|
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 06 2024 22:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit. All the policies you and I just listed in our previous post(s) an hour or two ago... each of those would have moved things in the positive direction for families and quality of life. On November 06 2024 22:31 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. What basic facts do you perceive are being denied? Sorry, don't mind me. I have nothing else to add to what everyone else is already saying to you. I mean... Look at oblade's post above. Sure, its 100% bullshit and made entirely of extremist far right propaganda, but these are the hopes and dreams people want. "We're going to try and make housing cheaper" doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.
Cheaper housing and the countless other meaningful, positive changes she said.
But yeah, 100% bullshit seemed to be the winning strategy, at least in this last election.
|
On November 06 2024 22:47 oBlade wrote:
we're all on the same team
lol
|
On November 06 2024 22:11 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
Not to sound overly critical, but neither you nor L_master provided a link I could click to see a dataset that substantiates the claims you are both making.
In what way are we stagnating? Medical advances happen all the time, the record-time development of the covid vaccine was nearly miraculous all in itself. There is now a chatbot that will proofread your documents for you and write code for you -- in fact, it is a genuine worry for many people that their job will be replaced by a robot or AI. These are huge things that happened in a span of less than 3 years. Chatbot is (was) more hype than glory based on the, franky, stolen content they've used their models on to train. If the web is your data, it's 'easy' to train your bot. The "fastness" of the vaccine was simply the circumvention of many bureaucratic hurdles that normally exist during drug development. I don't view that as something miraculous. I don't think you know how drug development works or how big pharma works. They have millions of compounds with preliminary data they can pick from. They have thousands of drug delivery methods they understand. I don't like how non transparantly the entire process of developmemt turned out, but that's another discussion. Medical advances happen all the time? Please.. I have 2 things you can read I guess: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15884
Thank you for this. I had a quick look and found a much more recent study than the one you quoted from 2009, which only included 20 datasets. The more modern one concludes that 2.9% (95% CI 2.1–3.8%) of researchers are likely guilty of falsification, fabrication or plagiarism. This is very straightforward to unpack, 97% of researchers do not falsify or fabricate their datasets. That's a healthy number, wouldn't you agree?
The COVID vaccine was developed quickly because all the scientists in the world literally went "right, we gotta solve this or we die". It was a massive collaborative effort and a testament to what can be achieved when you put all of the world's smartest people working on the same problem.
You can now link prothesis to your brain using your own neural system. I find the stuff we can do nowadays pretty incredible.
I am just going to disagree with you about the chatbot. I find it near miraculous that a chatbot is better at finding bugs in code than my PhD students. Whether it was easy to train or not is not really relevant to this outcome.
|
For whatever it's worth, most of the polls seemed to be reasonably accurate. That's not to say they'll necessarily be accurate next time, of course.
|
On November 06 2024 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
For whatever it's worth, most of the polls seemed to be reasonably accurate. That's not to say they'll necessarily be accurate next time, of course.
Was there a single poll that predicted Trump winning all 7 swing states as well as the popular vote?
"It's within the margin of error!" doesn't mean much if they get all the winners wrong imo.
And popular vote polls are not even withing margin of error, or some of them anyway.
|
|
|
I'm trying to find what people are excited about. Mostly it just seems to me that folks like Introvert are finally happy that Democrats got their faces punched in, more than anything actually portended by Trump himself winning again. Everything the experts are saying indicates that Trump's policies will trash the economy, and nothing he's going to do socially will be different from his first term: people will continue to lose their rights, and people will continue to die preventable deaths.
Spite won.
|
Norway28455 Posts
On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit.
Yeah this is entirely the wrong take. Here's the thing about Trump: He does say some outrageous stuff that demonizes 'the other'. No question about that. But the way he phrases himself doesn't make you afraid of the other party - it makes you angry at them, and then - he provides a vision for how to fix it. It might be a stupid vision with no realistic plan for how to get there, but he's not making you afraid of the future. He always focuses on that he's going to make everything great, it'll be the best it's ever been. Meanwhile his opponents are talking about how dangerous electing this nutjob to a greater degree than they focus on how great things will be if they win. Brexit was the same thing. Obama - that's someone who offered hope and change. Democrats following him haven't been.
