EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9470
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35142 Posts
On December 09 2017 05:34 Plansix wrote: Working for Amazon’s main office might be fine. From all reports working at their warehouses is like working in some 1920s hellscape, but you get lunch breaks. These companies are just as garbage as every other company. The only thing that is different is everyone thinks they are Willy Wonka’s candy factory, so they are sort of insulated from bad PR about work environments. That you have to walk through a metal detector to get to, no less. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote: We need to stop using “the media” and really focus on specific broadcaster and publications. This is CNN doing shoddy work and the Post correcting it. The discussion about news and reporting isn’t going to improve if it’s of collective guild. It's why I've always found poll questions of, "How much do you trust the media?" far too broad. If you take the media as a monolith you're lumping so many different organizations of reporting quality you're not getting a sufficient answer that accurately differentiates between them. "The media" encompasses anything from long-form investigative pieces revealing deep institutional flaws that are conducted with a high level of diligence and fact-checking, to listicles on Buzzfeed or the crap you see on Project Veritas. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote: The risk of ISIS using a NK nuke to nuke NY is the same as the risk of NK nuking NY. Nobody thinks NK wouldn't get destroyed if they sold a nuke to ISIS. Hell, we destroyed Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with Bin Laden. You don't get any increased risk by adding ISIS into the equation. The fact that your response is focused on one scenario assuming a present-day ISIS exactly illustrates my point. You and Zlefin don't know what you're doing. If you ask anyone with the faintest competence in statistics to estimate (using data) whether the War on Terror is justified, you're going to be responded to with a long explanation similar to the one I just gave you and no answer. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:37 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/939006911629869056 Trump: “I ignored the advises of the military, congress and most of the nations in the world to do something that will make Americans less safe worldwide and got nothing in return. I make the best deals.” Taking a victory lap for being an idiot is a very Trump thing to do. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:20 mozoku wrote: Great, since that's such a trivial problem to you then please explain to me how you're going to calculate the average of a distribution without knowing what that distribution is. You're literally being bananas here dude, and are clearly totally ignorant about the challenges of estimating tail risk. Even a cursory Google search to Wikipedia would have told you how challenging it is estimate tail risk. And you're telling me what can do it in a time series context in a region of the space that is totally unexplored (e.g. the potential sale of a nuclear ICBM by a rogue state to terrorist group that's hypothetically been left alone for a decade and a half). How do you even estimate the cost of such an attack? In economic terms, again, you have no data to estimate the impact of NYC being vaporized (I'm waiting for you to tell me you can compare it to Hiroshima lol). Even ignoring that, how much economic cost (in USD) do you put on each person killed in such an attack? How do you value an an American civilian's life vs a Middle East civilian's life? These are terribly subjective, opinions vary on them widely, and they're 100% necessary to make such an estimation. So even if "some guy" did an analysis, it would likely be totally useless conclusion to everyone but himself. Like I said, you can make assumptions and try to guestimate how good they are but there's literally no data on a hypothetical situation like that. Let alone enough to estimate a long-run probability of it occurring. And that's one out of an infinite amount of potential unknown unknowns that could come up. You're terribly out of your depth here, and it's pretty obvious. The fact that a model can output a number doesn't that the number is at all useful. Has it ever occurred to you that sometimes I (like everyone else) post more seriously and/or knowledgeably on a topic than others? If there was a reasonable certainty threshold require to post here, this thread wasn't exist. The nature of politics is that there isn't enough time in your life or even enough data to do a detailed analysis of every issue without huge uncertainty, but you still have to vote. Hence why a lot of it, even among intellectual circles, relies on intuition, heuristics, etc. yes, and it's clear you aren' actually that sensible on the topic. you might be knowledgeable, but you clearly have no sense and aren' tactually good in the topic, cuz you've made a lot of basic errors in it, and you clearly don't want to learn. you're the one out of your depth, I know my own limits, you quite clearly do not, and have never even remotely tried to do such an assessment, and it's clear you don' want to try, cuz you don' tlike the conclusion. so you're just spouting nonsense and ignoring reality and tryin to pretend you know what you're talking about, when you only kinda do, but are quite unaware of the actual numbers involved. you're basically asserting that the entire field of statistics is useless, and therefore, your own so-called expertise must be useless as well. so in short: you're clearly NOT that competent at statistics. so I shall continue callin out your nonsense, but will not engage since you're clearly not interested. (or else you'd have started far earlier in the discussion askin for some of the data, which you did not). | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:38 Gahlo wrote: That you have to walk through a metal detector to get to, no less. I haven't heard many good things about amazon in general, even for software eng. I wouldn't work there personally. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:39 PhoenixVoid wrote: It's why I've always found poll questions of, "How much do you trust the media?" far too broad. If you take the media as a monolith you're lumping so many different organizations of reporting quality you're not getting a sufficient answer that accurately differentiates between them. "The media" encompasses anything from long-form investigative pieces revealing deep institutional flaws that are conducted with a high level of diligence and fact-checking, to listicles on Buzzfeed or the crap you see on Project Veritas. I go even further when people say they don’t like a specific publication. When people say the Times biased, I ask which reporters. Which editorial writers are biased. Most people come up short and have to reframe why they dislike the Times. Even I read the National Review of time to time. But only when stories are suggested to me. