly in 40 years. Meanwhile, train fares had become cheaper but roast beef dinners in pubs had gone up by more than 60 percent.

Baked Beans and Popcorn

When financial experts are trying to determine whether an economy is generally in good health, they often look to food products. In 2009, the Odeon cinema company announced an “Odeon Popcorn Index” that it claimed showed higher sales and therefore signs of economic recovery in Britain following the financial crisis of 2008. And analysts have also scrutinised sales of baked beans, popular when times are tough, as an indicator of how people are responding to periods of economic decline. When baked bean sales fell in 2013, some took it as a sign that the UK economy was in rude health.

French Fries

A fascinating article in the Oregonian in 1998 observed that sales of French fries could be a helpful indicator of trade between America and Asia. This food “leads US industries into foreign markets” wrote Richard Read, thanks to the fact that America exports so many of them (something that remains true today). And he added that consumption of French fries was also an indicator of how well-developed an Asian economy had become. This meant that when economic trouble in Asia was brewing in the late ’90s, farmers in the US were hit hard.

Josh Marshall on the reaction to the impeachment

We've been pushing this for a long time, but political journalists (at least the smarter ones like Marshall) are getting better about thinking through the implications of selection effects on polling data.

Why Are President Trump’s Poll Numbers Going Up?

But there is another plausible explanation. Pollsters call it differential response. When one side gets enthused or energized their numbers go up but in an ephemeral fashion. The pumped-up side is a bit more eager to answer the phone or fill out the survey. The demoralized side is a bit less eager. This is a real and demonstrated phenomenon, not just a concept or speculation. It’s not necessarily an error per se in the polling. It’s picking up something real. It’s just ephemeral.

One example many of us likely remember came after the first general election debate in 2012. President Obama turned in a stiff and disconcertingly flat performance. The consensus was that Mitt Romney won the debate and for the first and last time in the cycle Romney briefly pushed into the lead.

There are good reasons to think that at least some of that is happening today — the President’s impending acquittal and Republican unity have been the driving news of the last two or three weeks. Republicans are energized and enthused by the certainty of President Trump’s acquittal. Many Democrats are demoralized by seeing an overwhelming and exacting case made for the President’s guilt and seeing it simply not matter.

Tuesday Tweets

Not a perfect film, but damn, are parts of this movie are prescient.

Certain irony in seeing it on Movies! which is one of the Fox divisions that stayed with Murdoch.

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 2, 2020

Holy hell. https://t.co/PKYnWI9fvn

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) February 2, 2020

Good. National coverage of Iowa and New Hampshire tends to set up unhealthy feedback loops and pushes them further into Keynesian beauty contest territory.

The NYT, WaPo and CNN homepages all have essentially nothing above the fold about the Iowa caucuses, which are in 2 days. It's still all impeachment.

(Although CNN does have a house ad up for its show(!) about the final Des Moines Register poll tonight.) pic.twitter.com/dAeQvDP5TI

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 1, 2020

We're all nerds here. We might as well embrace it.

There's arguably a Cretan's paradox aspect to 2016. If Trump won because experts were wrong (thinking he couldn't win), then he would have lost if they thought he could have won. https://t.co/FizJAzXyoX

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) February 2, 2020

Extraordinary footage from the front-line of the Australian fires. Watch how an apparently normal scene is transformed in 90 seconds into an inferno. https://t.co/8sdOeWRncL

— Adam Tooze (@adam_tooze) January 30, 2020

Classic emperor's new clothes: Once the PR bubble pops, no aspect of a company's former "genius" is not subject to withering scrutiny, where it suddenly looks beyond ridiculous. https://t.co/vYsM3BehGr

— Barry Ritholtz (@ritholtz) January 30, 2020

  

We'll be making fun of Quibi (and Vulture) later.

Because nothing enhances a sweeping epic like being chopped into 10 minutes chunks.

"Quibi tells Vulture it is working with Vikings writer-producer Michael Hirst on Charlemagne, a biopic about the historical icon Charles the Great." https://t.co/yYx3KcvS1o via @vulture

— Mark Palko (@MarkPalko1) January 31, 2020

 

I really want to see how Carl's Jr/Hardees markets the cricket-burger.

"Crickets offer roughly the same amount of protein as beef as well as significantly more micronutrients since you're consuming the exoskeleton as well." https://t.co/u2z2XhfOxp

— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) January 29, 2020

  


Still suspect that McConnell made the smart call for the party (not to be confused with the right call for the country), but it couldn't have been an easy calculation.

