roystgnr
1yr ago
He lost 48% to 50%, though, right? With Alabama something like 62% Republican, that means perhaps a quarter of Republicans there who would have voted for him didn't, and the rest held their nose and voted for him anyway.
I suspect the vast majority of his voters believed the allegations to be false, so their votes aren't evidence of evil, but willful ignorance isn't a great alternative. The guy's denials were waffling, self-contradictory, and self-incriminating. "I don't remember ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother." is not the sort of thing you say when you're into adult women.
roystgnr
8mo ago
Who said anything about court? Your theory that judges are more likely to dismiss people who publish more evidence is an interesting one, but there is a reason why I said "publish", not "file". As I admitted, if the judges dismiss you then you still lose 2020, but if the voters don't then your team wins 2022 and 2024 and a lot of opportunities to prevent whatever fraud you detected from happening again. Maybe it takes time to go through evidence in the moment and make sure you're not hurting your credibility by putting credence in bad evidence too, but after three or four years have passed Vance shouldn't be dancing around when asked if Trump lost, he shouldn't be pointing to social media censorship (or whatever "big tech rigged the election" meant) as reasons why Trump morally won, he should be advertising "trumpwon2020.com" or whatever URL they picked to host all the evidence they have that Trump actually won.
roystgnr
8mo ago
put yourself in the shoes of a Trump who was absolutely positive that there was significant fraud in PA, GA and NV, but can't prove exactly how much. What is your best move?
Publish all the evidence that made you absolutely positive. This must not be done in "throw everything you have at the wall" Gish-Gallop style, though, because if the 5th item on your list of evidence is pretty convincing but the first 4 items turn out to be nonsense then you risk nobody bothering to read past the 2nd or 3rd.
Even if everybody agrees the evidence should have made you absolutely positive, this doesn't get you inaugurated in 2020, but it does guarantee you 2024, a stronger showing in the House and Senate from 2022 on, and mass support for election reform in your favor that could last for generations.
roystgnr
1yr ago
That the pivot to Ukraine when the covid thing became too embarrassing was pure coincidence? That the pivot to Israel was also pure coincidence?
Since those "pivots" had their timing fixed by Putin's invasion date and Hamas' massacre date, and since I'm very confident the US Deep State or whoever isn't collaborating with them, I'm going to have to go with OF COURSE. Putin's "de-Nazification" excuses were a cover for "I want conquest", not "I want to do Biden a solid".
Good luck to you. I'm as big a Deus Ex fan as the next guy, but actual paranoid theorizing about how the world is controlled by a giant conspiracy against you is a really hard epistemic failure to break out of. Meds can help, but of course that's what They would want you to do...
roystgnr
2yr ago
Not allying with Stalin doesn't mean the Soviets collectively drop their guns and meekly submit to slaughter.
Some of them wouldn't even have had guns to drop - a hundred billion (current) dollars of war materiel here, a hundred billion dollars there, and pretty soon you're talking about real support.
I admit, based on how tragically well-situated the USSR was in the aftermath of WWII, it's easy to think there must have been some lower amount of assistance that would have been a much better outcome for the world as a whole, by putting the same resources to work on the Western Front instead, but:
-
What Western Front, at that point? We didn't start assisting the USSR until a year after Dunkirk, at which point we had no beachhead and wouldn't be able to establish one for years. The choice wasn't "bleed the Nazis by supporting the Soviets" vs "bleed the Nazis ourselves", it was vs "do nothing".
-
What is the minimal lower amount of assistance that would have left us with "weakened USSR unable to drop the Iron Curtain" but not with "conquered USSR unable to keep the Nazis fighting on two fronts"? Get this one wrong and we still end up with multiple genocides (only like a third of the Soviet victims were post-WWII; by the time they became one of the Allies it was too late to save the other 2/3rds), except one of those becomes a much larger, nearly unstoppable genocide.
I suppose we'd get The Bomb and Hitler was further from catching up to that than Stalin was, so perhaps that makes both questions moot? But that only works with a lot more hindsight than anyone could have been expected to have in 1941. For that matter, even "not allying with genocidal maniacs" only makes sense with hindsight. In the 30s Duranty was getting his Pulitzer for reporting on how totally fake the Holodomor was, and in the 40s FDR was telling everyone how trustworthy he thought Stalin was. Enough people bought it that we demobilized like 85% of our military in the 2 years before the Berlin Blockade.
roystgnr
2yr ago
the Tanya
Googling while wondering if you misspelled Talmud ... this is a religious philosophy book published in 1796, whose general philosophy is subscribed to by nearly 0.7% of Jewish people? The Book of Mormon is nearly as old, and represents approximately the same fraction of followers of Jesus. That doesn't prove you wrong (hey, there are tons of Book of Mormon verses that most non-Mormon Christians would agree with, too, even if they think the reason was just "Joseph Smith wrote Bible fan-fiction"), but supporting a broad claim would require citing a broader source.
