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.
New interview with Kamala Harris, with the NABJ panel (the same organization who interviewed Trump last month, where he questioned Harris's biracial heritage in front of Black journalists):
I thought some of her answers were good (she gave specifics on her economic plan, such as new homeowner credit and increased production of homes to make housing more affordable, small business owner credit, capping childcare costs, etc.), and some of her answers were definitely dodges that just devolved into talking points (her lack of an elaboration on how to actually get Israel and Palestine to agree to a ceasefire, her avoidance of the third-trimester Roe v. Wade question, etc.).
Obviously, compared to Trump, she was far more articulate and coherent and aware of the issues.
On September 18 2024 04:41 Magic Powers wrote: Rising vehicle accidents? Are you referring to this?
"Fatal car accidents in Springfield, Ohio, increased four-fold last year, The Post has learned — as residents say a surge of Haitian migrants unfamiliar with US driving has turned their streets into the Kentucky Derby."
"Traffic accidents involving injuries in Springfield have also risen, climbing to 414 so far this year compared to 362 in 2023 — a 14% increase."
This is a story from the New York Post, which is a right-wing outlet with a mixed credibility rating according to MBFC.
So in 2023 they reported fewer accidents than in previous years. The increase in 2024 appears to be a small rise. This would correlate with a population increase from immigration. So if there are more crashes, it's likely because there are more people on the roads. Fatal accidents allegedly increased four-fold, but that is an unconfirmed claim.
So we have a non-credible right-wing source claiming a four-fold increase in fatal accident, unconfirmed. We have a left-leaning source with high credibility pointing to a reduction in overall accidents, also unconfirmed.
Your source only has data for the last 5 years which makes it difficult to contrast the before/after of an immigration trend that started 5 years ago
For Springfield Police, the dashboard shows 2023 ranked second in the least number of crashes since 2019 with 1,840 reports. That's 300 crashes fewer than the highest overall crash number of 2,144 reported to the state in 2021.
Data also shows the number of crashes taking place in 2024 is trending up compared to last year.
So per Springfield police the highest crash number was in 2021, which coincidentally was the year the Haitian president was assassinated and Joe Biden was sworn into office, two variables ripe for an increase in Haitian emigration. It then dipped in 2023 and is trending up in 2024.
If anything the data is equivocal, but since I was the one making the affirmative claim I'll concede I have not proven it.
Btw props on posting an article from the New York Post to the thread just so you could immediately attack it on credibility. That's genius. My original claim was from the Reuters article stating that traffic accidents had surged combined with the Governor sending in reinforcements to enforce traffic law which I doubt would be done for no good reason.
On September 18 2024 04:41 Magic Powers wrote: Rising vehicle accidents? Are you referring to this?
"Fatal car accidents in Springfield, Ohio, increased four-fold last year, The Post has learned — as residents say a surge of Haitian migrants unfamiliar with US driving has turned their streets into the Kentucky Derby."
"Traffic accidents involving injuries in Springfield have also risen, climbing to 414 so far this year compared to 362 in 2023 — a 14% increase."
This is a story from the New York Post, which is a right-wing outlet with a mixed credibility rating according to MBFC.
So in 2023 they reported fewer accidents than in previous years. The increase in 2024 appears to be a small rise. This would correlate with a population increase from immigration. So if there are more crashes, it's likely because there are more people on the roads. Fatal accidents allegedly increased four-fold, but that is an unconfirmed claim.
So we have a non-credible right-wing source claiming a four-fold increase in fatal accident, unconfirmed. We have a left-leaning source with high credibility pointing to a reduction in overall accidents, also unconfirmed.
Your source only has data for the last 5 years which makes it difficult to contrast the before/after of an immigration trend that started 5 years ago
For Springfield Police, the dashboard shows 2023 ranked second in the least number of crashes since 2019 with 1,840 reports. That's 300 crashes fewer than the highest overall crash number of 2,144 reported to the state in 2021.
Data also shows the number of crashes taking place in 2024 is trending up compared to last year.
So per Springfield police the highest crash number was in 2021, which coincidentally was the year the Haitian president was assassinated and Joe Biden was sworn into office, two variables ripe for an increase in Haitian emigration. It then dipped in 2023 and is trending up in 2024.
