|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery.
It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen.
Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you?
|
United States44361 Posts
On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you?
Yes, and I'd insure against it.
|
On November 21 2017 00:36 Leporello wrote:
Well, I was wrong when I said Franken's career was over.
Now it's over.
Then again, maybe details will reveal themselves that dictate otherwise. But, credulity is being stretched. This isn't an ass-grabbing political-op on a USO-tour. This is a constituent with her Senator. The context leaves a lot less room for excuses.
edit: If he can't swing hard at this stuff and just flat-out deny that he has ever or would ever do anything remotely like that, then... he should probably just step aside.
The ship kind of sailed on that when he admitted to the first one.
|
Norway28905 Posts
On November 21 2017 00:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you? Yes, and I'd insure against it.
What if you couldn't insure against it? I'm with nebuchad, playing the lottery makes sense even if it's dumb mathematically, as long as the money you spend is insignificant to you. Even the dream of winning, which you only have if you play, might have some value.
|
On November 21 2017 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you? Yes, and I'd insure against it. What if you couldn't insure against it? I'm with nebuchad, playing the lottery makes sense even if it's dumb mathematically, as long as the money you spend is insignificant to you. Even the dream of winning, which you only have if you play, might have some value.
This quote chain is a nice little example of how value-oriented decision making can look quite different among folks who otherwise agree on the objective circumstances underlying the matter at hand.
|
United States44361 Posts
On November 21 2017 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you? Yes, and I'd insure against it. What if you couldn't insure against it? I'm with nebuchad, playing the lottery makes sense even if it's dumb mathematically, as long as the money you spend is insignificant to you. Even the dream of winning, which you only have if you play, might have some value.
If I couldn't insure against it then I'd form a pool with others.
I'm fine with the lottery as a form of entertainment, spending a dollar to buy the right to dream about wealth for a day or two. The dream can potentially have more value than the dollar. But it never makes mathematical sense, if anything the opposite applies, the marginal increase in value of each dollar decreases as you get more. Going from $0 to $1,000 is more valuable to that individual than going from $100,000 to $110,000 is to another. The astronomical jackpot prize is mostly composed of dollars that give no marginal increase in utility over the dollars that came before, there isn't much that you can do with $200m that you can't do with $100m. However there's a lot you can do with $200 that you can't do with $100.
|
the lottery is in effect a tax that disproportionately hits poorer people, though. they buy more tickets and spend a higher proportion of their income on the 0.00000000000001% (or whatever) chance of hitting the jackpot.
|
On November 21 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2017 00:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you? Yes, and I'd insure against it. What if you couldn't insure against it? I'm with nebuchad, playing the lottery makes sense even if it's dumb mathematically, as long as the money you spend is insignificant to you. Even the dream of winning, which you only have if you play, might have some value. If I couldn't insure against it then I'd form a pool with others. I'm fine with the lottery as a form of entertainment, spending a dollar to buy the right to dream about wealth for a day or two. The dream can potentially have more value than the dollar. But it never makes mathematical sense, if anything the opposite applies, the marginal increase in value of each dollar decreases as you get more. Going from $0 to $1,000 is more valuable to that individual than going from $100,000 to $110,000 is to another. The astronomical jackpot prize is mostly composed of dollars that give no marginal increase in utility over the dollars that came before, there isn't much that you can do with $200m that you can't do with $100m. However there's a lot you can do with $200 that you can't do with $100.
There's a reason the slang for lottery is "idiot tax". I agree with you that it's fine as a form of entertainment, I might even see myself buy a ticket or two at some point (tho our lottery is comparatively tiny). But it is one of the differences between the success stories and the rest of us: Successful people, who have become successful through their own efforts, never do the lottery. They don't waste time dreaming about wealth in a statistically extremely unlikely event when they could much rather just work towards it.
And then there's the ethics behind the whole idea of winning the lottery. A vast amount of people do not understand the concept of having a lot of money, or what they should do with it. The amount of people screwing themselves over by winning the lottery is staggering. John Oliver did a story on it a few years ago. Tho most of us already knew about this, it's a really interesting episode to watch nevertheless.
|
Lotteries are super fucked up in most US states in terms of creating perverse incentives both among state/local governments and the poor who do a bad job of managing financial decisions.