Support for witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial in recent polls:

Quinnipiac 75
Monmouth 80
Reuters 72
CNN 69
AP/NORC 68
Quinnipiac 66
WaPo 71

Support for witnesses even in positive territory among Republicans.

And these polls are almost all before the Bolton story broke.

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) January 28, 2020

I wonder if there are new Festinger's already embedding themelves and working on their QAnon books.

QAnon conspiracy theorists are urging their fans to ward off the coronavirus by drinking bleach.
https://t.co/UYRT3mYN7F

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) January 28, 2020

 

On a related note, I completely believe the claim that losing their top viewed shows had no negative impact

Picking up on last week’s story. This is getting more play than I expected.

For those tuning in late (a callback to when media was something you tuned into), Netflix has always been a push-the-envelope when it comes to metrics and transparency, going back to the debut of House of Cards, when the company let pretty much every journalist on the East Coast report that the company actually owned rather than merely licensed their “originals.” (When business reporters finally caught on, the company started actually buying some of the rights, though still less than most people realize.) The narrative that has kept the stock flying high (P/E in the eighties last time I checked) depends on the business press not looking too closely at these details.


[See also here. I'll admit being a bit smug about "I have a feeling that Netflix's transparency is about to become a bigger part of this story."]

The narrative is even more dependent on the idea that Netflix is building a massive library of popular, highly valuable content. Putting aside the enormously complicated question of exactly who owns what with shows like She-Ra, it is also essential to remember the incentive that the company has in portraying their originals as successful, and how much it spends to push that impression.

The streaming wars opened up unprecedented floods of marketing and PR cash, with Netflix taking the lead. An astounding amount of money has been spent getting you to check out the Witcher, either through advertising, SEO, press junkets and interviews, and planting (sometimes ghost-written) stories in major news outlets. Except for SEO, there’s nothing new here – the practices go back to when United Artists meant Chaplin, Fairbanks, Pickford and Griffith – but the magnitudes are unheard of.

With that in mind, think about the difference between a metric that counts people who watched more than two thirds of a show and people who basically made it through the opening credits. Marketing and PR definitely build interest and curiosity, so we would expect the new metric to favor heavily promoted originals over old TV shows and familiar movie (none of which are central to the Netflix narrative and most of which are owned by studios that are starting their own streaming services and pulling their content).

Fuzzy stats. There was a whiff of desperation in some of the data Netflix shared in its letter Tuesday. The company announced it changed the way it counts views on the service. Now, instead of counting a “view” as a subscriber watching 70% or more of a show or movie, Netflix stops counting after the first two minutes. The company said measuring views that way puts it on par with other online video platforms like Google’s YouTube.

But YouTube and other free video platforms are much different than Netflix. Counting a view after two minutes makes sense for them because that’s long enough for a viewer to get an ad served to them. Netflix doesn’t have advertising, and relies on subscribers staying glued to their screens for as long as possible. Even with the new counting method, Netflix said views were up an average of 35%.

Then there was that odd Google Trends chart Netflix plopped into the letter that was meant to demonstrate the popularity of its new show “The Witcher” versus shows on new rival platforms like Disney+‘s “The Mandalorian” and Apple TV+’s “The Morning Show.” Putting aside the fact that a Google Trends chart isn’t the best way to measure interest in a TV show, Netflix used a global version of Google Trends to make its comparison, even though Disney+ was only available in the U.S. and Canada. Netflix said 76 million member households watched “The Witcher” in December, but it’s impossible to gauge how popular it really was if those views were based on just a minimum of two minutes.

Competition affected domestic subscribers. It looks like the November 2019 launches of Disney+ and Apple TV+ took its toll on Netflix in the U.S. and Canada. Netflix said its recent price increases and “competitive launches” in the quarter caused its “low membership growth” for the quarter. (Netflix only added 550,000 subscribers in the U.S. and Canada versus the 1.75 million it added in the year-ago quarter.)

That could spell trouble for Netflix as its rivals expand across the globe.
...

No “Friends,” no problem. Netflix’s execs were asked on the earnings call Tuesday about the loss of “Friends” to upcoming rival HBO Max. While “Friends” was believed to be one of the most popular shows on Netflix, Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos said subscribers find other things to watch when a popular licensed show leaves the service. (Although he didn’t provide any data to back that up.)

The bottom line: Netflix’s mixed earnings report showed the company is sticking to its strategy of investing more and more in content, with the aim of growing its subscriber base. But as the competitors start to light up their own streaming services, it has a renewed pressure to prove it can compete.