If you're not making a broad claim, that's fine too, but "extremists of X can't coexist with non-X" is a depressingly broad claim in another way: you can't say it's anything special about Judaism. Muslims who think apostasy should be a capital crime are currently supermajorities in whole countries. Modern Christians are mostly better, but that seems to be a result of exhausting the alternatives first (the European Wars of Religion killed millions; some German states would have seen less population loss if they'd had another Black Plague instead) and remembering their problems (they now know that the next step beyond "we all have to be Christian" is "yeah, friend? which kind?"...). There are some religions that specifically disclaim violent and extremist ... wait, no, not Buddhists too? If you step away from religion completely, it's true that atheists have needed to find some other holy sacred all-important cause to kill millions of people for, and this seems like an improvement because then the cause at least isn't directly tied to the atheism, but it does make me fear that there's some nearly-inextricable tie to human psychology.
roystgnr
4mo ago
The hostage doesn't have a gun, but by not resisting, the hostage is enabling a criminal with a gun to get away.
By not resisting, the scientists are (checks notes) noticing that scientific studies done in a Hispanic country might help more Hispanics want to become scientists.
The hostage still isn't coming off as the better of the two here.
roystgnr
4mo ago
Hep B which they want to give children in the first hour post-birth despite no plausible method of transmission
Hep B can be transmitted from mother to child at birth, if not medically prevented.
roystgnr
8mo ago
Then you ignored past evidence. As such, no reason to link it again when you can easily see for yourself if you search.
If it's easy, you should do it and paste the links here.
If it's not easy, but you expect persuadable people (at least persuadable third parties) to be reading, you should definitely do it and paste the links. (this is the case I suspect is true, as a persuadable third party who didn't see anything on the first results page for "gaza doctors access", although I vaguely recall seeing stories along these lines before)
If you don't expect anyone persuadable to be reading, why bother writing at all?
roystgnr
9mo ago
It's clearly not close to the norm in the sense of "normal distribution", but it's closer than it should be in the sense of "normative". Back when the pregnant woman got run over you could find de jure support for the victim in pre-existing Arkansas state publications, and the state police settled out of court later, but if the cop who ran her down wasn't fired then in some de facto sense wasn't any norm against that superseded by a "let the vehicular assailant get away with it if they're a cop" norm they consider more important?
roystgnr
10mo ago
Reaching back 60 years to find an example seems like strong (if unintended) support for both "certainly possible" and "it doesn't happen often".
roystgnr
2yr ago
has issued millions of concealed carry permits
That undermines more than supports the argument for permitless carry, doesn't it? I can see a strong argument for permitless carry in states where the legislature says "shall-issue" but the licensing agency says "ooh, sorry, on your application you did/didn't close the top on the digit '4', please try again, that'll be another $200 filing fee", but if training requirements are actually providing training rather than obstruction then they don't seem like a bad idea in theory.
it doesn't cause excess violence or deaths
I don't think you can extrapolate from "Florida allows trained licensees to carry concealed and the homicide rate kept declining" to "Florida allows anyone to do so and the homicide rate won't jump" ... but "dozens of states allow anyone to do so and the homicide rate kept declining" is decent evidence. New Hampshire isn't exactly a murderous hellscape.
roystgnr
2yr ago
Doesn’t that just mean “traits” if we combine “traits that are innate plus traits that aren’t”?
I think the implied meaning in context wasn't "heritable refers to every member of A and B" but rather "heritable can refer to members of both A and B".
The typical breakdown is "genetic" vs "shared environment" vs "non-shared environment", isn't it? The shared-environment part would be considered heritable in the colloquial sense but not the biological sense, the genetic part would be heritable in both, the non-shared environment part in neither.
roystgnr
2yr ago
Can you blame them? It means something other than that, if you're using it in a legal sense rather than a biological sense. And the lawyers called dibs first, several hundred years ago; the biologists should have come up with a different word ... but they didn't, so here we are. When a scientist says something is heritable they generally mean "we found these genes" or "we did these twin studies" or something much stronger than just "we measured this correlation".
roystgnr
2yr ago
In mathematics, "implies" is how we pronounce "⇒". Your statement was mathematically false, which was a useful thing for him to point out.
