USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

«‹›279 »

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

cat botherer posted:

Yeah, which means that their ideas on how those things were linked doesn't apply to this situation. What does it say about their theories if they suddenly become invalid for apparently mystifying reasons?

What? A model that hits the hypothesis 99.98% of the time and the null hypothesis 0.02% of the time would be considered an unbelievable hit ratio. That would be a very weird metric to use because it would render almost all medical science as completely random chance. You were just talking about hard science and in hard science, if you have a P-value of sub 0.01, that would be considered a proven fact. Anything with less than 0.5 is considered statistically significant.

Even if a model was 99.9% wrong, your standard wouldn't actually prove that.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 15:48

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

mawarannahr posted:

Source?

The fact that we're posting on the internet. I'm also largely joking, its just weird to compare something like economics to physics.

Lib and let die posted:

And took an economic risk of $10 to do so.

Hoisted on my own petard

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:34

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

CommieGIR posted:

The fact that we're posting on the internet.

And took an economic risk of $10 to do so.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:37

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

What? A model that hits the hypothesis 99.98% of the time and the null hypothesis 0.02% of the time would be considered an unbelievable hit ratio. That would be a very weird metric to use because it would render almost all medical science as completely random chance. You were just talking about hard science and in hard science, if you have a P-value of sub 0.01, that would be considered a proven fact. Anything with less than 0.5 is considered statistically significant.

Even if a model was 99.9% wrong, your standard wouldn't actually prove that.

P-values are complete nonsense in these situations. In situations with low statistical power, or a significant prior, a hypothesis with a 0.01 P-value can easily have a >50% chance of being wrong (that's not even getting into issues like P-hacking). This is one of those situations. This doesn't bite physics experiments in the rear end as much, but it is largely responsible for the replication crisis in social psychology and medicine. Economics is so hosed up that a replication crisis can't even be detected. Everyone thinks that a p-value of 0.01 means the hypothesis has a 1% chance of being wrong, but that is not even close to accurate. It's just what most people think.

https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/p-valuestatement.pdf

cat botherer fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:38

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

projecthalaxy posted:

I know states of emergency give the President pretty wide powers to do like whatever to solve the emergency but do health emergencies work the same way? Like when the trigger laws or whatever they were called went into effect and abortion became illegal in those states would the emergency have let President Biden just say "actually it is still legal"? Use National Guards to keep the clinics open? Do we know?

No, absolutely not. Moreover, the Biden administration has already had its nose bloodied over the abuse of public health agencies to try to claim powers the president definitely did not actually have, when the Supreme Court struck down the eviction ban (which the administration had justified as a public health measure). So the current Court has made it pretty clear that they aren't in any mood to tolerate the administration claiming vast powers via expansive interpretations of public health powers.

Using such powers to try to entirely halt the implementation of a Supreme Court decision would obviously get sent to the courts pretty much immediately, and the courts would issue an immediate injunction against the Biden administration's measures.

From the article:

quote:

Becerra said in an interview last week that the administration must move cautiously in the wake of the Supreme Court decision ending Roe.

�Anything we do, we know we�re going to be in court the next day,� he said. �And so we have to make it stick. We�re not going to over-promise because the worst thing you can do is over-promise early.�

You can agree or disagree with this statement from a PR and election-campaigning POV, but there's no way something like that isn't going straight to the courts.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:44

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Now that Feinstein and Casey have stated their positions, they finally have every Democrat on record about whether they would waive the filibuster specifically for abortion rights and vote for the WHCA.

Unsurprisingly, they are currently short 2 Senate votes for the WHCA specifically.

It's going to end up moot on this issue anyway, since even if they keep the Senate they are most likely going to lose the House, but organizers and activists for other issues need to stick with this tactic of demanding commitments to specific votes on specific dates rather than vague promises of a post-election position. That way, you at least have people on record as a liar if they give an exact number and date, but then back out.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1545441360253259776

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:47

Flying-PCP: Oct 2, 2005

Main Paineframe posted:

No, absolutely not. Moreover, the Biden administration has already had its nose bloodied over the abuse of public health agencies to try to claim powers the president definitely did not actually have, when the Supreme Court struck down the eviction ban (which the administration had justified as a public health measure). So the current Court has made it pretty clear that they aren't in any mood to tolerate the administration claiming vast powers via expansive interpretations of public health powers.

