|
Wow, GOP candidate Will Hurd actually coming out and saying Trump and DeSantis are wrong on Ukraine policy and advocates more vigorous support. Color me surprised.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 17:54 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 19:59 |
|
Sephyr posted:Yep. Putin is a mobster and a fuckhead, but it has been a bit disquieting watching supposedly level-headed people drooling to see Russia become a larger version of post-Khaddafi Lybia, only with nukes. Do you think Russia will get to have a peaceful, democratic transition of power away from Putin? A Russia able to concentrate its power to invade its neighbors seems worse than infighting. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 25, 2023 |
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:02 |
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Do you think Russia will get to have a peaceful, democratic transition of power away from Putin?
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:03 |
|
cat botherer posted:Nobody thinks that. However, that fact doesn't imply that any transition of power away from Putin would be a good thing. Europe is currently experiencing what a concentration of power in Putin looks like.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:05 |
|
Are we not honoring the mod request to keep Russia posting to the other thread? Google Jeb Bush posted:It's good to have sent the signal up here, but I'd like to preemptively request that unless it's definitely the US side of the current events, talk about the Russian coup / civil war / elaborate ritual suicide of Prigozhin go to the Ukrainewar thread. There's a pretty fair chance this will get Very Spicy. hell, if it gets spicy enough it might need its own thread
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:09 |
|
In U.S. news, the NYT has an interesting dive into the allegations that a Harvard professor whose specialty is research into honesty has been accused of lying & rigging her research. I've bolded the cliffs instead of restating them: quote:Harvard Scholar Who Studies Honesty Is Accused of Fabricating Findings I'd be interested in knowing whether her bogus research was cited by Sunstein to promote "nudging" or by others.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:16 |
|
Zwabu posted:Wow, GOP candidate Will Hurd actually coming out and saying Trump and DeSantis are wrong on Ukraine policy and advocates more vigorous support. Color me surprised. nothing surprising about that if youve ever heard of will hurd before. hes a former cia officer lol most rest of the gop candidates besides trump or desantis are all in on ukraine, e.g. pence. and i dont think trump or desantis actually believe anything
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:19 |
|
Personally I wasn’t rooting for Wagner to win. I was rooting for them to distract Russia long enough for Ukraine to make significant progress on their counter offensive. I can’t think of anyone who actually knows the deal with Wagner and wanted Pringles to take over from Putin.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:28 |
|
Madkal posted:My buddy doesn't know who the Wagner group is so was thinking it was a group of soldiers fed up with the war and wanting Putin gone so the war could end. TBH, I didn't know either and initially thought it was military uprising against Putin's fascism until I read about it and educated myself. Really comforting to know that the two most heavily armed and nuclear capable nations on the planet are racing each other to see who can become more fascist.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:57 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:TBH, I didn't know either and initially thought it was military uprising against Putin's fascism until I read about it and educated myself. Really comforting to know that the two most heavily armed and nuclear capable nations on the planet are racing each other to see who can become more fascist. Not only that but Prigozhin is also under criminal indictment (from the US, mind you) for interfering with the 2016 election and funding the "Internet Research Agency", so he's likely one of the people responsible for a good portion of right-wing media addicts in the US wearing Putin-colored glasses 24x7. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerr...sh=612800f67f93
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 19:04 |
|
As per GJB's request, please talk about Mr. Prigozhin in the Ukraine War thread unless there is something specifically about the United States. Edit: The post just before this one would be an example of one directly related to the US. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jun 25, 2023 |
# ? Jun 25, 2023 19:39 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:In U.S. news, the NYT has an interesting dive into the allegations that a Harvard professor whose specialty is research into honesty has been accused of lying & rigging her research. Thanks, Willa. This type of thing drives me up a wall. You're going to have bad actors in any system, but the fact that this is such a pervasive problem really speaks to systemic problems in the academic and scientific publishing communities. In my opinion it's driven by two interconnected problems. First professors are rewarded by counting the number of publications they produce. It's got nothing to do with quality in all about numbers. how many can you get published? Second, getting something published is almost impossible, unless you find a statistically significant result. For all the talk of the importance of replication, trying to submit a replication paper is going to get your rear end rejected. It's not "novel" or "interesting". You're expected to build on existing work, but take it in a new direction. So we're heavily disincentivized from doing the necessary work of replication to ensure that results are actually significant and not simply the result of P-hacking or simply statistical error. And we are incentivized to treat unreplicated research as gospel for that reason. Research takes time, work and funding. So if you put all that time and effort into a study and it doesn't pan out (and by paying out I have course mean get a statistically significant result) you're essentially rewarded with nothing. Finally at the publication stage where you would expect all of this work to be verified there's no expectation that the researcher will actually provide their raw data. Without having to provide your raw data it's exceptionally easy to insert a few data points here and there to ensure you get the result that publishers will like. This all works together to ensure that some of the most prominent papers in these disciplines end up falsified. Now let's count up how many paper cited Dr. Gino's work, assuming it was all legit. Massive amount of scientific effort wasted.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 21:10 |
|
