Adalast

They are both Gramps, Trump is just gramps wearing Kristy makeup.

Just start suing. Then donate all the money back to the library you sued.

They poll even worse at the end of the polling process.

Hell yes. I was so sad when neither he nor Andrew Yang were nominated.

I'm going to enjoy making up new constellations every so many years and using them to mess with people who are into Astrology.

I would genuinely cry. He is older than both of them and could literally run circles around them, both mentally and physically. I would 100% vote for Bernie and be fine with it. The vote for Biden is because the armpit of hell that I live in doesn't do ranked voting and Trump will wreck the planet. A rotting potato powering a computer core running ChatGPT left ignored on the resolute desk for 4 years would be a better alternative to these two fuckwits.

Seriously, why did they have to run Joe? If they had run someone in their 50's or 60's they would win on "well, he isn't as old as Trump" alone. If they had run someone under the age of 40 I imagine every leftist voter under the age of 50 would have been voting for them. The only reason "he's fucking old" doesn't stick to Trump is because he behaves like a horny 15 year old jacked up on cocaine and Twitter.

Just... FML.

What gets me is part of Project 2025 is planning on reclassifying all of the workers in the exact agencies this affects with sycophants and yes-men. As I understand it, the entire idea of that move is that Trump and the GOP can bypass Congress and the courts and essentially rule however they want.

Doesn't this decision run counter to that? Instead of allowing the regulatory bodies that are going to be sycophantilized to just run shot over their domains, now the risk having a non-sympathetic judge or an unfavorable swing in voting in Congress?

Oh, I get that. I actually have a BS in Applied Mathematics and specialize in Statistics, Probability Theory, and Data Science professionally. I am well aware of how unstable thses numbers are, which is why I made the jab at the "soft sciences" and their acceptable sigma analysis points.

What I was more noting was the linguistic tic of OP saying that they 'exaggerated'. I freely admit that I did not actually read the article and do not know what the author did in it, but the click-bait title was accurate given the data shared. So what was done is to 'sensationalize' the results. If we are ever going to get better and teach society how to understand when statistics are being used to manipulate, we need to be sure to describe it in a way that people can recognize one manipulation from another.

I would see an example of manipulation through exaggeration being "cops kill more white people per year than black people". Yes, this is true, but it is inflating one piece of the statistics that ignores a lot of relevant factors, like the per capita rate, the proportion of stops and actions by police which result in violence, etc.

Sensationalizing is what we have here. Intentionally choosing words that fell the full picture of the statistic in a way which causes knee jerk reactions. There isn't anything left out per se, the time frame is described, the change in the statistic is mentioned, and a potential causal relationship is proffered. Would "The overturning of Roe has caused a statistically significant increase in the number of voluntary sterilizations among young US Citizens' haave been more genuine, yes. Is it catchy or emotional, no.

I didn't read this article, so idk how they spun things, but given the title and the information you shared from the actual study, they sensationalized, not exaggerated. 5.31 is an 87% increase from 2.31, which is a rounding error off 2x. Honestly, in medical/psychological/anthropological/sociological studies the sigmas are never high enough for my comfort as a probabilist anyway.

I've become personally partial to "landleech".

When cops only legal responsibility is to enforce the law, and the laws are written to protect corporate interests, of course they will stand outside the school and arrest protesters. SCOTUS has ruled that way so many times that "to serve and protect" is literally gaslighting.

I feel as though you misunderstood. I was not defending her or AI replacing workers. I am staunchly against that and actively flight against it in my daily life. I was simply refuting the ontological basis of your argument. There are more errors in your rebuttal, but I will leave them alone.