Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't understand it either. If Harris is up roughly 1-2% in every battleground state, I can't figure out how Trump can have a 64% chance of winning.

When he beat Hillary, where she was up huge #s everywhere, he had something like a 15% chance of winning. If you adjust those numbers to the present, it appears he's got somewhere between a 45-50% chance of winning.

I'm not questioning the numbers that the model has produced, I'm questioning the whole point of the model.

eta: If one model says Trump is 65% likely to win, and another model says he's 30% likely to win, which one is right? It's impossible to say. If there's no way to tell whether the model is accurate, what's the point? (Other than to generate clicks, I mean.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not questioning the numbers that the model has produced, I'm questioning the whole point of the model.

eta: If one model says Trump is 65% likely to win, and another model says he's 30% likely to win, which one is right? It's impossible to say. If there's no way to tell whether the model is accurate, what's the point? (Other than to generate clicks, I mean.)

I think your suspicion is correct. Silver is known for predicting things, so he's dancing for his rent money. He also has a new book out. But I don't think he's acting in bad faith or saying something he knows is dubious or unfounded, as this would harm his brand.

I heard him on a podcast recently defending his position, and he reiterated that he is a Harris supporter, so it doesn't seem biased, either.

His book, BTW, sounds interesting. He carves the warring factions in the political polarization as the "River" and the "Village." The River is characterized as entrepreneurial, risk-taking, and libertarian. The Village is more established, bureaucratic, comprised significantly of the professional managerial classes.

He sees friction between these two powerful groups as a big part of polarization. The River dislikes a European managed state model and the Village is leaning increasingly toward it.

I don't know if I'll bother reading it, as I think Peter Turchin's End Times* already developed this framing with significant enough rigor that I wouldn't dispute it, but I did find Silver a very fun interview and really fucking smart.

FWIW, Trump appears to be in free fall. But this appearance matches the feel at the same time in 2016. When I, very much not Nate Silver, stated that Hillary was going to stomp Trump like Nixon had McGovern. I sense at the moment Trump cannot win. But I'm not predicting anything anymore, for good reason.

_______________
* Turchin uses historical/data analysis to demonstrate how revolutions follow periods of "elite overproduction," where groups of warring "courts," one developed and stagnant and the other insurgent, fight for control of the state/economy. Silver seems to steal this idea and repackage it as the River vs the Village.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think your suspicion is correct. Silver is known for predicting things, so he's dancing for his rent money. He also has a new book out. But I don't think he's acting in bad faith or saying something he knows is dubious or unfounded, as this would harm his brand.

I heard him on a podcast recently defending his position, and he reiterated that he is a Harris supporter, so it doesn't seem biased, either.

His book, BTW, sounds interesting. He carves the warring factions in the political polarization as the "River" and the "Village." The River is characterized as entrepreneurial, risk-taking, and libertarian. The Village is more established, bureaucratic, comprised significantly of the professional managerial classes.

He sees friction between these two powerful groups as a big part of polarization. The River dislikes a European managed state model and the Village is leaning increasingly toward it.

I don't know if I'll bother reading it, as I think Peter Turchin's End Times* already developed this framing with significant enough rigor that I wouldn't dispute it, but I did find Silver a very fun interview and really fucking smart.

FWIW, Trump appears to be in free fall. But this appearance matches the feel at the same time in 2016. When I, very much not Nate Silver, stated that Hillary was going to stomp Trump like Nixon had McGovern. I sense at the moment Trump cannot win. But I'm not predicting anything anymore, for good reason.

_______________
* Turchin uses historical/data analysis to demonstrate how revolutions follow periods of "elite overproduction," where groups of warring "courts," one developed and stagnant and the other insurgent, fight for control of the state/economy. Silver seems to steal this idea and repackage it as the River vs the Village.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/202...umbers-morris/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/202...umbers-morris/

Many of these points are worth repeating.

