|
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 |
On November 10 2018 04:59 farvacola wrote:I dunno man, vague overtures to viatical predictions as a basis for estimating someone's likely lifespan seem just as mystifying as anything else 
nope its bayesian reasoning, not reading tea leaves. falls in 85 year olds aren’t vatic omens. they are serious and dramatically alter population level predictions. when i say “i think this” i mean “i think its more likely than not.”
yeah she could beat the odds, but beating the odds means the odds were stacked against you
|
On November 10 2018 04:59 farvacola wrote:I dunno man, vague overtures to viatical predictions as a basis for estimating someone's likely lifespan seem just as mystifying as anything else
Spoken like a true coastal elite.
*insert 'this is why Trump won' meme*
|
On November 10 2018 01:17 plasmidghost wrote:
Call me paranoid if you will, but I feel like the Russian propaganda bots are deeply rooted in reddit already. Most people there just assume that all the Russian propaganda that gets pushed is pro-Trump, but the goal of Russia is to fracture the US, so they don't care who they're pushing propaganda for, they just want people to be outraged
I've been doing some data science-y work on 538's dataset of three million tweets from the Internet Research Agency (the Russian troll farm) and am in the process of writing a paper on it. Here's some fun stats about these tweets: based on 538's classification of the tweets, of the 2.9 million tweets in the dataset, about 700,000 are the typical obvious right wing tweets. The set also contains around 420,000 left wing tweets, a whole bunch of Russian tweets, and then the remaining tweets that are "other".
The right wing tweets are exactly what you'd expect; lots of linking to external sites/meme sharing, RTing of popular right wing pundits, and a ton of engagement with popular conservative hashtags (the top three being #MAGA obviously, #tcot which is top conservatives on Twitter, and #pjnet, which is similar to #tcot). Most of these accounts are the ones you think of when you see the obvious bot accounts on twitter. They're quite aggressively written and designed to fire people up.
Where things get much eerier and more uncomfortable are the left wing tweets and the "other" tweets. A lot of the left wing tweets are written in a completely different voice than the right wing tweets. They aren't nearly as transparent about their deceptiveness. The right wing accounts often literally only talk about politics, while the left wing accounts engage in different topics along with politics, like music, TV, and other forms of media. Reading through the tweets, I found it creepy how hard it was to tell that some of these accounts weren't real. While there are blatantly obvious accounts, for most, they seemed no different than any other unverified Twitter account except when engaging in political topics.
The "other" section is where things get weird. A whole bunch of the "other" section is literal fake news accounts, but not in the Trumpian "fake news" way but literally news accounts not associated with any organization posting mostly real-looking fake news, often interspersed with actual real news stories. There's an incredibly detailed New York City local news account that from what I understand posted news of events that actually happened in NYC for years but was run by the IRA. The tip off that these accounts are suspicious is that when there is politics-related news topics, they can sometimes seem fairly biased in their headlines. I downloaded Twitter's set of 9+ million IRA tweets and found a whole bunch more similar news accounts, but dating back a long time (most of them follow a template of sorts). Another common thing seen in the "other" section was tweets created purely to amplify hashtags and game Twitter's systems. There are thousands upon thousands of these tweets as well.
And that's just one platform. So yes, I do think you are right to be paranoid about them being on Reddit. They probably are on there and have been for a long time. Same with Facebook and a lot of other social media sites and comment sections. At this point, it suffices to say that anything you see on social media, reddit or forums, you should take with a gigantic grain of salt unless it is someone you know or is verified to be who they say they are.
|
On November 10 2018 05:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 04:59 farvacola wrote:I dunno man, vague overtures to viatical predictions as a basis for estimating someone's likely lifespan seem just as mystifying as anything else nope its bayesian reasoning, not reading tea leaves. falls in 85 year olds aren’t vatic omens. they are serious and dramatically alter population level predictions. when i say “i think this” i mean “i think its more likely than not.” yeah she could beat the odds, but beating the odds means the odds were stacked against you
Literally the exact same things can be said about folks who suffer two or more seizures, and Roberts likes to drive to the court. And as Mohdoo pointed out, adjusting specific predictions based on population-size, general indicators is pretty tough in the context of populations that have superlative access to healthcare services.
On November 10 2018 05:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 04:59 farvacola wrote:I dunno man, vague overtures to viatical predictions as a basis for estimating someone's likely lifespan seem just as mystifying as anything else Spoken like a true coastal elite. *insert 'this is why Trump won' meme*
Us coastal elites in Ohio can't help ourselves :D
|
i dont know for sure but i feel pretty confident in saying that three broken ribs in an 85 year old is a greater predictor of mortality than mild epilepsy in a middle aged person, even if he does drive to work. so i dont think roberts will die before 2020 even if he might have a higher risk than kavanaugh
|
Similarly, I think an 85 year old's fall that was hard enough to injure her ribs, but did not lead to hip injury is a mild enough event to figure as an unreliable predictor of anything outside the normal range of outcomes.