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:00 Danglars wrote: I'm with everybody that there might be something underneath it all. I want investigations to expose or clear people of wrongdoing. What media outlets have been doing is provide fodder for a #FakeNews narrative by shoddy confirmation and rush-to-press bias. More careful attention to detail is clearly warranted, particularly when it rests on who knew what when. Suspicious timing is going to be viewed with far less credibility from here on out. What's basically being confirmed to me is that CNN is just.. Bad at their job in general. No one else has had as many negative things about their coverage come out. WaPo on the other hand is confirming they're good at their job. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On December 09 2017 07:00 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/passantino/status/939235401381724160 Harassment aside, that is a lpt of money for 9 months of your life. That is retirement money and I am stunned that's the price of surrogacy. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 09 2017 05:01 mozoku wrote: Eh, I don't see any mistakes in what I said. "Americans" can't really push for change when there's no centralized organisation that dictates police policy. If you live in NYC and this is a big issue for you, you can't do much to stop it from happening in Arizona. Consequently, the ability of the public to effect change here is limited. Hence why I emphasized that there are thousands of independently operated police departments. In places where this is ostensibly a recurring problem (e.g. Chicago), there are mostly already reform attempts in place. I didn't ignore that the US seems to have higher police shooting fatality rates compared to other countries--hence why I pointed out what seems to me to be the most likely potential country-level culprit (gun policy). My other implicit point was that at least 500-1000 people a year die from pretty much anything you can think of in a population of ~350M. When I used to teach business stats courses, the most important lesson I always tried to impart to my students was to remember that there is a very important difference between statistical significance and practical significance. At least in terms of number of lives saved, it's hard for me to conclude that this is the area where we can most move the needle. On the other hand, the public perception (and this political pressure/outrage) is going to be dramatically biased upwards relative to other issues because of the media attention and emotional power associated with the issue. i very much know what your implicit point was and that is what i was criticizing. if you think the concern over police killings is simply concern over the quantity of deaths, you are badly mistaken. your rhetorical maneuver, "at least in terms of deaths saved ..." completely misses the mark. this is not simply a mortality-minimizing operation here. police killings/brutality are a massive threat to the symbolic order of society, and are for that reason mostly unconnected to the 30,000 car crash fatalities or half a million deaths linked to tobacco usage as causes of death qua bare mortality reduction lever. its about justice and legitimacy. lets imagine "tail risks" for police killings including riots. have you figured that into your analysis of outrage and economic cost to benefit calculations? 55 people killed and 2,000 injured in the rodney king riots. massive material destruction. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:51 zlefin wrote: yes, and it's clear you aren' actually that sensible on the topic. you might be knowledgeable, but you clearly have no sense and aren' tactually good in the topic, cuz you've made a lot of basic errors in it, and you clearly don't want to learn. you're the one out of your depth, I know my own limits, you quite clearly do not, and have never even remotely tried to do such an assessment, and it's clear you don' want to try, cuz you don' tlike the conclusion. so you're just spouting nonsense and ignoring reality and tryin to pretend you know what you're talking about, when you only kinda do, but are quite unaware of the actual numbers involved. you're basically asserting that the entire field of statistics is useless, and therefore, your own so-called expertise must be useless as well. so in short: you're clearly NOT that competent at statistics. so I shall continue callin out your nonsense, but will not engage since you're clearly not interested. (or else you'd have started far earlier in the discussion askin for some of the data, which you did not). In the last post where you tried to call out my "basic error", you told me that I was wrongly not focused on expected value, which was not only incorrect, but also demonstrated you don't even understand what an expected value is. Forgive me for having little faith in your "basic error" detector after that one, although you'll probably tell me my conclusion is not "statistically significant." Statistical theory is sound, but it is indeed often misapplied--and the most common misapplication is honestly probably overapplication (loosely defined). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23211 Posts
On December 09 2017 03:53 Simberto wrote: I always find it amazing how fine a lot of US citizens seem to be with their police just constantly murdering people. And there not being any legal repercussions to this whatsoever, or any systemic changes. There should be a major investigation whenever a cop shoots kills someone. And this is happening so often that it becomes obvious that the problem is not an individual one, but a systemic one. Something is very wrong with your police procedures and/or training. And no one seems to care or want to change this. I don't get why there is never a consequence to these incidents. If a cop shoots an unarmed innocent, something went horribly wrong. Either the cop did something wrong, or something is set up incorrectly. Yet every time this happens, nothing changes. The cop is declared innocent in a court of law, and nothing systemic changes either. You have to realize that this shit is not normal. Police murdering innocent unarmed people is not an unavoidable consequence of having a police force. It means that something is very broken. And it can be avoided. Well, I wouldn't say no one, some people have been screaming at the top of their lungs for decades. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2017 07:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/AP/status/939259689740718080 If there is any significance to this it is lost upon me. He spent his time under house arrest... writing! | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On December 09 2017 06:37 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/939006911629869056 Yep but no one else in the international community believes that. The three most popular relligions all hold claim to that area. Doing this is not fulfilling campaign promesses, it is however, a very facilitating reason to unite all arab countries against the US. GL if the Saudis, Turks, Persians ever get together... | ||
| ||