"But the most fundamental problem with polling is that the phenomenon it claims to record—public opinion—has no coherent meaning or existence. The polling industry resolves this conundrum by simply making “public opinion” synonymous with its methods: polls record public opinion; public opinion is what polls record. Skeptics could see this sleight of hand from the start. “Dr. Gallup does not make the public more articulate,” Lindsay Rogers, a political scientist at Columbia University, wrote in an early polemic against polling in 1949. “He only estimates how in replying to certain questions, it would say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘don’t know.’ Instead of feeling the pulse of democracy, Dr. Gallup listens to its baby talk.”

"No poll can ever be sure what portion of answers are similarly offered off the cuff or to what extent respondents hold their positions outside the survey setting. The sociologist Leo Bogart said in 1972, “The first question a pollster should ask is: ‘Have you thought about this at all? Do you have an opinion?’” But usually polling companies don’t want to know: adding questions costs time and money, and ideally they want everyone to have an opinion on everything."

"Perhaps the polling industry’s standing in society today is most analogous to that of the advertising industry that spawned it: polling organizations are similarly ubiquitous, profitable, and treated cynically by members of the public, who suspect an ulterior motive."

And this is a mother of a closer...

"Silicon Valley ultimately peddled the same feel-good story about democracy as the polling industry: that the powerful are unresponsive to the wider public because they cannot hear their voices, and if only they could hear them, then of course they would listen and act. The virtue of this diagnosis is that structural inequalities in wealth and power are left intact—all that matters in democracy is that everyone has a voice, regardless of background. In a very narrow, technical sense, their innovations have made this a reality. But the result is a loud, opinionated, and impotent public sphere, coarsened by social and economic divisions and made all the more disillusioned by the discovery that, in politics, it takes more than a voice to be heard."

Ouch.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Many of these points are worth repeating.

"But the most fundamental problem with polling is that the phenomenon it claims to record—public opinion—has no coherent meaning or existence. The polling industry resolves this conundrum by simply making “public opinion” synonymous with its methods: polls record public opinion; public opinion is what polls record. Skeptics could see this sleight of hand from the start. “Dr. Gallup does not make the public more articulate,” Lindsay Rogers, a political scientist at Columbia University, wrote in an early polemic against polling in 1949. “He only estimates how in replying to certain questions, it would say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘don’t know.’ Instead of feeling the pulse of democracy, Dr. Gallup listens to its baby talk.”

"No poll can ever be sure what portion of answers are similarly offered off the cuff or to what extent respondents hold their positions outside the survey setting. The sociologist Leo Bogart said in 1972, “The first question a pollster should ask is: ‘Have you thought about this at all? Do you have an opinion?’” But usually polling companies don’t want to know: adding questions costs time and money, and ideally they want everyone to have an opinion on everything."

"Perhaps the polling industry’s standing in society today is most analogous to that of the advertising industry that spawned it: polling organizations are similarly ubiquitous, profitable, and treated cynically by members of the public, who suspect an ulterior motive."

And this is a mother of a closer...

"Silicon Valley ultimately peddled the same feel-good story about democracy as the polling industry: that the powerful are unresponsive to the wider public because they cannot hear their voices, and if only they could hear them, then of course they would listen and act. The virtue of this diagnosis is that structural inequalities in wealth and power are left intact—all that matters in democracy is that everyone has a voice, regardless of background. In a very narrow, technical sense, their innovations have made this a reality. But the result is a loud, opinionated, and impotent public sphere, coarsened by social and economic divisions and made all the more disillusioned by the discovery that, in politics, it takes more than a voice to be heard."

Ouch.

I have to hope that half the country really doesn't want to round up people, separate them from their families, put them in concentration camps, and then maybe ship them to another country. But the polling suggests that the majority want mass deportations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I have to hope that half the country really doesn't want to round up people, separate them from their families, put them in concentration camps, and then maybe ship them to another country. But the polling suggests that the majority want mass deportations.

From a battleground, I'd say that more than half the country falls into a precariate.

In that fragile state, anything and everything is potential destabilizing event that could lead to financial ruin. Immigration is but one of many.

Are there some cruel people out there? Yup, but it's a small number. I'd guess the majority of people who want tighter borders simply view it as a way of controlling a society, and an economy, that are rapidly changing in ways that they perceive to be bad for them.