The entire publishing thing is a racket of the worst order and I Have Some Opinions about it. Like yeah I've got a couple Nature papers under my belt, sure, but how much does that help me as a researcher, inform any future research, or even evaluate my work? It doesn't; we found something sexy and people knew people (professors and editors) and it happened, and that was that. Academic work is so obsessed with (in my opinion false) metrics and generally pretending to be a Sim game about producing science points rather than actually about caring about scientific work that well buh. If science tries to emulate capitalism, no matter how juvenile and silly the attempt is, you'll wind up with results like this. (And I am aware of my name-sake's anti-thesis to this situation!) I don't pretend to have an answer to exactly how "fundamental" research should be funded, but surely publication metrics have failed at every step of the way. edit: Also guess how much universities et al have to pay for subscriptions to publications, and how many of them are owned by like 2 publishing houses? Geez Luise, talk about perverted incentives all the way down Rappaport fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 25, 2023 |
# ? Jun 25, 2023 21:24 |
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Thanks, Willa. This type of thing drives me up a wall. You're going to have bad actors in any system, but the fact that this is such a pervasive problem really speaks to systemic problems in the academic and scientific publishing communities. In my opinion it's driven by two interconnected problems. I can’t believe someone at a business school would do something dishonest. Isn’t it an established phenomenon that businesses students (undergraduate) report a greater willingness to cheat when used in social science surveys vs regular BA/BS students? I recall reading that it was something that needed to be corrected for.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 21:27 |
|
Dr Gino clearly should have had to attest to the accuracy of her papers before submitting them rather than after
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 21:46 |
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Thanks, Willa. This type of thing drives me up a wall. You're going to have bad actors in any system, but the fact that this is such a pervasive problem really speaks to systemic problems in the academic and scientific publishing communities. In my opinion it's driven by two interconnected problems. yes but have you considered that the bobby broccoli video on this will be highly entertaining
|
# ? Jun 25, 2023 21:56 |
|
I AM GRANDO posted:I can’t believe someone at a business school would do something dishonest. Isn’t it an established phenomenon that businesses students (undergraduate) report a greater willingness to cheat when used in social science surveys vs regular BA/BS students? I recall reading that it was something that needed to be corrected for. Can that study be replicated?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 06:36 |
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Do you think Russia will get to have a peaceful, democratic transition of power away from Putin? A Russia able to concentrate its power to invade its neighbors seems worse than infighting. Unless Putin is as weakened by this incident as western news outlets clearly hope, he will probably just pick a successor. If things devolve into civil war when he is out of power that would be pretty crazy. Even if he dies in office without a clear power structure in place, I would like to think violence is limited to certain officials jumping out of windows with bullets in their back.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 12:08 |
|
2nd good ruling in a row on this issue. Very strange https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-redistricting quote:The Supreme Court said Monday that Louisiana’s congressional map must be redrawn to add a second majority-Black district.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 14:54 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:2nd good ruling in a row on this issue. Very strange It's the same ruling as before. They are just declining to hear this case because the question was already answered by the previous ruling.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:08 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's the same ruling as before. They are just declining to hear this case because the question was already answered by the previous ruling. The need to be consistent has never constrained this court before.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:24 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The need to be consistent has never constrained this court before. Unfortunately Mississippi only has four reps so its delegation will likely remain 25% black despite the state being 3/8 black.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:24 |
|
they're also trying to build up good karma to burn on something bad.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:43 |
|