If anything the data is equivocal, but since I was the one making the affirmative claim I'll concede I have not proven it.
Btw props on posting an article from the New York Post to the thread just so you could immediately attack it on credibility. That's genius. My original claim was from the Reuters article stating that traffic accidents had surged combined with the Governor sending in reinforcements to enforce traffic law which I doubt would be done for no good reason.
What is the Reuters article? I can't find it, could you repost it?
On September 18 2024 04:41 Magic Powers wrote: Rising vehicle accidents? Are you referring to this?
"Fatal car accidents in Springfield, Ohio, increased four-fold last year, The Post has learned — as residents say a surge of Haitian migrants unfamiliar with US driving has turned their streets into the Kentucky Derby."
"Traffic accidents involving injuries in Springfield have also risen, climbing to 414 so far this year compared to 362 in 2023 — a 14% increase."
This is a story from the New York Post, which is a right-wing outlet with a mixed credibility rating according to MBFC.
So in 2023 they reported fewer accidents than in previous years. The increase in 2024 appears to be a small rise. This would correlate with a population increase from immigration. So if there are more crashes, it's likely because there are more people on the roads. Fatal accidents allegedly increased four-fold, but that is an unconfirmed claim.
So we have a non-credible right-wing source claiming a four-fold increase in fatal accident, unconfirmed. We have a left-leaning source with high credibility pointing to a reduction in overall accidents, also unconfirmed.
Your source only has data for the last 5 years which makes it difficult to contrast the before/after of an immigration trend that started 5 years ago
For Springfield Police, the dashboard shows 2023 ranked second in the least number of crashes since 2019 with 1,840 reports. That's 300 crashes fewer than the highest overall crash number of 2,144 reported to the state in 2021.
Data also shows the number of crashes taking place in 2024 is trending up compared to last year.
So per Springfield police the highest crash number was in 2021, which coincidentally was the year the Haitian president was assassinated and Joe Biden was sworn into office, two variables ripe for an increase in Haitian emigration. It then dipped in 2023 and is trending up in 2024.
If anything the data is equivocal, but since I was the one making the affirmative claim I'll concede I have not proven it.
Btw props on posting an article from the New York Post to the thread just so you could immediately attack it on credibility. That's genius. My original claim was from the Reuters article stating that traffic accidents had surged combined with the Governor sending in reinforcements to enforce traffic law which I doubt would be done for no good reason.
What is the Reuters article? I can't find it, could you repost it?
It's the one you quoted here It just mentions vehicle collisions surged without providing a source for the claim
On September 18 2024 04:31 EnDeR_ wrote: There is no need to conflate accidents with crime. I am sure that many issues will arise with regards to the integration of the Haitians within the community. It also comes with many upsides.
Btw I didn't mean to conflate vehicle collisions with crime. If we actually wanted to talk about crime in Springfield Ohio we could dissect the significance of this graph from the FBI's Crime Data Explorer showing "All Violent Crimes" reported by the Springfield Police Department 2012-2022
On September 18 2024 04:41 Magic Powers wrote: Rising vehicle accidents? Are you referring to this?
"Fatal car accidents in Springfield, Ohio, increased four-fold last year, The Post has learned — as residents say a surge of Haitian migrants unfamiliar with US driving has turned their streets into the Kentucky Derby."
"Traffic accidents involving injuries in Springfield have also risen, climbing to 414 so far this year compared to 362 in 2023 — a 14% increase."
This is a story from the New York Post, which is a right-wing outlet with a mixed credibility rating according to MBFC.
So in 2023 they reported fewer accidents than in previous years. The increase in 2024 appears to be a small rise. This would correlate with a population increase from immigration. So if there are more crashes, it's likely because there are more people on the roads. Fatal accidents allegedly increased four-fold, but that is an unconfirmed claim.
So we have a non-credible right-wing source claiming a four-fold increase in fatal accident, unconfirmed. We have a left-leaning source with high credibility pointing to a reduction in overall accidents, also unconfirmed.
Your source only has data for the last 5 years which makes it difficult to contrast the before/after of an immigration trend that started 5 years ago
For Springfield Police, the dashboard shows 2023 ranked second in the least number of crashes since 2019 with 1,840 reports. That's 300 crashes fewer than the highest overall crash number of 2,144 reported to the state in 2021.
