ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
What Bard currently says about the Steele Dossier (prompt was about which parts of it were verifiably true and which parts were not verifiably true):
The Steele Dossier's claims have a complex truth landscape, with no definitive conclusion about how much is verifiable or not. Here's a breakdown:
Claims Verifiably True:
-Some contacts between Trump associates and Russian figures: Investigations confirmed some connections, like Paul Manafort's ties to Oleg Deripaska. However, the extent and context of these contacts remain unclear.
-Russia's interference in the 2016 election: Multiple independent investigations, including the Mueller Report, confirmed Russia's campaign of disinformation and hacking.
Claims Verifiably False:
-Specific allegations: Several specific claims, like Michael Cohen's Prague trip, have been demonstrably false.
Claims Uncertain:
-Central allegations of collaboration: The core claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia haven't been definitively proven or disproven. Investigations found evidence of contacts but couldn't establish coordinated activities. -Unverifiable details: Many details in the dossier lack corroborating evidence and remain unverified.
Key Points:
-The dossier was never intended as a proven account, but rather an unverified report requiring further investigation. -Investigations confirmed some aspects, but central claims about collaboration remain unproven. -Several specific claims were debunked, raising questions about the dossier's reliability. -The dossier's legacy remains politically charged, with ongoing debate about its accuracy and significance.
Recommendation:
To form your own informed opinion, consider diverse sources:
-Media summaries: Read summaries from reputable outlets across the political spectrum. -Mueller Report and other investigations: Review official reports to understand confirmed facts and unresolved questions. -Expert commentary: Listen to analyses from experts in intelligence and investigations.
By engaging with various perspectives, you can form a more nuanced understanding of the dossier's complexities and its ongoing impact.
Remember, the truth about the Steele Dossier is still evolving, and new information may emerge in the future.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
I recall reading a wine morbidity metastudy 15ish years ago. The results were astounding. Controlling for all relevant variables (age, income, race, sex, etc), the people who drank the most wine were the least likely to die. Really excessive wine drinkers beat regular wine enjoyers beat tea-totalers.
Any chance you could find it again? I'd love to read it.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Nope. Not ignoring. Looking at the funnel plot. Weak evidence of weak positive effects. But, ya know, I already very clearly stated how my claim was different from the question that meta-review was analyzing. You seem to have not read it, so you're just sort of talking to yourself.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
the passable positive studies find weak evidence of weak effects
Congrats! We agree!
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
You know that you can search for pre-2019 papers, right? Citing a post-COVID review is likely shot through with motivation, one way or the other. In any event, that funnel plot looks pretty funnel-y, in the direction of a small benefit. Not surprising, given the wide array of different situations/interventions/adherence that they're having to muddle through in this type of meta-review. My position is vastly smaller in scope and cannot be dismissed by simply citing such a large agglomerating meta-review. Masks/quarantining/such can have a small effect of reducing risks in small, discrete settings. That is saying nothing about widespread use, which is rife with all sorts of weird interactions, adherence effects, etc. We don't have to say anything about that mess of a problem to be able to say, "If your sister is sick, do you think you're more likely to catch the disease from her if you both just stay at your respective houses all week, or if she comes over and sleeps in your bed with you all week?" We don't need to say anything about that big mess of a problem to say, "If your sick sister comes over for a few hours, does wearing a mask for the short period of time and washing hands help your probability a little bit over hugging and kissing?"
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Wearing masks is one of those things that only works some of the time and probably don't scale all that well. Different illnesses spread easier/harder to start with; COVID was so prolific, considering how naive everyone's immune system was, that masks hardly put a dent it in. Concerning scaling, preventing disease transmission takes a fair amount of effort, and simply throwing a mask on while continuing to do everything that you would have otherwise done is definitely not going to cut it at scale.
But of course masks can and do help reduce the spread of disease if used diligently and in conjunction with other efforts. My family got together, all in one house, for a couple weeks around Thanksgiving. My sister showed up sick (not COVID; she had bought the plane ticket months in advance), and my mom is immunocompromised. My sister mostly isolated herself in a bedroom (working from home) and wore a mask whenever she came out until she got over it. My mom also put on a mask when she was likely to be in the same room as my sister for a nontrivial amount of time. Thankfully, no one else caught whatever she had.
Is this actually why most of the people that you're seeing in public have masks? Almost certainly not. But it probably does explain some percentage. Would be difficult to find out what percentage that is.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
If I recall some of the details from this correctly, we're actually using less "stuff" than in the past, while obviously still experiencing great advances in quality of life. That is not that we're consuming marginally less per increase in quality of life, we're consuming absolutely less. The reason for this is because we're getting more efficient with the use of stuff even faster than people are consuming more utils.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Myths are powerful things. Anyone can just tell a story, and whether it's believed tells you more about the culture that believes the myth than it does about the subject of the story.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Ah, so plenty of Republicans have "actual" ideas. You just think there are some loonies on the fringe. And of course, you can't find any loonies on the fringe of your own party. Yeah, that's not the same perspective that's been expressed by partisans on both sides since, well, forever. Yawn.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Romney's one of the last Republican's who have actual ideas.
Your chauvinism is showing. What makes an idea "actual", besides it "actually" being a Dem policy position?
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
The people who will stop Chinese hypersonic missiles will be the nerds who design and the blue collars who build the high tech military gear. Especially with something as fast as hypersonics, a trans furry, or well any other human, would just be too slow to really matter. If we want successful products from nerds/builders, we probably ought let them be meritocratic in their own domains rather than force them to include a bunch of trans furries or other diversity hires.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Research shows that the body compensates by burning fewer calories after exercise.
