EPTIt is quite an interesting part of how the human mind decides and is an example of how not all parts of our primal mind have evolved as fast as our civilization.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1002
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
It is quite an interesting part of how the human mind decides and is an example of how not all parts of our primal mind have evolved as fast as our civilization. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28704 Posts
Regarding political questions it's a bit more left leaning than other online encyclopedias, but this is a trend that reduces itself the more time that passes and the more edits and revisions are made towards the content. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On December 22 2018 00:10 Neneu wrote: It has been shown in experiments that humans with a scarcity of a resource available, are optimizing the resource' value worse than humans who do not have a scarcity of the resource. This is phenomenon is especially strong when it comes to a resource which grants opportunities. Which e.g. means that the stress of not having enough money makes you do worse decisions of how to use the little money you have. It is quite an interesting part of how the human mind decides and is an example of how not all parts of our primal mind have evolved as fast as our civilization. This also factors into why economic modeling that relies on hypothetical “rational actors” ends up so divorced from reality. | ||
KwarK
United States43199 Posts
On December 22 2018 00:21 farvacola wrote: This also factors into why economic modeling that relies on hypothetical “rational actors” ends up so divorced from reality. That and the rational actors need to be perfectly informed in order to act optimally. It’s like doing physics in a frictionless vacuum. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
Will it work? Are people going to see through it this time? | ||
|
Sadist
United States7290 Posts
On December 22 2018 01:04 IyMoon wrote: So now trump is trying to blame Dems for the shutdown less than a week after he said he would own it. Will it work? Are people going to see through it this time? Hes a moron. No one is believing this other than the people who would believe anything be says already. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
The prior passed bill without the wall is dead; the best way for it to come back is for the senate to strip out the wall funding from the newest version and send it back to the House for a do-over vote. Edit: also, rumor has it that, contrary to reports that media figures convinced Trump to holdout, the House Freedom Caucus led by Mark Meadows is the reason Trump backed out yesterday, so the shutdown may have a time limit that coincides with the new Congress starting. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On December 22 2018 01:43 farvacola wrote: The shutdown begins just after midnight if no spending deal is in place. In order for a deal to be in place, it must have passed through both houses and be signed by the president, or be passed again in both houses by a veto-overriding majority (2/3) after a veto. The prior passed bill without the wall is dead; the best way for it to come back is for the senate to strip out the wall funding from the newest version and send it back to the House for a do-over vote. Edit: also, rumor has it that, contrary to reports that media figures convinced Trump to holdout, the House Freedom Caucus led by Mark Meadows is the reason Trump backed out yesterday, so the shutdown may have a time limit that coincides with the new Congress starting. Yikes. So this will very likely not be resolved today. So an actual shutdown will likely actually happen...sigh. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On December 22 2018 01:47 Mohdoo wrote: Yikes. So this will very likely not be resolved today. So an actual shutdown will likely actually happen...sigh. The only silver lining is trump can't go to Florida while this is going on. That actually might make him cave sooner seeing how he has to stay where he hates during the whole thing | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On December 22 2018 02:04 IyMoon wrote: The only silver lining is trump can't go to Florida while this is going on. That actually might make him cave sooner seeing how he has to stay where he hates during the whole thing What makes you think he won’t leave, even if he’s supposed to stay and the optics get even worse? I’m kinda hoping for a photo of unpaid Secret Service agents watching him play golf. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21944 Posts
On December 22 2018 01:47 Mohdoo wrote: I hope it will be resolved for the sake of those affected by it.Yikes. So this will very likely not be resolved today. So an actual shutdown will likely actually happen...sigh. But a part of me sure hope this happens after Trump so publicly took ownership of it and Congress passing an extension only for Trump to deny it. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
On December 22 2018 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote: Wikipedia is fantastic. There is no better or more reliable source of up-to-date information. This would remain true even if someone were to supply a list over 50000 mistakes they found in various texts - Wikipedia is so much more encompassing than any other source of information (aside from 'google') that far more mistakes will be found even if the percentage is similar. (and various studies have shown that the reliability of Wikipedia rivals that of encyclopedia britannica anyway). Regarding political questions it's a bit more left leaning than other online encyclopedias, but this is a trend that reduces itself the more time that passes and the more edits and revisions are made towards the content. The more scientific and complex is the topic the less accurate wikipedia becomes. I have seen short articles with mutiple errors. I will post example later. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43199 Posts
On December 22 2018 02:15 Silvanel wrote: The more scientific and complex is the topic the less accurate wikipedia becomes. I have seen short articles with mutiple errors. I will post example later. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s perfect, but it absolutely holds up against print encyclopedias. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28704 Posts
On December 22 2018 02:15 Silvanel wrote: The more scientific and complex is the topic the less accurate wikipedia becomes. I have seen short articles with mutiple errors. I will post example later. Shorter articles and more esoteric topics are more likely to have errors because a) they have less contributors b) they have fewer possible contributors capable of detecting the errors. The more contributors you get, the more detailed the text gets, and the more people you get who will be alterted if some new, wrong information is posted. But as Kwark said, even then, the ratio of errors is similar to that of print encyclopedias, and the range (and depth) of topics covered vastly, vastly outstrips that of any other source of information. (There's more than 2500 times as much text on the english version of Wikipedia as there is in encyclopedia britannica) Basically I'm just saying that, even though there is no problem at all finding examples of really wrong stuff being posted on Wikipedia, and wrong stuff being posted without being corrected on Wikipedia for a long period of time, there are so many articles posted there that the ratio of correct:incorrect still rivals that of print encyclopedias, or basically, 'any other source of information there is'. People who are negative towards Wikipedia do themselves a great intellectual disservice because they rob themselves of the most convenient source of reliable knowledge there is, and people who 'frequently see errors there', should really up their game and start editing it, something they are entirely free to do. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
| ||