Using such powers to try to entirely halt the implementation of a Supreme Court decision would obviously get sent to the courts pretty much immediately, and the courts would issue an immediate injunction against the Biden administration's measures.

From the article:

You can agree or disagree with this statement from a PR and election-campaigning POV, but there's no way something like that isn't going straight to the courts.

I think a lot of people don't agree with and/or don't understand the framing of 'the administration had its nose bloodied' because the Supreme Court struck down something they tried to do. It's not clear to most people how this amounts the administration actually losing something it had before, or to be more specific, it gets into the 'political capital' idea that is both controversial, and to whatever extent it is a real thing, it is very poorly understood. Why can't the administration just, yknow, "Tatakae...tatakae!", particularly now in what feels to so many like the the 11th hour of the nation's existence in any reconizeable form.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:50

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Now that Feinstein and Casey have stated their positions, they finally have every Democrat on record about whether they would waive the filibuster specifically for abortion rights and vote for the WHCA.

Unsurprisingly, they are currently short 2 Senate votes for the WHCA specifically.

Does the 2-minute video in that tweet explain which two senators are against the legislation?

edit: Why, no it doesn't.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 17:59

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Willa Rogers posted:

Does the 2-minute video in that tweet explain which two senators are against the legislation?

edit: Why, no it doesn't.

Manchin is opposed and Sinema says she is for it, but won't vote for any filibuster carveout.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 18:02

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Willa Rogers posted:

Does the 2-minute video in that tweet explain which two senators are against the legislation?

edit: Why, no it doesn't.

This is something I hate more than anything about our government, the lack of actually voting on anything. Like even if there's no chance of something happen stuff should be fought for so these assholes can be on record as much as possible as "yeah this person absolutely officially doesn't think you deserve any rights" but oh no decorum someone's feelings might be hurt. Like instead the perpetual horseshit of get out and vote we'll get'em next time you could have the president saying "Well hey were about to do [X thing that would be good that people want] but [SPECIFIC NAMES] went out of their way to gently caress it up for all of us.

I know that's not done because the Ds don't want to actually change anything but it gets so frustrating.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 8, 2022 18:34

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Flying-PCP posted:

I think a lot of people don't agree with and/or don't understand the framing of 'the administration had its nose bloodied' because the Supreme Court struck down something they tried to do. It's not clear to most people how this amounts the administration actually losing something it had before, or to be more specific, it gets into the 'political capital' idea that is both controversial, and to whatever extent it is a real thing, it is very poorly understood. Why can't the administration just, yknow, "Tatakae...tatakae!", particularly now in what feels to so many like the the 11th hour of the nation's existence in any reconizeable form.

If the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the executive branch can't stretch a particular power well beyond the text of its underlying laws for the sake of implementing political policy, and the composition of the Supreme Court hasn't changed much since that ruling, then there's no point in trying to stretch a similar power in a very similar way with a similar lack of Congressional support - it's just going to get slapped down immediately with similar reasoning.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 18:48

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Main Paineframe posted:

If the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the executive branch can't stretch a particular power well beyond the text of its underlying laws for the sake of implementing political policy, and the composition of the Supreme Court hasn't changed much since that ruling, then there's no point in trying to stretch a similar power in a very similar way with a similar lack of Congressional support - it's just going to get slapped down immediately with similar reasoning.

It sounds like you're saying "We shouldn't try to score points, the other team would just stop us."

If that's not what you're saying please explain because I don't see the difference. I don't know but I don't think that's a winning strategy.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:01

Judgy Fucker: Mar 24, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

If the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the executive branch can't stretch a particular power well beyond the text of its underlying laws for the sake of implementing political policy, and the composition of the Supreme Court hasn't changed much since that ruling, then there's no point in trying to stretch a similar power in a very similar way with a similar lack of Congressional support - it's just going to get slapped down immediately with similar reasoning.

What can the Supreme Court do to enforce its rulings?

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:09

Buckwheat Sings: Feb 9, 2005

Didn't the Republicans attempt to kill off Obama care like over a hundred times by calling it to a vote constantly? And by doing so got to bring it up constantly in the news?

If you don't even bother trying to score you won't win.

Also no one cares if you play by the rules when the other team is cheating their asses off and winning.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:11

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

TipTow posted:

What can the Supreme Court do to enforce its rulings?