And what do the fortunate of us say to these people? "Oh, you fools. The economy is great. You just don't see it." Or, "You're racists!"

These two angles - bullshitting and trying to shame people - have not worked very well. Joe Sixpack isn't inventing inflation of whole cloth. It isn't in his head. It's very real to him. And I don't think he wants to hear a Chamber of Commerce libertarian like me say, "Well, immigration helps to keep certain prices down, particularly labor."

There's also an issue of fairness. People get really hung up on that concept. In the same way I'll hear a progressive insist on equity, I'll hear a MAGA person insist that if one wants to come into the country, such person is obligated to wait in line like everyone else. (And that's why, polls indicate, a ton of Latinos in the Rust Belt are now Trump voters. People who had to play the game resent those jumping the line.)

Illegal immigrants are just the poor bastards gifted the position of cudgel by both parties to gin up votes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

From the Observations Desk:

I am of the opinion that almost every subject is quite funny in the right light. Even 9/11 jokes inevitably emerged, and Mel Brooks and Taika Waititi made the Holocaust into great comedy. Carlin famously made even rape funny by imagining Porky the Pig raping Elmer Fudd.

But it appears since 2016 or so, one type of thing has become unfunny to a lot of people: That which skewers one's "team," or "tribe."

Somewhat politically agnostic, I'm of the very common view that every politician, every party, every stance - and particularly positions and subjects that politically aware people deem most sacred and feel strongest about - are fair game for satire, mockery, absurdist revisiting. Because, well, the sacred can be profaned. And the profane and funny walk hand in hand.

If you've been exchanging jokes since 2016, however, you've seen a large number of people aligning their sense of humor to coincide with their political/social leanings.

Trump is objectively a joke whether you like him or not. One cannot ever treat this person with significant seriousness. I don't even think the man takes himself seriously. And yet, if one sends out a joke poking fun at him, roughly half the people to whom it is addressed will respond positively or laugh. The other half, whom we all know realize it is indeed funny, will nevertheless refrain from supporting it with a laugh. Because they support him. And vice versa. If one makes fun of Harris, the half that support her will not laugh, even if it is objectively funny. Same for Biden. His doddering about in his dotage was comical for a bit. And yet, half of people simply would not laugh at it.

I've heard this defended as such: "This election is just too important for anyone to make fun of my side... This is about saving democracy." You hear that from the left and the right. And it's not terribly persuasive. Making fun of one's own candidate is not the equivalent of voting for the opponent. One can and should laugh at one's own side when it is funny. There's no good reason not to do so.

I've also heard people say they won't laugh at jokes demeaning the left because that's countenancing right wing trolls "owning the libs." This is also not persuasive. "Owning the libs" jokes are rarely, if ever, funny. They're usually flat and not funny because they're just not a good quality of comedy.

But making fun of the right or left, when it's funny, should be laughed at by both sides. And I think one is a staggering bore, and perhaps mentally ill, to take a contrary position. It reminds me of people who can't separate the art from the artist. P Diddy is an apparent felonious sexual predator. But if his song is good, well, that's a different thing from the man. So if you like it, turn it up to 11. And I'm not eschewing Miramax films because of Harvey Weinstein's personal life.

To be unable to separate the art from the artist demonstrates a simplistic form of thinking consistent with low intellect. To be unable to laugh at one's own side as easily as one can laugh at the other shows something similar. And it's more than a bit depressing that so much of the country has accepted, or degraded into, this perspective.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And I'm not eschewing Miramax films because of Harvey Weinstein's personal life.

I'm not sure assaulting and blacklisting young actresses was entirely within the scope of his personal life, and I do try to be mindful of where I am sending resources, but yes. It does mean I'd prefer to get the kids Harry Potter books from the library over the bookstore.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure assaulting and blacklisting young actresses was entirely within the scope of his personal life, and I do try to be mindful of where I am sending resources, but yes. It does mean I'd prefer to get the kids Harry Potter books from the library over the bookstore.