To be fair, this type of messaging is much easier when you're not in charge. To be fair to Trump he'd probably have won 2020 if not for covid, but I also think campaigning is much easier for him, in general, when he's not the incumbent.
Incidentally, my wife happens to do a PhD on political communication and in particular what types of messaging evokes what type of emotion, and what type of emotion creates political engagement. She's generally not one to blurt out predictions with any type of confidence. But she was highly confident in a Trump victory.
|
OK but hear me out, what if in 2028 we call people fascist and sexist and racist more
|
On November 06 2024 22:59 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:47 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:39 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 22:28 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 brian wrote:On November 06 2024 22:09 L_Master wrote:I would feel confident that 99/100 people would both feel worse and have worse blood markers (CBC, WBC, HDL/LDL/Trigs, etc.) in far less than five years. I would also wager the same for consistent soda consumption, especially if in a surplus of calories. because when i was a high schooler i sat in my room playing starcraft 24/7, and when i went away to school there was ample outdoor hiking opportunities. Makes sense to me. You made a major positive life change and saw some benefits. where does your confidence come from? and can you dumb down for me why you think smokers have decreased health markers? and i’m sure you’re missing the point intentionally, but in case not, the risk of results based analysis i’m highlighting here is obviously confusing correlation for causation. i could as easily convince myself drinking is the cause of my increased muscle mass. Descriptions in literature of what smoking tends to do to both the body from a physical perspective, as well as changes to biomarkers in literature which studies of far shorter duration than five years. Second point: Don't get it. Where did I mention causality? Are you arguing an imaginary demon? Or did I misspeak somewhere? I don't think I once said "I am certain this improved my health": 1) My health improved noticeably when I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. By subjective measures and by all the typical biomarkers and labs. 7 years now.
YMMV. This is NOT a claim that I have found some dietary secret or nonsense like that. That's much different than saying something like: My health improved noticeably because I made vegetables a rare intake and focused on lots of red meat. If I had said that, I'd be following you better descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness. that you’re substituting ‘when’ for ‘because’ is either intensely semantic or specifically highlighting your propensity for seeing results as correlations. i’m not sure which but, i guess at least we got here together. "I had fun because it was raining "I had fun when it was raining" First sentence is explicit causation. Second sentence does not imply any causation. It's saying A happened, then B happened. Nothing that says the two events are linked. descriptions in literature is a crazy verbal gymnastic to avoid saying i trust the science when i agree with it, while you call out other ‘literatures’ as untrustworthy when it doesn’t align with your limited personal experience. i’m trying to highlight that results based analysis is intensely flawed. it leads to exactly this kind of anecdotal silliness. 10x more obnoxious when you assume a bunch of unhinged stuff rather than say "It feels like you're doing this, am I reading you right" sorry i’m not sure what you mean, which part of your quoted bit is obnoxious?
My perception is that you assumed that "descriptions in literature" is a hand wavy magic thing to avoid "I trust the science" or "reject the science" based on whether or not it aligns.
I find that assumption grating.
Descriptions in literature means that there are many papers that describe the biomarker changes that occur with smoking in various lab bloodwork.
Many of those papers are also part of the set "Really Garbage Studies", but there are ALOT of studies on smoking. Not all of them suck. Some are solid papers with good methodology, decent sample sizes, appropriate use of statistical transforms, etc. There are enough of these good papers that I feel decently confident in the smoking effecting blood markers.
I "reject the science" not because it has anything to do with personal views, but because the paper sucks. Clear evidence of p-hacking, ridiculous conclusions overfitting like hell, poor methods, etc.