The US Marshalls are under the justice department, but are supposed to enforce court rulings.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:22

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

cat botherer posted:

The US Marshalls are under the justice department, but are supposed to enforce court rulings.

The US Marshalls are under the DoJ which is executive branch

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:28

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Sharkie posted:

It sounds like you're saying "We shouldn't try to score points, the other team would just stop us."

If that's not what you're saying please explain because I don't see the difference. I don't know but I don't think that's a winning strategy.

To continue the sports analogy, if the other team has a 12-foot tall monster guarding the basket you don't send Steph Curry out there to attempt 3-pointers for two hours in the hopes that the guard suddenly shits himself, because you'd rather save Curry's energy and arms for a game they might win. At a certain point it's not worth the literal calories needed to do something, and you risk "damaging" (e.g. burnout, discouragement) good players by making them play into failure. There may be secondary benefits of doing it anyway (e.g. visibility) but it's not a simple choice of "roll 4d20 for saving throw" - someone's going to carry the ball and that person needs to eat and sleep.

Zachack fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:29

TheIncredulousHulk: Sep 3, 2012

Just a theory of course but I'd think if your case to midterm voters was "we want to do good things but we don't quite have the force to push the ball over the goalline and you can change that" I would expect it to be a more compelling message if you're frequently putting yourself in positions to demonstrate this to the public. Continually trying and failing is at least a show of effort, intent, and will in comparison to preemptive surrender. Put another way, I think it is much easier to cheer for a team struggling to mount a comeback than it is for a team that won't try to mount a comeback until they've received sufficient cheering

Of course this all elides that the administration is observably willing to fight over issues it really wants, such as the ability to abuse public health laws to deport immigrants, which they did lose in court over, but kept fighting, filing injunctions, etc and kept the practice alive to the point that now they're being sued to keep it after they finally decided to end the policy. Just talking about the optics and whatnot

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:34

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

TipTow posted:

What can the Supreme Court do to enforce its rulings?

Well, let's turn that question around.

What can the President of the United States do to implement his policies? For the most part, he gives orders to federal employees, who follow legal orders from the president.

Now, if the Supreme Court rules that a given policy is illegal and unconstitutional, then not only do the orders to implement that policy no longer have legal force, but implementing that policy would actually be illegal. While some federal employees may choose to follow illegal orders regardless (such as, notoriously, the various intelligence agencies who can hide behind secrecy to avoid their crimes coming to light), it's unlikely that enough would rally behind "gently caress the Supreme Court" to implement an illegal policy nationwide in active defiance of not only the courts but also state and local officials.

Buckwheat Sings posted:

Didn't the Republicans attempt to kill off Obama care like over a hundred times by calling it to a vote constantly? And by doing so got to bring it up constantly in the news?

If you don't even bother trying to score you won't win.

Also no one cares if you play by the rules when the other team is cheating their asses off and winning.

I don't see anyone cheering on the current Congress for repeatedly bringing progressive policies to a vote even though they knew they didn't have the votes to actually pass them.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:40

Srice: Sep 11, 2011

Zachack posted:

To continue the sports analogy, if the other team has a 12-foot tall monster guarding the basket you don't send Steph Curry out there to attempt 3-pointers for two hours in the hopes that the guard suddenly shits himself, because you'd rather save Curry's energy and arms for a game they might win. At a certain point it's not worth the literal calories needed to do something, and you risk "damaging" (e.g. burnout, discouragement) good players by making them play into failure. There may be secondary benefits of doing it anyway (e.g. visibility) but it's not a simple choice of "roll 4d20 for saving throw" - someone's going to carry the ball and that person needs to eat and sleep.

In this sports analogy the fans are being told that they need to defeat the monster while the players aren't even on the court.

TheIncredulousHulk posted:

Just a theory of course but I'd think if your case to midterm voters was "we want to do good things but we don't quite have the force to push the ball over the goalline and you can change that" I would expect it to be a more compelling message if you're frequently putting yourself in positions to demonstrate this to the public. Continually trying and failing is at least a show of effort, intent, and will in comparison to preemptive surrender. Put another way, I think it is much easier to cheer for a team struggling to mount a comeback than it is for a team that won't try to mount a comeback until they've received sufficient cheering

Of course this all elides that the administration is observably willing to fight over issues it really wants, such as the ability to abuse public health laws to deport immigrants, which they did lose in court over, but kept fighting, filing injunctions, etc and kept the practice alive to the point that now they're being sued to keep it after they finally decided to end the policy. Just talking about the optics and whatnot

I like what AOC tweeted in the aftermath of the Roe ruling, which was basically that you can't just tell people to vote while asking them for money, you gotta tell them what your specific plans are and how you hope to achieve them.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:54

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Srice posted:

In this sports analogy the fans are being told that they need to defeat the monster while the players aren't even on the court.