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) announced his retirement a few weeks ago. It is now official that Delaware's current lone House member (Lisa Blunt-Rochester) is running for his seat and State House member (Sarah McBride) is running for the newly opened House of Representatives seat. McBride would be the first transgender person elected to Congress in U.S. history. Lisa Blunt Rochester is essentially a generic Dem on the left-side of the caucus, but not too wild. She will be an objective improvement over Tom Carper, but will probably be a backbencher that you don't hear much about (for good and bad). She would be the third black woman elected to the Senate in U.S. history. Sarah McBride is also a "generically liberal" Democrat and the House seat will not change much ideologically. https://twitter.com/LisaBRochester/status/1671488134511730693 https://twitter.com/SarahEMcBride/status/1673301518420783107
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:43 |
|
PhazonLink posted:they're also trying to build up good karma to burn on something bad. Is there a chance they realized they may have overextended on their draconian mindset and are trying to give a smidgen of "bipartisanship" to try to get the shy Republicans (ie: "undecided") to vote R again?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 16:01 |
|
Randalor posted:Is there a chance they realized they may have overextended on their draconian mindset and are trying to give a smidgen of "bipartisanship" to try to get the shy Republicans (ie: "undecided") to vote R again?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 16:07 |
|
PhazonLink posted:they're also trying to build up good karma to burn on something bad. I'm not sure why would need Good Karma unless they expect congress to start packing the court or something? They're accountable to no one, that's the whole point. I think the simplest answer is just that judges don't really give a poo poo about their parties after they're appointed, they just have their own personal biases and the biases of their donors.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 16:15 |
|
They're definitely going to completely destroy Affirmative Action so I could see Roberts saying give me something to balance that off
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 16:52 |
|
They aren't personally accountable but they aren't totally immune to public opinion. One way that happens is that the court making unpopular rulings like Dobbs causes people to vote for Democrats in elections, which doesn't personally cost unelected judges their offices but does make them unhappy because they're Republicans. I don't think Roberts is more moderate than someone like Kavanaugh, as much as he's more concerned about getting Republicans elected.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:00 |
|
$42 billion of the bipartisan infrastructure bill from 2021 was allocated for broadband expansion. Part of the reason it has taken so long to be distributed is that the FCC has been revamping the way they collect data on internet speeds and access. Previously, U.S. data on internet access came primarily from the telecom companies themselves. The new FCC data has identified and corrected roughly 4 million mistakes in that data and identified an additional 500,000 homes that were not being picked up under the previous data. The U.S. Government has spent the past 1.5 years changing their procedures and definitions of "high-speed internet access" to identify all Americans without access to high-speed internet. There are roughly 8.5 million total. The money would result in 100% of Americans having access to high-speed cable or fiber-optic internet service. The bulk of the process is expected to happen in the next two years, but part of the schedule will depend on individual states/local governments and some areas (like the U.S. Virgin Islands, remote areas of Alaska, and Parts of Texas) will likely take much longer than the average area. As a result, they estimate that the bulk of the process will be done by 2025, but they estimate it will be 2030 before they officially reach 100%. States have a set amount of funds appropriated for them based on the FCC data and they must provide a plan to the federal government that can demonstrate it will result in 100% connectivity to high-speed internet before they can get the funds. The current standard for "high-speed" internet is 25 mbps, but the FCC is looking to change the definition to 100 mbps. Currently, 7% of Americans do not have access to internet that is at least 25 mbps. The plan requires 100% access to 25 mbps for the 7% that currently do not have access and upgrading as many under 100 mbps to reach that new minimum threshold as possible, but there is no fixed amount they are requiring for 100 mbps. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1673353411050209280 quote:Biden announces $42 billion to expand high-speed internet access
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:02 |
|
Clarste posted:I'm not sure why would need Good Karma unless they expect congress to start packing the court or something? They're accountable to no one, that's the whole point. I think the simplest answer is just that judges don't really give a poo poo about their parties after they're appointed, they just have their own personal biases and the biases of their donors. The timing of Supreme Court decisions is strategic for the party and their donors are GOP donors
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:03 |
|
Clarste posted:I'm not sure why would need Good Karma unless they expect congress to start packing the court or something? They're accountable to no one, that's the whole point. I think the simplest answer is just that judges don't really give a poo poo about their parties after they're appointed, they just have their own personal biases and the biases of their donors. (To be clear, the fact that I don't think these are functioning as bribes doesn't mean that it's not unacceptable, or that Alito and Thomas shouldn't be impeached for their lack of disclosure.) * It's kind of like having Hunter Biden on the board of your energy company.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:18 |
|