|
On November 21 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2017 00:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2017 00:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 20 2017 12:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 10:56 LegalLord wrote:
If anything, the Nate Silver versus the world situation shows either a widespread statistical illiteracy, a tendency for doctoring data toward a desired result for political ends, or perhaps both. The fact that Nate was criticized for not being strongly enough in favor of saying that Hillary will win it suggests at least one of those options. I agree with the bold part because of how people interpreted Trump's victory as a refutation of the reliability of statistics despite it being a single trial. It's unfortunate that most people don't understand basic statistics and probability, and think Nate Silver is an idiot. Ironically, I'm sure some of these people play the lottery. It's not wrong to play the lottery in a vacuum. It's wrong in terms of maths only but you can have a process where you just view impact: you spend a sum that isn't going to impact your life in any way with the hope of obtaining something that will definitely change your life, knowing full well that it's extremely unlikely to happen. Let's do reverse lottery: every week I pay you $10, but there's an absurdly small chance that at some point you may have to pay me 1.5 million or whatever if you get extremely unlucky. Maths say you should take that deal. Would you? Yes, and I'd insure against it. What if you couldn't insure against it? I'm with nebuchad, playing the lottery makes sense even if it's dumb mathematically, as long as the money you spend is insignificant to you. Even the dream of winning, which you only have if you play, might have some value. If I couldn't insure against it then I'd form a pool with others.
You're creating circumstances where you circumvent the problem of having the possibility of losing. That impulse has to be wrong statistically, the chance of losing is so small that you should mathematically just take the full $10 and be fine with it.
|
The lottery is gambling for the retarded. Casino games are less rigged than state lotteries. That's how bad they are. And as others have pointed out, poor people disproportionately play the lottery, so it acts as a sort of regressive tax. Plus, the lottery sends a pretty crappy message to poor people: the only way that you're going to get ahead is through sheer luck. Lotteries should be abolished.
|
On November 21 2017 01:32 xDaunt wrote:
The lottery is gambling for the retarded. Casino games are less rigged than state lotteries. That's how bad they are. And as others have pointed out, poor people disproportionately play the lottery, so it acts as a sort of regressive tax. Plus, the lottery sends a pretty crappy message to poor people: the only way that you're going to get ahead is through sheer luck. Lotteries should be abolished.
they are also horrible because when they say they give money to schools, what they don't say is that they just cut the money regularly going to schools so that the money stays the same but other pet projects can be done.
|
In Oregon, the lottery helps pay for schools. In that way, while it does disproportionately impact the poor, it does somewhat serve as a way for the poor to actually raise money for a common good together.
|
On November 21 2017 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
In Oregon, the lottery helps pay for schools. In that way, while it does disproportionately impact the poor, it does somewhat serve as a way for the poor to actually raise money for a common good together.
If that money actually goes to schools. Or if money that normally goes to schools is not taken away and supplemented with the lottery money
|
On November 21 2017 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
In Oregon, the lottery helps pay for schools. In that way, while it does disproportionately impact the poor, it does somewhat serve as a way for the poor to actually raise money for a common good together.
"Poor people paying for their own betterment" is an interesting and sort of romantic way to frame it, but I don't think that's quite how it works out. Where I am, 1/2 lottery winnings to to the payout, 1/3 go to schools and 1/6 goes towards admin. I think that is actually pretty good relatively speaking, as I've heard Powerball pays out something like 10-20% to education. That money they spend is sometimes money they really should be investing directly into themselves and their local community.
The other way to look at it is instead of a lottery, what if we just made people (preferably wealthier ones) pay more taxes. Shift the cost burden of funding education back to them instead of using a "voluntary" lottery which is in effect a regressive tax.
|
On November 21 2017 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
In Oregon, the lottery helps pay for schools. In that way, while it does disproportionately impact the poor, it does somewhat serve as a way for the poor to actually raise money for a common good together.
It would be far more efficient to simply levy a direct tax on the poor to pay for their schools. The poor would ultimately pay less and more money would make it to the schools.
|
On November 21 2017 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
In Oregon, the lottery helps pay for schools. In that way, while it does disproportionately impact the poor, it does somewhat serve as a way for the poor to actually raise money for a common good together.
We had the North Carolina Education lottery too. However, school funding didn't actually increase with the additional revenue, it just funded tax cuts for the rich.
|
The primary purpose of the lottery is that it serves the function of a tax without being as politically unpopular as taxes are.
|
United States44361 Posts
My department is funded by lottery funds. We don't spend it well.
|
Because it's topical and because the gas station that sold the recent massive Powerball ticket is a depressingly close walk from my house...
Chicopee lottery machine which spit out $758.7 million winning Powerball ticket to go on tour
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/chicopee_lottery_machine_which.html
It's certainly a culture thing. We love the underdog story, so stuff like this gets glorified. The rush of the potential winnings (despite the improbability) carries a much higher perceived value than the actual value we could get out of a standard tax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