Sure, but that's seven billion over twenty years

I knew that CollegeHumor was a powerhouse, but I never realized what kind of numbers until I looked this up.

As of November 2019, The CollegeHumor YouTube channel has reached over 7.1 billion views, and over 13.5 million subscribers.

As many have noted, the economics of video are insane. Between dealing with monopolies like Facebook and Youtube and competing against VC funded unicorns, even an extraordinarily successful and apparently well managed company can find itself doomed.

I was going to segue into into mockery of Quibi, but I'm just too depressed.

The way you define your metrics determines what you measure -- Netflix edition

From Marketplace.

“The Witcher” starts with Henry Cavill and his chiseled jaw battling a gurgling swamp monster. According to Netflix, 76 million member households watched at least this far.

Netflix counts people who watch the first two minutes of the show as viewers. So if you moved onto something else, you still boosted Netflix’s ratings.

“That two-minute period is enough of an indicator for them to [have a] very clear indication of people completing it,” said Courtney Williams, head of partnerships at Parrot Analytics. “So they don’t have to go all the way through.”

Here's the thing. You don't really need an indicator of how many people completed a show (even a very, very clear one), if you already know the actual number who did., No company has fetishized the collection of viewer data more than Netflix. They track how long you watched, when you paused, where you rewinded.

Though it's not the best measure of how many people have watched a show,  the 2-minute warning does give us an excellent read on interest/curiosity level, how well your marketing and PR worked, how appealing your stars are, how much people listen to your recommendation engine.

And it produces really impressive numbers like 76 million. 

In an industry where billions are spent every year on promoting content, there is a legitimate business need for these metrics, but they leave some people wanting more.

But Netflix still has investors who want to know who kept watching.

“It is proverbially grading one’s own homework, and there has to be a bit more transparency,” said Tim Hanlon, CEO of media advisory investment group Vertere.

Netflix probably knows how many people finished “The Witcher.” But unless investors press for more details, we never will.

I shouldn’t have to say this, but earth is nicer than Mars

Furthermore, even allowing for the worst possible case scenarios with environmental disasters and the best for terraforming technologies, earth will always be nicer than Mars.

Caleb A. Scharf writing for Scientific American:

One of those hurdles is radiation. For reasons unclear to me, this tends to get pushed aside compared to other questions to do with Mars's atmosphere (akin to sitting 30km above Earth with no oxygen), temperatures, natural resources (water), nasty surface chemistry (perchlorates), and lower surface gravitational acceleration (1/3rd that on Earth).
...

The bottom line is that the extremely thin atmosphere on Mars, and the absence of a strong global magnetic field, result in a complex and potent particle radiation environment. There are lower energy solar wind particles (like protons and helium nuclei) and much higher energy cosmic ray particles crashing into Mars all the time. The cosmic rays, for example, also generate substantial secondary radiation - crunching into martian regolith to a depth of several meters before hitting an atomic nucleus in the soil and producing gamma-rays and neutron radation.
...

However, if we consider just the dose on Mars, the rate of exposure averaged over one Earth year is just over 20 times that of the maximum allowed for a Department of Energy radiation worker in the US (based off of annual exposure).

And that's for a one-off trip. Now imagine you're a settler, perhaps in your 20s and you're planning on living on Mars for at least (you'd hope) another 50 Earth years. Total lifetime exposure on Mars? Could be pushing 18 sieverts.

Now that's kind of into uncharted territory. If you got 8 sieverts all at once, for example, you will die. But getting those 8 sieverts spread out over a couple of decades could be perfectly survivable, or not. The RAD measurements on Mars also coincided with a low level of solar particle activity, and vary quite a bit as the atmospheric pressure varies (which it does on an annual basis on Mars). 

Of course you need not spend all your time above surface on Mars. But you'd need to put a few meters of regolith above you, or live in some deep caves and lava tubes to dodge the worst of the radiation. And then there are risks not to do with cancer that we're only just beginning to learn about. Specifically, there is evidence that neurological function is particularly sensitive to radiation exposure, and there is the question of our essential microbiome and how it copes with long-term, persistent radiation damage. Finally, as Hassler et al. discuss, the "flavor" (for want of a better word) of the radiation environment on Mars is simply unlike that on Earth, not just measured by extremes but by its make up, comprising different components than on Earth's surface.

To put all of this another way: in the worst case scenario (which may or may not be a realistic extrapolation) there's a chance you'd end up dead or stupid on Mars. Or both.