Data also shows the number of crashes taking place in 2024 is trending up compared to last year.
So per Springfield police the highest crash number was in 2021, which coincidentally was the year the Haitian president was assassinated and Joe Biden was sworn into office, two variables ripe for an increase in Haitian emigration. It then dipped in 2023 and is trending up in 2024.
If anything the data is equivocal, but since I was the one making the affirmative claim I'll concede I have not proven it.
Btw props on posting an article from the New York Post to the thread just so you could immediately attack it on credibility. That's genius. My original claim was from the Reuters article stating that traffic accidents had surged combined with the Governor sending in reinforcements to enforce traffic law which I doubt would be done for no good reason.
What is the Reuters article? I can't find it, could you repost it?
It's the one you quoted here It just mentions vehicle collisions surged without providing a source for the claim
Thank you!
It seems to me that's an oversight on Reuters' part. If they had the correct numbers it would've been relevant to provide them, instead they used misleading terminology. Technically correct language can still be used in a misleading way, as I've often said before.
On September 18 2024 06:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I actually knew a girl who was an exchange student in the US, got her licence in the US, drove a car in the US for half a year, and then failed her driver's test in Norway. (Licenses from countries outside EU are only valid for up to 3 months in Norway).
That said (this does back up the idea that it might be true that people from certain countries might be less safe drivers than people from other countries, even if it's hard for me to accept that the US would be the latter and not the former in that equation), obviously your first paragraph is correct. If it's true that haitians/immigrants from x region are unsafe drivers, then you implement some type of course or program for haitians/immigrants from x region who want to drive in the US.
Like most things in the US, driver’s license requirements and testing vary from state to state.
In Ohio, my very elderly grandfather was able to pass the test even though a month prior he had run over a street sign in the median and in a separate incident had driven his car across oncoming traffic and into a ditch. No way he should have been driving, but still passed. Luckily he agreed to not drive anymore anyways under family pressure, but legally he still can.
So my anecdotal evidence is that Ohio has some very poor testing standards. If Haitians are coming in and passing those tests, but are still a danger on the road (unknown if true), then the tests need to be more rigorous.
A false claim circulating on social media that Kamala Harris was involved in an alleged hit-and-run in San Francisco in 2011 is the work of a covert Russian disinformation operation, according to new research by Microsoft.
Researchers found that the group created a video, paid an actor to appear as the alleged victim, and spread the claim through a fake website for a nonexistent San Francisco news outlet named KBSF-TV. The Russian group responsible, which Microsoft dubs Storm-1516, is described as a Kremlin-aligned troll farm.
Microsoft said the discovery was a sign of Russia ramping up its foreign influence efforts ahead of the 5 November presidential election, Microsoft said. A spokesperson for the Russian embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
I don't understand what it is Trumpets think is happening here. Putin is an evil dictator who imprisons his opposition, legalized domestic abuse and started a brutal war for basically no reason. This is the guy trying to get Trump elected in the US, and the line we often get from Trumpets is that if we don't appease Putin by electing Trump, there will be more war?
A false claim circulating on social media that Kamala Harris was involved in an alleged hit-and-run in San Francisco in 2011 is the work of a covert Russian disinformation operation, according to new research by Microsoft.
Researchers found that the group created a video, paid an actor to appear as the alleged victim, and spread the claim through a fake website for a nonexistent San Francisco news outlet named KBSF-TV. The Russian group responsible, which Microsoft dubs Storm-1516, is described as a Kremlin-aligned troll farm.
Microsoft said the discovery was a sign of Russia ramping up its foreign influence efforts ahead of the 5 November presidential election, Microsoft said. A spokesperson for the Russian embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
I don't understand what it is Trumpets think is happening here. Putin is an evil dictator who imprisons his opposition, legalized domestic abuse and started a brutal war for basically no reason. This is the guy trying to get Trump elected in the US, and the line we often get from Trumpets is that if we don't appease Putin by electing Trump, there will be more war?
That seems incredibly cowardly imo.
Nah it makes sense if you think like a MAGA.
MAGA's only consistent position in the last 8 years has been that they like anything that "the liberals" hate.
