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

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

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 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.

I fairness, that is not how knowledge works, for anyone or anything. You don’t know things without input. You had an education, you receive sensory input and are able to formulate conclusions off past experiences and information. This particular argument is simply a bad faith attempt at a jab. There are much better arguments against AI.

I mean, technically if you are able bodied you have the capacity to remove anyone from office, it just generally does not end well for the one enacting the removal.

Don’t worry, they will also be making it so you have to use their data mining apps that require unconscionable permissions just to see that they are changing prices every 10 seconds.

Came here to say this. The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that police officers and other agents of the government are only legally obligated to capture criminals, not prevent laws from being broken. A cop can legally watch someone execute someone and as long as they arrest the perpetrator afterwards, they are legally in the clear. Never believe a cop who says they are here to protect you. In a world where the laws are written to protect business interests and cops only have to uphold the law, the cops are nothing more than tax funded corporate enforcers.

And here I thought the answer was to light rental properties on fire until it was too expensive to insure them and all of the landleeches ended up in squalor?

Wait, if I am reading this right it is saying that Mary’s tits should be an open tap for anyone who wants a drink?

It’s called GoodRX. Always check it. At least Walgreen’s is bound by the prices on there, I’m sure most other pharmacies are as well.

So I saw this yesterday and I can’t stop seeing things that may relate because green.

https://youtu.be/17Y82tJDk2o

No bug found, working as intended.

Why are we surprised? They were the ones who pioneered the DLC microtrans model. I would legitimately have been more surprised if this headline were the converse statement.

I feel like there is a semantic difference between an Atheist and a Pretender. Trump is a Pretender, Reagan was a Pretender. Most of the right wing legislators are pretenders. Both believers and pretenders are dangerous. Actual Athiests are open about their beliefs. They are usually fine.

Yes, many. Are they going to do any of them? Not even remotely. If any actual governance occurs while Biden is in office then they can’t claim him to be inept at governing.

The problem with this one is that while it proves that it has more smut than literally any book they are banning, it also is a direct support of their attacks on sex workers, which I would rather be able to refute as well.

Oh… I like that one.