"If you buy season tickets now, we'll try to draft players who can defeat the monster next season" meanwhile the monster is setting demolition charges all over the arena

# ? Jul 8, 2022 19:55

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

haveblue posted:

"If you buy season tickets now, we'll try to draft players who can defeat the monster next season" meanwhile the monster is setting demolition charges all over the arena

I feel like I've legit seen pitches like this to season ticket holders from Dan Snyder

# ? Jul 8, 2022 20:20

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

To pull us away from hypotheticals for a bit, the White House has taken some action today.

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1545440070156648450
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1545447455558406145
The Executive Order is pretty clearly aimed at protecting patients who cross state lines, keeping options open for those who can't, and (importantly) aiding in the legal defense of people and organizations that get prosecuted. The full list is here, but here's a quick summary of the meaningful measures, along with my interpretations:

Have HHS and the Attorney General ready to intervene against any attempt by states to ban FDA-approved drugs that can end pregnancies, such as Mifepristone (which can be gotten via mail-order) - This one pretty much speaks for itself, the administration wants to keep those drugs themselves widely available and easy to get, though this by itself won't protect people from being prosecuted for abortions
Emphasize the federal government's willingness to enforce emergency treatment laws, including updating federal interpretations of those laws - A big part of the anti-abortion push is pressuring providers by creating ambiguity, encouraging providers to voluntarily crack down even beyond what the law requires. This measure would push back by signaling the federal government's willingness to send in the lawyers against providers who let women's lives be endangered because they're scared of the states. Good, but probably only really applies to cases where the mother's health is at risk
Direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to take every legally available step to ensure patient access to family planning care and to protect family planning providers, and take additional actions to expand access to the full range of reproductive health services, including family planning services and providers - Eh, mostly speaks for itself, but it's largely reinforcing stuff that already exists. Without specifics on new actions, I don't feel like reading the tea leaves on this one
Convene a group of legal organizations and pro bono lawyers to provide free legal representation to patients, providers, and anyone else seeking or offering abortion services - This one's interesting, since, again, the fear of being sued/prosecuted alone can be enough to provide a chilling effect even in situations where the suit is probably bogus. This plank of the order also explicitly stakes out a position that it's legal for people to travel to another state to get an abortion, and states that the administration has a "commitment to fighting any attack by a state or local official who attempts to interfere with women exercising this right"
Direct the FTC to ensure the privacy of people seeking reproductive health services, and to crack down on deceptive practices related to reproductive health services - Privacy protection is going to be real important, of course, but this also could signal a FTC crackdown on those fake family planning orgs that the right puts up next to real abortion clinics
Update HIPAA guidance to clarify that providers not only can't be compelled to disclose health data to law enforcement in most cases, but are in fact required to keep it private - Not really a game changer, but still good. It's basically the administration tapping the sign, emphasizing the rules that already exist and signaling its intention to vigorously enforce those rules.
Protect the health and safety of patients, providers, and third parties - While vague, this specifically calls out mobile health clinics on state borders as something the administration is committing to protect here. We'll see how implementation goes in practice, but it's an indication that the feds don't intend to turn a blind eye to violent raids across state borders or anything like that
Have the Attorney General provide legal assistance to abortion providers, as well as to states which pass laws protecting people who come from out-of-state to get abortions - A very good sign. While it's really a promise of future action rather than a specific thing they're doing right now, it's still a commitment to give federal support to states offering abortions to out-of-staters

Overall, it's very Biden-like: completely abiding by the law and Supreme Court jurisprudence as it currently stands, but staking out against any attempt by red states to stretch things beyond the letter of the law. Honestly, promising to aid legal defenses is more than the nothing I expected from the administration. And expressing a clear intention to stand with pro-abortion states against anti-abortion states in the event of any across-state-lines clash between them bodes well (though, of course, it isn't a binding promise).