I'd rather let God sort them out, anyways
|
so you actually prefer the tea leaves
|
Nah, I'd rather hope for a favorable outcome when the "non tea leaves" don't augur significantly in any particular direction than confine myself to forced actuarialism. I'm also just not much a betting man.
|
you know i think its quite a strange thesis you’ve posited: broken ribs usually copresent with hip injury in the elderly.
my guess would have been that theyd be fairly independent
|
Well it's not that I think they're typically copresent so much as hip fractures and related pelvic injuries are significantly more of a death knell when it comes to elderly falls. That she fell and was forced to later go to the hospital tells me that she's resilient for her age. She's also not too far from the age hump where if you make it there, your odds of living into very advanced old age increase by a fair bit.
|
On November 10 2018 05:46 IgnE wrote:
you know i think its quite a strange thesis you’ve posited: broken ribs usually copresent with hip injury in the elderly.
my guess would have been that theyd be fairly independent
Nah, they're both highly correlated with bone density and osteoporosis (as well as "frailty" but frailty is its own wacky construct), so if you take a "random" fall there's a good chance you could have gotten one or the other or both. Given that I can't really imagine a causal structure that leaves them independent
|
you just suggested they were independent of each other in coincidence (one, the other, or both) but dependent on something we might call bone density
|
I heard calcium pills don't really work. I also heard fat people have better bone density because the weight constantly stresses the bones and strengthens them (like the only good reason to become fat, besides being stranded nowhere in the winter with no food). Ginsburg should've hit the local McDonald's more when she had the chance.
Yea hip fractures are really bad -> being stranded on a bed -> you're probably going to die soon 
|
On November 10 2018 06:06 IgnE wrote:
you just suggested they were independent of each other in coincidence (one, the other, or both) but dependent on something we might call bone density
The simple definition of independence is that P(X | Y=1) = P(X | Y=0), if intervention on A (bone density) changes X (hip fracture) and Y (rib fracture) then you'll see correlation between X and Y even if chance still plays a role in X and Y. Otherwise causal inference would be a lot easier...
On November 10 2018 06:17 riotjune wrote:I heard calcium pills don't really work. I also heard fat people have better bone density because the weight constantly stresses the bones and strengthens them (like the only good reason to become fat, besides being stranded nowhere in the winter with no food). Ginsburg should've hit the local McDonald's more when she had the chance. Yea hip fractures are really bad -> being stranded on a bed -> you're probably going to die soon
Well, you also see better density in old fat people because the ones who might have developed low bone density already died of other things.
|
I still don't buy this idea that "of course" Pelosi should be speaker of the house.
Does anyone have a fleshed out perspective on what distinguishes pelosi in a way that would lead to x or y?
I keep seeing people dish out one liners about how "she can whip the votes", but wtf does that even mean? Pelosi tells someone to vote for net neutrality? Or else what? What does she give them? Why can no one else give that?
I firmly believe that Americans are, as an entire nation, ditching the norm. No one is interested in the left OR right of 2008. Pelosi as a speaker would tell people Democrats are unwilling to adapt anything beyond "fuck Trump", which isn't entirely inspirational.
The left has still failed to be energized in the way Trump has done to the right. Pelosi is NOT the answer to that unless she intends to start pounding the door on things like legal weed and universal healthcare.
Do we even know if Pelosi has any plans for legal weed?
|
We are dangerously close to the catnip threshold for Math being discussed on TL.
|
On November 10 2018 05:05 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 01:17 plasmidghost wrote:
Call me paranoid if you will, but I feel like the Russian propaganda bots are deeply rooted in reddit already. Most people there just assume that all the Russian propaganda that gets pushed is pro-Trump, but the goal of Russia is to fracture the US, so they don't care who they're pushing propaganda for, they just want people to be outraged I've been doing some data science-y work on 538's dataset of three million tweets from the Internet Research Agency (the Russian troll farm) and am in the process of writing a paper on it. Here's some fun stats about these tweets: based on 538's classification of the tweets, of the 2.9 million tweets in the dataset, about 700,000 are the typical obvious right wing tweets. The set also contains around 420,000 left wing tweets, a whole bunch of Russian tweets, and then the remaining tweets that are "other". The right wing tweets are exactly what you'd expect; lots of linking to external sites/meme sharing, RTing of popular right wing pundits, and a ton of engagement with popular conservative hashtags (the top three being #MAGA obviously, #tcot which is top conservatives on Twitter, and #pjnet, which is similar to #tcot). Most of these accounts are the ones you think of when you see the obvious bot accounts on twitter. They're quite aggressively written and designed to fire people up. Where things get much eerier and more uncomfortable are the left wing tweets and the "other" tweets. A lot of the left wing tweets are written in a completely different voice than the right wing tweets. They aren't nearly as transparent about their deceptiveness. The right wing accounts often literally only talk about politics, while the left wing accounts engage in different topics along with politics, like music, TV, and other forms of media. Reading through the tweets, I found it creepy how hard it was to tell that some of these accounts weren't real. While there are blatantly obvious accounts, for most, they seemed no different than any other unverified Twitter account except when engaging in political topics. The "other" section is where things get weird. A whole bunch of the "other" section is literal fake news accounts, but not in the Trumpian "fake news" way but literally news accounts not associated with any organization posting mostly real-looking fake news, often interspersed with actual real news stories. There's an incredibly detailed New York City local news account that from what I understand posted news of events that actually happened in NYC for years but was run by the IRA. The tip off that these accounts are suspicious is that when there is politics-related news topics, they can sometimes seem fairly biased in their headlines. I downloaded Twitter's set of 9+ million IRA tweets and found a whole bunch more similar news accounts, but dating back a long time (most of them follow a template of sorts). Another common thing seen in the "other" section was tweets created purely to amplify hashtags and game Twitter's systems. There are thousands upon thousands of these tweets as well. And that's just one platform. So yes, I do think you are right to be paranoid about them being on Reddit. They probably are on there and have been for a long time. Same with Facebook and a lot of other social media sites and comment sections. At this point, it suffices to say that anything you see on social media, reddit or forums, you should take with a gigantic grain of salt unless it is someone you know or is verified to be who they say they are.