The Liberals hate Putin, that means Putin's our ally. If Putin helps to get our guy elected that'll REALLY piss off the libs. So they're all for it. It also helps Putin's appeal that he plays to the same "traditional values" beats that the Conservatives love to champion even if his actions don't support his rhetoric that's never been very important.
As far as MAGA is concerned, the war in Ukraine is a million miles away and has nothing to do with them anyway. The only reason to care about it at all is because the US is sending their hard earned tax money over there to fight Putin who the Liberals all hate, and if Liberals hate him he can't be that bad of a guy.... etc. The logic repeats back on itself.
There's a million holes in this logic, but it's at least consistent. If you understand that the primary motivator for the Republicans isn't actually any singular idea but just deep seeded tribalism that says that the other side MUST LOSE at all costs then their thinking starts to become vaguely understandable.
On September 18 2024 05:04 oBlade wrote: NYP being "right-wing" on your widget doesn't mean they are not credible. Deaths increased 4-fold because you can physically count the 2 people died in 2022 and 8 people who died in 2023. They don't invent numbers, the bias is that if the deaths had dropped to 0 they wouldn't have reported it.
Made-up facts are led with words like "reports say" or "sources claim" not basic police stats.
They're not credible because they have a mixed credibility rating, not because they're right-wing. MBFC has two different ratings, one for bias and one for credibility.
8 deaths vs 2 is a statistically insignificant increase, this is completely normal variation. All it takes is two or three accidents to go slightly worse and you have a few more deaths.
On September 18 2024 05:04 oBlade wrote: NYP being "right-wing" on your widget doesn't mean they are not credible. Deaths increased 4-fold because you can physically count the 2 people died in 2022 and 8 people who died in 2023. They don't invent numbers, the bias is that if the deaths had dropped to 0 they wouldn't have reported it.
Made-up facts are led with words like "reports say" or "sources claim" not basic police stats.
They're not credible because they have a mixed credibility rating, not because they're right-wing. MBFC has two different ratings, one for bias and one for credibility.
8 deaths vs 2 is a statistically insignificant increase, this is completely normal variation. All it takes is two or three accidents to go slightly worse and you have a few more deaths.
What statistical test did you run?
Deaths seems a nonsense metric to use when we’re talking about a town of that size
If an increase in serious accidents correlates at the same ratio as a death increase, sure. Are they? Also given not every vehicle is occupied by a single individual, you may potentially see more deaths from a similar number of incidents, depending how that works out.
An old teacher of mine lost his son, folks say he was never quite the same again, in a horror smash where iirc 6 young folks lost their lives, in a pretty sleepy town out in the countryside.
I’d wager depending on the year we’re looking at, that would be an infinity fold increase in road deaths.
Or pick any smallish town anywhere, a singular horrendous incidence of a murder/suicide can make a murder rate increase on a similar multiplier.
Seems a nonsense thing to fixate on, if general traffic-related incidents have increased a lot then sure, there might be something in that.
That's a statistic over norwegian murders between 2006 and 2016 or something might lead you to believe that 2011 had a whole lot of killers going around.
'not statistically significant' might not be the right phrasing, technically, but the meaning is clear - and obvious - you can't extrapolate much if any relevant information solely from an increase in dead in traffic from 2 to 8. BJ's stat on reported crime in Springfield over time? That's totally relevant and not something to be shrugged at, but the 'a haitian ran over a woman and wasn't charged with manslaughter because the gravy train depends on people pretending that immigration isn't a problem and look, the amount of killed in traffic jumped from 2 to 8 in one year'-angle is stupid.
That's a statistic over norwegian murders between 2006 and 2016 or something might lead you to believe that 2011 had a whole lot of killers going around.
'not statistically significant' might not be the right phrasing, technically, but the meaning is clear - and obvious - you can't extrapolate much if any relevant information solely from an increase in dead in traffic from 2 to 8. BJ's stat on reported crime in Springfield over time? That's totally relevant and not something to be shrugged at, but the 'a haitian ran over a woman and wasn't charged with manslaughter because the gravy train depends on people pretending that immigration isn't a problem and look, the amount of killed in traffic jumped from 2 to 8 in one year'-angle is stupid.