If papers run contra to what I've experienced in person, I go "Huh, wierd. That's not lining up at all. I wonder why that is"
|
On November 06 2024 23:14 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
OK but hear me out, what if in 2028 we call people fascist and sexist and racist more
Yeah, we clearly deserve what we get next. How dare we use our eyes and our words and our minds.
|
Norway28455 Posts
On November 06 2024 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
For whatever it's worth, most of the polls seemed to be reasonably accurate. That's not to say they'll necessarily be accurate next time, of course.
Weren't they like 2-3% wrong across the board? I mean, that's not a huge error, but it was consistent. If you look at 538 predictions, which were aggregates(?), Harris basically does 2-3% worse than the polls indicated in every swing state as well as nationally. I guess that can qualify as reasonably accurately but also not really.
|
On November 06 2024 23:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
For whatever it's worth, most of the polls seemed to be reasonably accurate. That's not to say they'll necessarily be accurate next time, of course. Weren't they like 2-3% wrong across the board? I mean, that's not a huge error, but it was consistent. If you look at 538 predictions, which were aggregates(?), Harris basically does 2-3% worse than the polls indicated in every swing state as well as nationally. I guess that can qualify as reasonably accurately but also not really.
Those are within the margins of error. Hopefully, those small differences can be accounted for, next time.
|
On November 06 2024 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:31 L_Master wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. What basic facts do you perceive are being denied? Sorry, don't mind me. I have nothing else to add to what everyone else is already saying to you.
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees, but in case there is some subtle language thing going on that's causing miscommunication, I dumped the whole thing into GPT and asked for a summary:
L_Master's comments show that he is exploring the practical challenges of mainstream nutritional advice by emphasizing his personal experience with a diet that differs from typical recommendations. His reflections suggest not a rejection of the science, but a consideration of how accessible and actionable standard dietary guidelines are for the average person. Here’s how his language conveys this perspective:
Emphasis on Personal Outcomes: L_Master shares how his health improved by reducing vegetable intake and focusing on red meat, citing specific biomarkers and lab results. He makes it clear that these are personal observations, using phrases like “YMMV” (your mileage may vary) to indicate that he isn’t presenting this as a universal solution. By sharing his individual experience, he implicitly raises the question of whether typical dietary guidelines account for the diversity of individual responses, especially for those who may struggle with conventional dietary advice.
Alluding to Practical Gaps in Guidelines: When L_Master describes dietary recommendations as “not bad” but “incomplete,” he seems to be pointing out that, while the advice is sound in theory, it may be difficult for many people to sustain in practice. His experience highlights that guidelines might be overly idealized for real-world application, especially when people struggle to follow them consistently. This doesn’t mean the advice itself is flawed, but rather that it could be improved by considering the barriers people face in implementing it day-to-day.
Comparison with Broader Health Issues: L_Master references the U.S. obesity map to suggest that, while dietary guidelines may be well-founded, they aren’t necessarily achieving the desired results for the general population. This points to the idea that even strong recommendations may be limited in impact if people find them hard to follow. Here, he seems less critical of the guidelines themselves and more focused on whether they’re practical enough to address real-world health challenges effectively.
Questioning the Relevance of Conventional Warnings for Everyone: By sharing his positive health markers from a diet high in red meat, he reflects on whether conventional dietary warnings might be too generalized. This isn’t to deny the science but to ponder if such guidelines could account more effectively for individuals who, like him, may benefit from a different approach. His personal success with a less conventional diet leads him to wonder if there’s a place for more flexible, individualized dietary advice that acknowledges the difficulty many people have with sticking to mainstream recommendations.
In sum, L_Master isn’t challenging the science behind dietary guidelines but rather considering the practical difficulties many people encounter when trying to follow them. His use of “incomplete” suggests that while the advice itself may be good, it doesn’t fully address the barriers to adherence that people face. His comments encourage a reflection on whether dietary advice could be adapted to be more feasible and sustainable for a broader range of individuals without dismissing the validity of standard guidelines.
|
On November 06 2024 23:14 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
OK but hear me out, what if in 2028 we call people fascist and sexist and racist more
You realize that Harris and Walz actually ran on substance and not name-calling, right?