Kinda feels like the real "victims" in the Burisma saga were Burisma themselves. Hunter probably did tell them, or imply, that he could deliver his dad's support - because that was what he had to say to get the position, and the associated hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on coke and hookers. But he was full of poo poo and couldn't actually get them anything. I guess that makes Joe Biden a victim too, since it's his reputation getting slagged, but it doesn't really seem to be hurting him politically, just providing a revenue source for the Right Wing Media Industrial Complex.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:21 |
|
Randalor posted:Is there a chance they realized they may have overextended on their draconian mindset and are trying to give a smidgen of "bipartisanship" to try to get the shy Republicans (ie: "undecided") to vote R again? The simpler explanation is that they're not complete ideological zombies who vote total party line on literally everything. The conservative justices generally lean conservative, yes, but they have their own particular stances on particular issues that do frequently lead to decisions that aren't just 6-3 along ideological lines. This isn't the result the Alabama GOP wants, but it's not like Alabama is gonna immediately turn blue under fair maps. Hell, excessive gerrymandering has arguably been harmful to the GOP, because it's made them far too accountable to the hardcore base they've cultivated: ultra-safe deep-red seats are where all the longtime party functionaries are getting unseated by absolute loving maniacs.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:27 |
|
Randalor posted:Is there a chance they realized they may have overextended on their draconian mindset and are trying to give a smidgen of "bipartisanship" to try to get the shy Republicans (ie: "undecided") to vote R again? This only worked when Roberts was the 5th vote on things. He was big on finding ways to methodically take steps forward while keeping an eye on public opinion and appearances. The problem is that Thomas, Alito, and Coney Barrett are on a mission from god to burn everything down. So we've got 3 complete psychos with no scruples who always have itchy stabbing hands, and one skittish psycho who only wants to stick the knife in when nobody is looking. As a result everything rests in the hands of the two moderate psychos who don't want to knife everyone, but at the same time don't have any qualms about stabbing people in public. So when considering whether the court is exercising moderation, due to fear of public backlash or other types of loss of legitimacy, what you're really asking is if the conscious of of either Gorsuch or Kavenaugh suddenly decided to kick in on any particular case.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:34 |
|
It's been 100 years and we still don't know if Owen Roberts reversed his jurisprudence on the minimum wage in response to FDRs court packing bill or not, so I don't think it's an answerable question wrt the modern SCOTUS. https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1673369609217490947 Precipitous! zoux fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 26, 2023 |
# ? Jun 26, 2023 17:37 |
|
I'm shocked that 25% of people still have land lines. Even the boomers in my life have ditched them at this point.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 18:11 |
|
James Garfield posted:They aren't personally accountable but they aren't totally immune to public opinion. One way that happens is that the court making unpopular rulings like Dobbs causes people to vote for Democrats in elections, which doesn't personally cost unelected judges their offices but does make them unhappy because they're Republicans. I think they are becoming more aware of public opinion. 5-10 years ago, they could get away with whatever they wanted. A year ago they had people protesting outside their homes over Dobbs, and Alito just wrote an op-ed last week in WSJ pre-empting another article in ProPublica which questioned his ethics. For the record, that's never been done before and there's some egg on WSJ's face for it as well - Roberts has always been aware and is likely putting pressure on the rest to get this poo poo under control. Mellow Seas posted:SCOTUS justices don't have "donors" because they don't have to run for anything. It does appear that at least two of them do have benefactors. But really I think that the biases of your eg Thomases and Alitos tend to line up exactly with their billionaire friends, and the yacht set are just bringing these guys on lavish vacations not to influence cases, but to say "hey, this is my friend, the famous Supreme Court Justice, look how influential and well-connected I am."* They don't need to incentivize Thomas and Alito make right wing rulings. You're saying that SCOTUS operates under the patronage system, then. cat botherer posted:I'm shocked that 25% of people still have land lines. Even the boomers in my life have ditched them at this point. I think it's just available - not actually in use. Meaning infrastructure is installed for it, and still powered. I suspect the majority of landlines still in use are at small businesses who haven't upgraded to a cheap VOIP solution for whatever reason, and various companies that still have a fax machine collecting dust somewhere. I have an elderly great aunt and uncle that still use a landline, but that's it for me personally. Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 26, 2023 |
# ? Jun 26, 2023 18:14 |
|
cat botherer posted:I'm shocked that 25% of people still have land lines. Even the boomers in my life have ditched them at this point. I wonder if this is due to renters who don’t have a say in whether they have landline service
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 18:20 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 19:59 |
|
cat botherer posted:I'm shocked that 25% of people still have land lines. Even the boomers in my life have ditched them at this point. Boomers typically hate cellphones almost reflexively, especially the price points (can't blame them), and don't really understand the advantages.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2023 18:21 |