Normally you make a lot of sense, bit that infographic and point is just insane. As a statistician, you show me that and I'll definitely ask what happened in 2011. The answer could be you had a weird epidemic of murderers running around. Or you had one murderer who made a heck of a lot of victims. Turns out it was the latter, but still very much an anomaly that breaks the trend of other years.
Now whether the difference between 2 and 8 is statistically significant is impossible to say. If other years have between 1 and 4 traffic deaths, then 8 is probably anomalous. If other years are between 7 and 14, then 2 is anomalous. And if all other years are 0, then both 2 AND 8 are anomalous. oBlade's point to claim 8 is a 4-fold increase is absurd without further data. But so is claiming it's statistically insignificant. The only thing you can say here is you need more data.
Also worth noting that to prove a statistically significant increase in something as rare as traffic deaths you'll need a lot more data, and in fact one can argue that statistical significance here is probably meaningless and you should use other methods (causal impact might be an option, but good luck controlling for extraneous variables), and the null hypothesis is that it's insignificant and the onus is on oBlade to prove these numbers mean anything at all. But still, MP's answer and yours were both pretty bad rebuttals.
Beyond the statistical minutia, people would do well to realize that Republicans/right-wingers aren't really trying to win the arguments or persuade people based on logic. They are (wittingly or not) simply trying to control the Conversation, and fwiw, effectively winning that fight here and nationally. That could be catastrophic for Democrats if they can't figure out how to stop it.
Agreed. The age of social media has entirely redefined political battles. Controlling the conversation, messaging, and optics are basically all that matters nowadays. Substance and merit simply are not a significant factor at this point.
On September 19 2024 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Beyond the statistical minutia, people would do well to realize that Republicans/right-wingers aren't really trying to win the arguments or persuade people based on logic. They are (wittingly or not) simply trying to control the Conversation, and fwiw, effectively winning that fight here and nationally. That could be catastrophic for Democrats if they can't figure out how to stop it.
If someone controls the conversation by stabbing themselves in the hand, don't they still look like an idiot?
Past examples of republicans controlling the conversation are changing the subject to avoid people talking about a Trump court case or something else. In this case, they 'stabbed themselves in the hand' to garner attention and accidentally took attention away from a second assassination attempt on Trump.
What do you think politicians should be talking about that this takes away from?
It's ridiculous to take things at face value that come from far-right propagandists and liars such as Trump and Vance. The most obvious stance is to ignore everything they say until it's proven correct, not to give them the benefit of the doubt first and only look at the facts later. If they say something, chances are they're lying unless they're talking about the weather. Scratch that, they're obviously also climate change deniers, so not even the weather is safe from them.
On September 19 2024 03:33 Mohdoo wrote: Agreed. The age of social media has entirely redefined political battles. Controlling the conversation, messaging, and optics are basically all that matters nowadays. Substance and merit simply are not a significant factor at this point.
I think the reasonable conclusion people should be increasingly drawing is that the US didn't do the necessary upkeep to maintain its "democracy" (it's a relatively really shitty one according to western ranking systems) and is going to lose whatever good it has left of it as a consequence of that.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have focused on winning the next elections (by pleasing their big donors and keeping the masses as ravenous 'consumers' pliable to 'advertising', this being probably most symbolized by Bush's "go shopping" speech post 9/11) for far too long and now the reservoir of problems they put off indefinitely is too big to deal with before the dam breaks.
Maybe the stupidest part in all this being that they wouldn't recognize a spillway if it bit them in the ass to boot. Which is to say Democrats don't even know (or refuse to advocate in some cases) what they need to offer the masses to keep the masses from going completely off the rails sooner than later.
I believe the US has passed a point of no return and it's just taking the population a while to come to grips with what that actually means.
That's a statistic over norwegian murders between 2006 and 2016 or something might lead you to believe that 2011 had a whole lot of killers going around.
'not statistically significant' might not be the right phrasing, technically, but the meaning is clear - and obvious - you can't extrapolate much if any relevant information solely from an increase in dead in traffic from 2 to 8. BJ's stat on reported crime in Springfield over time? That's totally relevant and not something to be shrugged at, but the 'a haitian ran over a woman and wasn't charged with manslaughter because the gravy train depends on people pretending that immigration isn't a problem and look, the amount of killed in traffic jumped from 2 to 8 in one year'-angle is stupid.