Wow, that's a great response, I'd like to see the paper when you have it completed. I made a pretty big mistake of being on Twitter way too much during the 2016 election and I wonder if those accounts had influenced my thinking any. Judging by the sheer amount of content the IRA pumped, I'm sure they did
|
On November 10 2018 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I still don't buy this idea that "of course" Pelosi should be speaker of the house.
Does anyone have a fleshed out perspective on what distinguishes pelosi in a way that would lead to x or y?
I keep seeing people dish out one liners about how "she can whip the votes", but wtf does that even mean? Pelosi tells someone to vote for net neutrality? Or else what? What does she give them? Why can no one else give that?
I firmly believe that Americans are, as an entire nation, ditching the norm. No one is interested in the left OR right of 2008. Pelosi as a speaker would tell people Democrats are unwilling to adapt anything beyond "fuck Trump", which isn't entirely inspirational.
The left has still failed to be energized in the way Trump has done to the right. Pelosi is NOT the answer to that unless she intends to start pounding the door on things like legal weed and universal healthcare.
Do we even know if Pelosi has any plans for legal weed?
She is one of the most effective Speakers of the House in modern history and understands the House better than anyone. She has said she does not want the position long term and would to use it to train up a new leadership among the Democrats on the workings of the House.
She also has the special power that she is hated by the GOP, gives no fucks and is super effective at her job. So for 2 years under Trump, I think she is a good person to guide the ship while all the new Democrats get their sea legs.
|
On November 10 2018 06:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I still don't buy this idea that "of course" Pelosi should be speaker of the house.
Does anyone have a fleshed out perspective on what distinguishes pelosi in a way that would lead to x or y?
I keep seeing people dish out one liners about how "she can whip the votes", but wtf does that even mean? Pelosi tells someone to vote for net neutrality? Or else what? What does she give them? Why can no one else give that?
I firmly believe that Americans are, as an entire nation, ditching the norm. No one is interested in the left OR right of 2008. Pelosi as a speaker would tell people Democrats are unwilling to adapt anything beyond "fuck Trump", which isn't entirely inspirational.
The left has still failed to be energized in the way Trump has done to the right. Pelosi is NOT the answer to that unless she intends to start pounding the door on things like legal weed and universal healthcare.
Do we even know if Pelosi has any plans for legal weed? She is one of the most effective Speakers of the House in modern history and understands the House better than anyone.
Is there a more detailed way of saying this?
For example, "As evidenced by _____"
|
On November 10 2018 06:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 06:06 IgnE wrote:
you just suggested they were independent of each other in coincidence (one, the other, or both) but dependent on something we might call bone density The simple definition of independence is that P(X | Y=1) = P(X | Y=0), if intervention on A (bone density) changes X (hip fracture) and Y (rib fracture) then you'll see correlation between X and Y even if chance still plays a role in X and Y. Otherwise causal inference would be a lot easier... Show nested quote +On November 10 2018 06:17 riotjune wrote:I heard calcium pills don't really work. I also heard fat people have better bone density because the weight constantly stresses the bones and strengthens them (like the only good reason to become fat, besides being stranded nowhere in the winter with no food). Ginsburg should've hit the local McDonald's more when she had the chance. Yea hip fractures are really bad -> being stranded on a bed -> you're probably going to die soon Well, you also see better density in old fat people because the ones who might have developed low bone density already died of other things.
Yeah but I'm not asking about the correlation between bone density and any fracture. I'm asking about the correlation between the coincidence of two particular fractures irrespective of bone density. As it happens, heads and tails are similarly correlated with something I call "propensity to flip coins." You will find both heads and tails when the propensity is high, and will never find them when the propensity is zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
