|
Yawgmoft posted:They attacked military bases. But a regular? Either they're trolling to try provoke people, or worse. It's the equivalent of a blood libel: it's an intentional lie that is being spread to justify extermination. Anyone who has been on these forums since October should know this. Hey you! If you don't know this, click that link right now! It takes 5 seconds! You can just say "over 700 civilians killed" and be perfectly truthful! Over 700 civilians were killed in the attack. That's bad enough. Why lie? If you want to say the full toll, you can say "over 700 civilians killed, 100 police and security, and 300 soldiers" to be thorough or you can say "over 1100 people killed" and that's still perfectly truthful! "1400 civilians killed" is just an outright lie. And why are we talking about soldiers off duty and at a Starbucks? Talking about soldiers who may be indistinguishable from civilians is just muddying the waters. The soldiers in question were killed and taken prisoner at their bases when Hamas overran them. Those are the ones who cannot count as civilians.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Source? I'm curious about this, too. I've seen eyewitness testimony to IDF gunships firing on fleeing vehicles, tanks firing on kibbutz houses, infantry emptying small arms fire through doors and walls, and to the IDF shooting hostages rather than attempting to negotiate with the hostage-takers, all on Oct 7th. But the poster you're responding to said that those sorts of incidents made up a "significant chunk" of the killing and I don't have any idea whether that is true or not and I have never seen even an estimate as to what that number might be. It could be 3 people or 300 for all I know. If any such estimate exists, I would also love to see it. I'd even be interested in an obviously biased estimate - like if the IDF tried to estimate the number, that would at least give us a lower bound.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wasn't she always pretty much a republican anyway? This is a recurring problem with Democrats who are former troops. And yet, they just can't seem to resist nominating them. "This person can win some Republican votes" obviously carries with it the corollary "because they have some Republican positions." But that doesn't seem to deter them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Polls don't have any predictive effect this far out and are just random noise at this point in an election. This has been pointed out many times. I was able to find polling average graphs since 2000. Basically all the recent ones fell into 2 categories: 1. Some elections are very stable and the results from March are basically the same as the results from October. 2. Some start out with a big lead for one candidate, which narrows but they stay ahead. Bush vs Kerry was the only exception since 2000. Bush started well behind and finished decently ahead. I found a site which shows June polls to actual results before 2000. Putting it together, since 1960, the republican has improved from June to actual 12 times and the Democrats only four times. Wide races tend to close and close races tend to stay close. This year appears to be close, so we can expect it to stay close more likely than not. The June leader lost 6 times out of 16, so that gives you some indication of unreliability, too. But they may be unreliable in a predictable way, right? But then, all of this is just about national popular vote polling and I have no idea about state polls. I'd love to see other sources on the issue if you have any! Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 6, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Nobody wants to live there though, including immigrants. I just drove through upstate New York and Vermont and it's absolutely beautiful and would be a lovely place to live with some investment. Some towns there looked lovely and some looked like depressed dumps. You could put money into fixing up the dumps. Too bad the US government doesn't do that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I'm not talking about alternative people who you technically can vote for. I'm talking about alternatives who have a meaningful chance to win. Why? Why is that what you want to talk about? Jill loving Stein winning the election is just as likely as your one vote for Biden making any difference. That is to say, both have zero probability. So why do you care if the person you vote for has a reasonable chance to win? Your vote does not affect those chances "meaningfully" anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
If two events have probabilities within 0.00001% of each other, it's more than fair to say that they are equally likely. You can try to move the goalposts to "proportionately likely" but that wasn't my claim. And yes, in the best case scenario, it's like buying a lottery ticket. And if that's your reason for voting, that's fine. But it makes any kind of vote-shaming look really stupid. "You didn't want to wait in line for an hour to buy a lottery ticket?! How dare you!" Furthermore, it is relevant to anyone whose reasons for voting might be a mix of practical and idealistic. If you think it's your civic duty to vote for your preferred candidate, and your preferred candidate is a 3rd party candidate, or if you have a feeling of moral compulsion not to vote for a candidate who is doing things you abhor, you might nevertheless decide to compromise your principles if you see a pragmatic reason to do so. When the pragmatic argument is talking about absolute best-case theoretical scenario probabilities of 1 in 10 million, you would have to hold your principles very lightly indeed to be swayed by that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:What you actually said is that they both have "zero probability." Casting a pivotal vote definitely doesn't have zero probability (if you live in the right state). I'm literally a stats prof and I don't need your correction. If I say an event with a probability of somewhere between 0.0000000001 and 0.0000001 is "zero" I'm not being inaccurate in any way. I am in fact being far more precise than is typical for statistics in this thread. If you say flipping a coin is 50/50 I'm not going to correct you with "oh, actually, we haven't been able to confirm that for every common type of coin. The number of flips required to confirm it to within an accuracy of 0.0000001 is impractical. And some coins have been proven to have a slight bias." Frankly, that's just pedantry that is useless to the point of stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