Normally you make a lot of sense, bit that infographic and point is just insane. As a statistician, you show me that and I'll definitely ask what happened in 2011. The answer could be you had a weird epidemic of murderers running around. Or you had one murderer who made a heck of a lot of victims. Turns out it was the latter, but still very much an anomaly that breaks the trend of other years.
Now whether the difference between 2 and 8 is statistically significant is impossible to say. If other years have between 1 and 4 traffic deaths, then 8 is probably anomalous. If other years are between 7 and 14, then 2 is anomalous. And if all other years are 0, then both 2 AND 8 are anomalous. oBlade's point to claim 8 is a 4-fold increase is absurd without further data. But so is claiming it's statistically insignificant. The only thing you can say here is you need more data.
Also worth noting that to prove a statistically significant increase in something as rare as traffic deaths you'll need a lot more data, and in fact one can argue that statistical significance here is probably meaningless and you should use other methods (causal impact might be an option, but good luck controlling for extraneous variables), and the null hypothesis is that it's insignificant and the onus is on oBlade to prove these numbers mean anything at all. But still, MP's answer and yours were both pretty bad rebuttals.
'We need more data' is what I'm trying to say but I guess I didn't do a good job conveying it! the infographic is essentially supposed to be a 'single car accident killing 8 people'- just for murders.
On September 18 2024 05:04 oBlade wrote: NYP being "right-wing" on your widget doesn't mean they are not credible. Deaths increased 4-fold because you can physically count the 2 people died in 2022 and 8 people who died in 2023. They don't invent numbers, the bias is that if the deaths had dropped to 0 they wouldn't have reported it.
Made-up facts are led with words like "reports say" or "sources claim" not basic police stats.
They're not credible because they have a mixed credibility rating, not because they're right-wing. MBFC has two different ratings, one for bias and one for credibility.
8 deaths vs 2 is a statistically insignificant increase, this is completely normal variation. All it takes is two or three accidents to go slightly worse and you have a few more deaths.
What statistical test did you run?
Deaths seems a nonsense metric to use when we’re talking about a town of that size
If an increase in serious accidents correlates at the same ratio as a death increase, sure. Are they? Also given not every vehicle is occupied by a single individual, you may potentially see more deaths from a similar number of incidents, depending how that works out.
There were 7 traffic incidents causing 8 fatalities in 2023.
On September 18 2024 18:27 WombaT wrote: An old teacher of mine lost his son, folks say he was never quite the same again, in a horror smash where iirc 6 young folks lost their lives, in a pretty sleepy town out in the countryside.
I’d wager depending on the year we’re looking at, that would be an infinity fold increase in road deaths.
Or pick any smallish town anywhere, a singular horrendous incidence of a murder/suicide can make a murder rate increase on a similar multiplier.
The town in question is not so small, and the death rate so consistently zero for so many years, to be similar to the situation you're talking about. If, hypothetically, the government took some immigrants and put them into what I can only say you've described as the proverbial town of Mayberry, and one killed 6 people, yeah that'd be a red flag too. Your argument is the numbers are small so one event can have a large impact, my answer would be that's in the numbers already, it's called standard deviation. Though your example also goes to show that if you model too exactly or precisely, you disappear all predictive power or insight from your model.
On September 18 2024 18:27 WombaT wrote: Seems a nonsense thing to fixate on, if general traffic-related incidents have increased a lot then sure, there might be something in that.
You know, I'm going to continue to go against the grain here and say that while this one statistic is clearly not everything, nor do I believe I ever said it was, deaths should perhaps be weighted with greater gravity than general traffic-related incidents.
On September 18 2024 18:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That's a statistic over norwegian murders between 2006 and 2016 or something might lead you to believe that 2011 had a whole lot of killers going around.
That would simply be the mistake of confusing a "murder" and a "murderer."
In our case 7 incidents cause the 8 traffic fatalities. There was no mass casualty incident on the roads of Springfield although it's otherwise certainly a fine hypothesis to posit.