Lastly, beyond the executive order, there's one more promise from Biden:
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1545462917079990274

A commitment to veto any federal abortion ban in Congress. Not a bad thing at all, but the only way we're going to be in a position for this promise to matter is if the GOP takes the Senate, in which case we're not getting Roe codified anytime soon.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 20:40

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Biden is giving Denzel Washington the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Denzel is literally receiving the nation's highest civilian honor and still hasn't gotten a Best Picture Oscar. For shame, Hollywood.

He's also giving one to a nurse who was the first American who received the Covid-19 vaccine, but does being first in line to get a vaccine technically count as an "especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."?

The other 15 recipients are the standard major civil rights icons, Olympic athletes, politicians who served a very long time, labor leaders, and - for some reason - a posthumous award to Steve Jobs.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-award-medal-freedom-biles-mccain-15/story?id=86321997&cid=social_twitter_abcn

Oh

Well, that ought to straighten a few things out that effect most of us then. Such as...uhh...

Glad Biden has got his priorities straight. I was really worried there for a minute about Denzel Washington's level of fame and recognition for being a singularly talented, rich, generationally talented actor who has enriched my life through his performances. That's a real load off my mind, Joe.

I like Denzel Washington a lot too. Let's all take a moment during these troubling times to focus on the pressing issue of how awesome he is because for a second there I almost forgot.

I'm gonna go watch He Got Game and celebrate this moment while I dodge debt collection phone calls from doctors and max out my credit cards to pay for gas in order to get to work.

BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 8, 2022

# ? Jul 8, 2022 20:56

Ratmtattat: Mar 10, 2004; the hairdryer

Main Paineframe posted:

A commitment to veto any federal abortion ban in Congress. Not a bad thing at all, but the only way we're going to be in a position for this promise to matter is if the GOP takes the Senate, in which case we're not getting Roe codified anytime soon.

I think most people understand Roe is dead for a very long time. It took nearly 50 years for anti-abortion groups to get enough power in the right places to overturn it, and it will likely take a very long time for pro-abortion groups to get enough power to make it permanent. Hopefully the steps taken today can provide some certainty to women and to doctors so that people can get the help they need.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 21:46

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001

5:30 on a Friday rear end news dump:

https://twitter.com/robotodd/status/1545518928587259907

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:26

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Kalli posted:

5:30 on a Friday rear end news dump:

https://twitter.com/robotodd/status/1545518928587259907

....yeah I don't think that's gonna cut it for Twitter's board. The agreement was binding and Twitter's board approved it.

He really does think he can just back out.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:27

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001

CommieGIR posted:

....yeah I don't think that's gonna cut it for Twitter's board. The agreement was binding and Twitter's board approved it.

He really does think he can just back out.

Yeah, he's gonna get sued 'cuz lol at getting him to actually pay the billion dollar backout fee.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:29

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

Ban him now you cowards

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:30

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

CommieGIR posted:

....yeah I don't think that's gonna cut it for Twitter's board. The agreement was binding and Twitter's board approved it.

He really does think he can just back out.

odds aren't bad on that, tbh

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:36

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Kalli posted:

Yeah, he's gonna get sued 'cuz lol at getting him to actually pay the billion dollar backout fee.

It may take them a while, but can almost guarantee they can get a court to side with them, especially since Twitter's lawyers were no doubt documenting his half-assed attempts to undermine the deal.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:39

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

CommieGIR posted:

....yeah I don't think that's gonna cut it for Twitter's board. The agreement was binding and Twitter's board approved it.

He really does think he can just back out.

Elon Musk is likely not going to be forced to buy Twitter (as many online seem to be suggesting). He will almost certainly have to pay the billion dollar penalty after years of legal wrangling. For a breakdown, listen to this: https://openargs.com/oa610-elons-twitter-deal-was-a-complete-blunder-its-not-happening/

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:40

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Fart Amplifier posted:

Elon Musk is likely not going to be forced to buy Twitter (as many online seem to be suggesting). He will almost certainly have to pay the billion dollar penalty after years of legal wrangling. For a breakdown, listen to this: https://openargs.com/oa610-elons-twitter-deal-was-a-complete-blunder-its-not-happening/

Yup, that is what I was referring to. Twitter isn't going to force him to buy, but they are going to drag him through the courts to get their money, because Elon couldn't shut his mouth up about a deal he already made.

# ? Jul 8, 2022 22:47