^^^^^^ Edit: sorry, I was typing this before you posted! I'll drop the subject.James Garfield posted:In that case, I'm betting on becoming president because quantum tunneling teleports me into the oval office. It's also equally likely Yeah, I suppose that makes only slightly less sense than deciding who to vote for on the assumption that your vote will actually decide the election. Basically, Jill Stein winning has no chance, your vote deciding the election has no chance. So if you're worried that both major parties have nominated someone who is losing their mental faculties, you can feel free to vote for someone else since your vote will not be decisive and nobody can make you vote for either of these senile genocidaires. And you can also feel free to keep worrying because the only way the next president will have a well-functioning brain is if one of these dudes kicks the bucket before January and their replacement is marginally less old. That scenario is vastly more likely than any of these others we've been talking about. Statistically, each of them has somewhere between 5-10% chance of dying in the next year. (Also, I should note that those of us who were aware of politics in 2000 saw what happens when a state that is crucial for electoral victory is actually decided by a small number of votes: they rig it. So the theoretical 1 in 10 million goes down even closer to zero. This is why it's important to have control over local and state governments: when it comes time for the rigging, you want your guys doing it.) Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
FMguru posted:There's video! The video doesn't show him hitting the target. I'm calling fake news on this old man's story! But for real, hitting even a large target at 100 yards without practice like he claims would be insanely lucky. Maybe it was a gigantic target... In the video right before Joe shoots, it looks like they're shooting at a car??? And there are people standing downrange next to the car??? The quality is bad and we get a super brief glimpse before they cut, so I'm really not sure. A person might stand 10 feet from a target that a pro is shooting at (still a bad idea, but I can see it), but no way would they stand there while an amateur shoots unless they know he can't make the distance. The prime minister next to Joe does not look like he is able to draw the bow, and the video cuts right as he starts to struggle, so that part I think is confirmed true. Joe outshot the Mongolian prime minister. But Joe doesn't get a full draw either! Compare how much of the arrow is past the bow between Joe and the actual archer who shot before Joe. He's about 6-8 inches short! I don't know if that arrow can go 100 yards with a draw that short. Maybe? I can't rule it out, but it seems very dubious. Before any of you need to chime in and tell me, I realize that doing this kind of in-depth analysis on an old man's big fish story is silly. Sitting around telling dubious stories is what old men should be doing, not running a country. Let Joe be a charming old man who sits around telling stories and enjoying the fruits of his labors in retirement. Let ALL your septuagenarians and octogenarians do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yes. The Constitution says that a vacancy occurs upon resignation, impeachment, or death. Well, if a legal declaration of death is all that's needed, Democrats should just pay off a couple of bureaucrats with a nudge and a wink, fast track some appointments, then let the not-actually-dead justices sue to try get their seats back. Underhanded sure, but way more humane than the other way to get an official death certificate for the conservative justices.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
"First they came for the Gazans, and I voted for that poo poo because the other guy was worse and anyway, I bet the fascists will stop at eliminating one group." -Martin Niemoller if he was around today, probably.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:selling it will allow new management to change the algorithm that shows other people said mean things
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/michaelsobolik/status/1787902538928304338 Yeah, if the government of China made a law saying that Google or Facebook had to sell its proprietary algorithms to a Chinese company outside its control, I would expect that company to refuse as well. I don't think this is remotely surprising. And if they did refuse and China banned it as a consequence, I think we would simply call it a ban and not do a weird dance of "oh, but Google could have avoided it if they just let a Chinese company operate as Google in China, so it's not really a ban."
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Zore posted:I mean this is literally why China does not have Facebook or Google. Yes! Technically, they have a Google China, but most of its services are not available unless you go through a VPN and China tries to stop people from using VPNs... and you can get into all kinds of details, but if someone says that most Google services are banned in China, trying to argue that it's not a ban is just pedantry. It is a ban.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
So in this thread I just read a bunch of detailed descriptions of the types of things China is doing with regards to foreign exchange, subsidies, etc. But I also just read in this thread that the rule crafted supposedly as a result of all these details is just "no consumer subsidies if any important bits come from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran." And it's like... so are those other countries doing the same thing as China, or is this just the current shortlist of "countries we'd like to ruin" for the US? It's literally W's "axis of evil" with Iraq off (because you already ruined it) and Russia and China added. But we're supposed to think it's because of China's efforts to control their own inflation while keeping exports cheap? I mean, I guess in the eyes of the US state, that might be as bad as Iran, NK, and Russia, but I think that speaks very poorly for the judgement of the US state.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The sourcing requirements in the IRA and the tariffs are not connected. China is also challenging the U.S. sourcing requirements at the WTO and the E.U. says the U.S. sourcing requirements might not technically be a violation of WTO rules, but they don't like it and want it changed. Yes sorry, they are indeed separate things. One of them might plausibly be a result of all those details, while the other seems like just an enemies list.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2024 21:38
|
|