Perhaps if you're already active enough to be in the plateau regime.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
work catering
Do they order from outside restaurants? Many of them are required to post calorie counts somewhere, and many who aren't required do it anyway. See if you can find them. It probably won't be as 'pristine' as when you make your own, but it'll get you in a decent enough ballpark.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
I know one dear lady who bemoaned the fact that she could not get a credit card of her own. She was a stay-at-home mom and would be relying on her husband's income to pay the bill when it came due. Knowing the context of that particular situation, it was very much a, "We want the name of the income-earner on the account, so we have suitable recourse upon default," type of situation. Unfortunately, also knowing her shopping proclivities, it was probably a responsible risk assessment. Obviously not all situations are going to be the same, and I'm not aware of details of laws that might have been in effect in other jurisdictions.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Not feeding the darwin troll now that I know who it is.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Oh man, that explains it.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
What the hell are you talking about? Like, I literally cannot make sense of what you're trying to say. You said that it wasn't an escalation (i.e., larger than) compared to "losing a Supreme Court Justice". You said that it would take 500 states removing Trump from the ballot to count as being larger. That is simply what you said. I don't see where you're failing to understand.
Is it literally just that there's a difference between "for you" and "convince anyone"? Like, sure, the background assumption is that when you're arguing for your perspective, you're implicitly trying to convince others of your perspective. I don't see how that's a goalpost shift at all. That's the way literally all discussions happen in places like this. You say the things how you see it, so that you can convince others to see things how you see it. That's what literally everyone here is doing.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
I think my biggest question for a scenario like this would be, "What happens to all the crown land?"
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Whereas, a Supreme Court seat is probably the most influential and consequential position in the entire government, it's the holy grail of political footballs, it's why you turn out to elect your side's president
Big oof. You're not going to convince anyone that it's not an escalation unless 500 states remove Trump from the ballot. The fact that you think this is even a plausible response is pretty indicative of bad faith, since you're all up and down this thread saying, 'Don't worry, it's just one, and it's just a primary,' to now see that you actually think that it being literally all of them for the general election would be totally fine. Like you've pre-planned an execution of the Law of Merited Impossibility.
Becoming a banana republic is clearly an escalation compared to parliamentary tactics/heresthetics.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
What number of states removing Trump from the primary ballot will count for you as being larger than losing a Supreme Court Justice? What number of states removing Trump from the general ballot will count for you as being larger than losing a Supreme Court Justice? Set a goal post in the here and now, before we get to the culmination of this trend, so that we can look back and gauge whether they ended up escalating or not.
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
Probably the class that stood out to me the most as having basically zero concrete examples that cash out on the level of actual numerals was differentiable manifolds. Who the hell wants to actually describe any concrete examples of those objects all the way down to the level of numerals?! That just sounds painful. I mean, maybe there was like one simple example of a problem on a torus way back in the introduction part of the course, just to give a nod to the idea that one could go get at real problems, but I actually don't remember anything other than like, "Oh, here is an example of how the state space of a dynamical system could be represented as a torus or a cylinder, or..." but stopping short of actually solving any particular problem on them.
The ruling is absurd, but the Constitution is pretty clear that states get to decide how their elections are run, including their national elections.
That's not really the way "judicial federalism" works, though. Yes, states have a lot of leeway in how they run elections, but this state is specifically appealing to the text of the federal Constitution in order to rule that he is ineligible. The fun history here to really drive the point home is that there are a lot of state Constitutions that have clauses that are word-for-word identical to the federal Constitution. Suppose that for some clause (not necessarily the one here), State A has a word-for-word identical clause in its state Constitution, but State B does not. Perhaps both states' Supreme Courts rule that that clause means X. Now, SCOTUS jumps in and says, "No no no, in the federal Constitution, that clause does not mean X." Well, State A's Supreme Court can (and some have in various cases) go back to the same issue and say, "Well, even if that clause in the federal Constitution doesn't mean X, we think that the same clause in the state Constitution means X." This has happened plenty of times. State B, on the other hand, has no such luck. The only thing they had to appeal to in this extremely sanitized hypothetical was the federal Constitution, and SCOTUS simply outranks them when it comes to interpreting what the federal Constitution means. [EDIT: Right after submitting, I realized that linking to this book is a good cite for an example of how this has definitely happened, concretely.]
"Judicial federalism" can work the other way, too. There are sometimes cases in the federal courts that turn on an interpretation of state law (or state Constitution). There have also definitely been examples where the federal courts essentially punt the question back over to the state Supreme Court, saying, "Yo! You guys need to tell us what your law means."
In this case, I don't believe Colorado has an equivalent-to-Section-3-of-14A in their state Constitution; they are purely interpreting the federal Constitution. As such, I don't think there's any reason why an appeal can't be made in the federal courts. There is a substantial federal question here, specifically that of interpreting the meaning of Section 3 of 14A of the federal Constitution.
[EDIT EDIT: Realize now that I should have read further in the comments; I was totally scooped. Oops.]
ControlsFreak
2yr ago
They were not really analyzed at all in that discussion.
So, there's the theory that the left cares more about politics, which is why they show up more and are louder about it, including the wokeness business. Presumably, they're also much more likely to want to use marijuana. Will the ever-growing train of legalization cut out a contingent of them? Or within that population, are there two subpopulations - one which was already trending toward lethargy, which will descend yet further, and another which was already hyper politics, which due to some composition effect results in them eschewing marijuana for their own personal use?
More options
Context Copy link