If you were trying to speak a language other than mathematics, like English, in which there are more and fuzzier definitions, either use a less fuzzy word like "suggests" or "hints", or make your context clearer by avoiding other words with both math and English meanings like "variables" and "correlation".
roystgnr
3mo ago
The one opposing "everyone in the Big Yud singularity doomerist community"? The opposition itself isn't a deal-breaker (though it's clearly at least a non-central example), but the word choices to maximize emotional reaction at the expense of clarity are.
I was hoping someone would at least point out an interesting source being paraphrased. You see ML papers that talk about the infinite-width limit of neural networks, and sometimes that's just for a proof by contradiction (as OP appears to be attempting, to be fair), and sometimes it leads to math that applies asymptotically in finite-width networks ... but you can see how after a couple rounds of playing Telephone it might be read as "stupid ML cult thinks they're gonna have infinitely powerful computers!"
roystgnr
3mo ago
But it's still weird how everyone in universe takes it so seriously.
Well, that's just because the Jedi Council knows The Truth of the Sith. (trigger warning: Yudkowsky fan fiction)
roystgnr
6mo ago
I think math just inherently requires more structure
Khan Academy has pretty much solved this problem for pre-college math.
and pushing
But here ... yeah, it really depends on the kid. Letting our kids work independently (along with a charter school that is very flexible), my son got 5 or 6 years ahead in math because he loves math, his older sister got a couple years ahead because she loves the idea of getting into a good college, and his younger sister just does what she's asked to because she loves her mommy, which is going to put our "don't be pushy parents" philosophy to the test in the coming years.
roystgnr
1yr ago
When the causal graph has more than two nodes, something can have a negative correlation (when measured with no controls) despite having a positive causative effect (which would show a positive correlation in an RCT), or vice versa. People who get chemotherapy are way more likely to die of cancer than people who don't.
I can't imagine the education/fertility relationship being an example of that, though. Nerds go to college more and have fewer kids, but not as many fewer as they'd have had without going to college? Sounds like a stretch.
roystgnr
1yr ago
It just says "having previously taken an oath" - shouldn't that apply to former office-holders as well, even if their term(s) ended before the insurrection?
(still doesn't seem like it should have applied to Cox, who was neither a present nor former office-holder before the Civil War)
roystgnr
2yr ago
a big disaster (not extinction, or close to it, but some kind of big spectacle) that prompts serious regulation
Fingers crossed. With typical normalization of deviance this is how it happens, because eventually you push farther than is safe and that causes a spectacular disaster. But does that still hold when a disaster is an agent with obvious incentives to avoid spectacle? It could be that the first thing smart enough to cause a real disaster is also smart enough to hold back until the disaster would be irrecoverable.
roystgnr
2yr ago
Yes, homicides fell.
This isn't the data I linked to. The violent crime rate is about 75x the homicide rate, and both fell in half.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/108876790200600203?journalCode=hsxa
This talks about a lethality decrease from the 1960s to 90s. I'm talking about reductions in 98% non-lethal crime from the 90s through 2010s.
it's hard to claim the increase in violence as a good thing.
It's especially hard if violence decreased 50%.
roystgnr
2yr ago
If you have a suggestion that isn't "ban certain topics/arguments," let's hear it.
I've always been a fan of rate-limiting, in theory. If the "weekly" thread was a yearly thread then my reaction would probably be an excited "wow, here comes the fight again!" rather than an apprehensive "is anyone going to wade into the fight again or has everyone been exhausted to apathy now?"
So, wishful thinking, but rebranded via the wishful-thinking of "surely it's just a female problem"? The irony is delicious.
Two days ago was the anniversary of the phrase "is it logical, is it truly logical that we really have a system that has to be 53 degrees to fly?", uttered by the manager of NASA's Solid Rocket Booster program, a month after an SRB failure at low temperatures had destroyed Challenger, two weeks after Feynman had demonstrated O-ring material becoming inflexible when chilled ... and maybe the commission was just giving Mulloy rope to hang himself, but nobody in the room full of men even stopped him to point out the logical fallacy!
More options
Context Copy link