On September 18 2024 18:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: 'not statistically significant' might not be the right phrasing, technically, but the meaning is clear - and obvious - you can't extrapolate much if any relevant information solely from an increase in dead in traffic from 2 to 8. BJ's stat on reported crime in Springfield over time?
Statistically significant means something very specific, and something objective, it means something is significant, statistically (to a certain calculated standard). It doesn't mean "well that looks small enough to ignore for the rhetorical point I'm trying to make." If you calculate the average annual murders in Norway, take their standard distribution, and test if you would expect 2011 to happen due to random chance, you get z~2.7 which is a probability of around 0.3%. That means if you're someone interested in policy, it's a red flag to at least see what's going on with the anomalous data, and then you can decide whether it was really just a lightning strike, or if you want to work on gun laws, or fighting right wing extremism, bolster counterintelligence, increase security, or whatever you have it.
I will leave one footnote because the question of statistical literacy bothered me enough to do my homework. My assumptions were a town size of 60k, and an Ohio average traffic fatality rate of a little more than 6 per 60k (this is traceable and quite steady on a 10 year trend). I will use "significant(ly)" in this paragraph to refer to results strong enough for the average social scientist. A year of 2 or fewer deaths is significantly less than Ohio average. A year of 8 deaths is greater than Ohio average, but not extraordinarily. If you work from an average of 2 deaths (assumption), 8 or more is quite significantly more (rare, 0.74% by Poisson). If you just saw a year of 2 and 8 deaths for the same population size, not knowing anything else, you would think about 95% of the time they weren't connected, meaning in the real world something changed in time about how they were caused - with no other data, you can get that, in a chi squared test.
Your criticism of what more succinctly stated would be we don't know what the exact average is because we don't have the historical trend, just the preceding year - is a point I conceded on editorial bias on the last page or something, and it's not data that I have access to either. Data is hard, it has to be gathered and that requires people who give shits, which is supremely lacking in government and public discourse. Other confounding things are the fact that people drive in places where they don't live - in fact, they drive more where more people live. However, that's probably true every year. Or that there may be substitution effects with statistics of serious injury/almost fatal crashes, which we don't have (ex. more people barely survived and recovered in hospital other years).
On September 18 2024 18:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: That's totally relevant and not something to be shrugged at, but the 'a haitian ran over a woman and wasn't charged with manslaughter because the gravy train depends on people pretending that immigration isn't a problem and look, the amount of killed in traffic jumped from 2 to 8 in one year'-angle is stupid.
The CHNV program is a humanitarian based temporary parole that has grossly expanded a minor power that was the executive's discretion into another unlegislated policy from this administration. They've brought in nearly a million immigrants - those 4 letters stand for the countries at issue - including 400k from Haiti. The status is temporary while applying for other legal types of status (like asylum or refugee status or other things Congress has actually legislated), and the condition is literally as simple as you know someone else here with the same temporary status that can sponsor you. These are people who are otherwise inadmissible aliens, and literally wouldn't be present were it not for executive fiat.
That's why in addition to the increased deaths and accidents, the ancillary "benefits" include for example rent increases over 100% and home rent increases over 36%, and 2000 more Medicaid claims in a short time in Springfield. The administration wants the credit for humanitarian success in terms of foreign policy, without doing the work to make sure it's done correctly and orderly and more than pseudo-legally, which is why they ship people by bus and airplane to these parochial areas in the most facially obvious case of NIMBYism I've ever seen. Then leave these municipalities to fend for themselves. "Too many crashes? Maybe we should have state troopers patrol, and do traffic school. Communicable diseases? Let's randomly overwhelm the health system."
It's why people here alternatively say they are a strong revitalizing force and then any opposition is punching down and attacking a vulnerable weak group. Schrodinger's migrants.
It's not just Springfield. This is also recently in Charleroi, PA, and Sylacauga, AL. They lie first nationally that it's not happening, then about its outcomes locally. Systematically. Same pattern - City council feigns ignorance once the citizens raise objections and concerns about the unsolicited change to their community. David Muir said ABC talked to the city manager of Springfield and said it was all made up and he had never heard anything, we have video of complaints in City Hall, we have police reports and 911 calls from before this took off, meaning either David Muir, ABC, or the city manager lied - or are worse, incompetent.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/LiquidDrone/drapsstatistikk.jpg)