And that people calling Trump fascist and sexist and racist are making accurate observations, right?
|
On November 06 2024 22:50 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:40 Xan wrote:On November 06 2024 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 06 2024 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump's been president-elect for only a few hours, and we're already denying basic facts about nutrition.
Thanks, Obama. denying facts about nutrition has been going on long before Trump got elected though. Ultimately, its up to the individual to do their own research and create their own health plan. Personally, I started by taking a careful look at what my great grandparents who lived past 90 did and compared it to the general population. While this is fine and dandy on apersonall level. It's pretty fucking horrible fallacy in any serious argument. "My father smoked everyday until he was 95 and never got sick a day in his life" you probably heared something like this before? Let's assume that statement is true. Are you bothered when someone states a true statement? (I could see an issue if you said something like my father never got sick a day in his life and he smoked till 95, so you should too. But nobody is saying smoking is healthy. Nobody is saying you should eat a certain way. So this makes no sense to me.)
No not on a personal level i'm not bothered at all irl
In the face of such a statement i would say good for them and that if you start smoking there still quite a decent chance of you having a long and healthy life.
But seeing him use the statement in a public discourse atleast partly related to science makes me question any other arguments he might make. The rationale he described was using his grandparents way of living as major pointer for deducting his life-style choices because they lived to an high age. And this is not really meant as dig at him i,dont know his fulll thought-process .But the implied rationale is to me personally a disturbing way of thinking, and common way of deductionm among pseudo sciences and charlatans.
|
On November 06 2024 23:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit. Yeah this is entirely the wrong take. Here's the thing about Trump: He does say some outrageous stuff that demonizes 'the other'. No question about that. But the way he phrases himself doesn't make you afraid of the other party - it makes you angry at them, and then - he provides a vision for how to fix it. It might be a stupid vision with no realistic plan for how to get there, but he's not making you afraid of the future. He always focuses on that he's going to make everything great, it'll be the best it's ever been. Meanwhile his opponents are talking about how dangerous electing this nutjob to a greater degree than they focus on how great things will be if they win. Brexit was the same thing. Obama - that's someone who offered hope and change. Democrats following him haven't been. To be fair, this type of messaging is much easier when you're not in charge. To be fair to Trump he'd probably have won 2020 if not for covid, but I also think campaigning is much easier for him, in general, when he's not the incumbent. Incidentally, my wife happens to do a PhD on political communication and in particular what types of messaging evokes what type of emotion, and what type of emotion creates political engagement. She's generally not one to blurt out predictions with any type of confidence. But she was highly confident in a Trump victory.
That is very interesting. I recently watched a video stating that anger is the one emotion that makes you most likely to spread some information or meme further the most.
I'd also agree that Trump should be associated with anger a lot more than he should be associated with fear.
|
We'll see if I still have my job in a year. Once they implement Project 2025 all the govies I work with will either bend the knee or get replaced with people whose only qualification is that they say yes to Trump.
And even so, we'll see if the economy doesn't go to a fucking shambles. Look forward to paying for tariffs and higher taxes at the same time!
|
On November 06 2024 22:32 Jockmcplop wrote:
The Guardian is characterizing this as 'fear winning over hope'.
If you watched Harris and that somehow gave you hope for something, I'm worried for you.
What hope was there with the Democrats anyway? Ooh I really hope everything stays kinda shit.
If anything, the Dems campaign was the campaign of fear. Uuuu, scary orange man is coming for you, vote for us or else...!
Don't get me wrong, Trump is a piece of shit and Reps + Trump is almost guaranteed to be worse for the next 4 years than Dems + Harris, but the entirety of Democrat campaign has been a shitshow and it's no surprise at all to me that people didn't want to vote for them. I mean, it's not as if Trump suddenly got a huge surge of supporters -- Harris simply didn't get nearly as many votes as Biden did.
|
I expect transgender people to be all but legislated out of existence, too. They managed to fabricate cases for the Supreme Court well enough under Biden, they'll figure out a way to impose their will nationwide under a second Trump term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