Where do you fall on Harry Potter? I related a story a few days ago on Bluesky how reading Goblet of Fire was one of my treasured memories of hanging out with my dog. I have relatively good feelings about the series, and I recognize its flaws. The movies are fun and the majority of the cast seem to be decent people who have distanced themselves from her. It also had a pretty significant cultural impact.

But, it's not so part of my life that I think about it too much. I still have the books I bought when they came out two decades ago, and I think we have the DVDs (but maybe not a player?). He's only 2.5, so we have a few years before it'd be appropriate to start reading them. I guess I'll wait for him to ask?

Every word out of her mouth is worse than the last (though I don't think she has said anything since she misgendered an athlete at the Olympics), and I do not want to support her in any way. There are literally thousands of other stories and series from non-bigoted (or at least non-publicly bigoted with massive platforms to spew their bigotry) writers out there.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Where do you fall on Harry Potter? I related a story a few days ago on Bluesky how reading Goblet of Fire was one of my treasured memories of hanging out with my dog. I have relatively good feelings about the series, and I recognize its flaws. The movies are fun and the majority of the cast seem to be decent people who have distanced themselves from her. It also had a pretty significant cultural impact.

But, it's not so part of my life that I think about it too much. I still have the books I bought when they came out two decades ago, and I think we have the DVDs (but maybe not a player?). He's only 2.5, so we have a few years before it'd be appropriate to start reading them. I guess I'll wait for him to ask?

Every word out of her mouth is worse than the last (though I don't think she has said anything since she misgendered an athlete at the Olympics), and I do not want to support her in any way. There are literally thousands of other stories and series from non-bigoted (or at least non-publicly bigoted with massive platforms to spew their bigotry) writers out there.

We've watched some of the movies, I think, but she hasn't been all that interested. Maybe it won't come up? If it does, will probably let her watch and try to get books from the library instead of buying.

A trans family member bought her a bunch of Percy Jackson stuff as an alternative, but rather a bit early as that's above her reading level still and that was maybe two years ago.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure assaulting and blacklisting young actresses was entirely within the scope of his personal life, and I do try to be mindful of where I am sending resources, but yes. It does mean I'd prefer to get the kids Harry Potter books from the library over the bookstore.

I don't see the issue with Rowling. She defines women narrowly. She picks fights with trans activists.

This issue touches .005% of humanity and we talk about it like it's the most pressing issue on the planet. The right loves to prattle on about men swimming with women, and phantom fears of sexual assault in the bathroom by trans people. The left acts like if one doesn't buy their novel and dubious quasi-scientific arguments on the matter, one is akin a guard at Dachau.

Give me a fucking break.

Are trans women actually women? I don't know. I also don't think the issue will ever be solved because people who are deeply invested in these things have views that long ago left the planes of logic and science and there's just no point trying to litigate this stuff. The best one can say is, "Who cares? Why not just be tolerant? If the chic science (really anthropology) on the subject is rubbish, what's the big deal?" Again, it's .005% of people.

I do think people born biological males should not be competing in women's sports. That one we can litigate because there's simply no counter, save perhaps the argument, "Well, if a biological male is smaller, on par in terms of strength with a woman, he's technically on even footing, so he should be able to compete." That argument is persuasive. It's also rarer than being struck by lightning twice in an afternoon. (Similarly, women with skill adequate to compete with males should be allowed to do so. If Serena Williams could beat 70% of male tennis players, which I'll bet she could, there ought to be a mixed-sex league where she could do so.)

Rowling is entitled to her view, and she's entitled to call out what she sees as bullshit. And one is entitled to refute her or boycott her if he likes. But of all the considerations that might enter my head when I walk into a bookstore, an author's joinders within the "trans controversies," as incoherent as these "debates" (really, political wedges used by the parties and activists on both sides to manipulate the credulous) about trans issues are, are about as significant to me as the author's diet.

Personally, I'm of the belief Rowling was slumming it to even get involved in such a debate. She's taking bait on which a person at her level should better sense than to bite.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

. The best one can say is, "Who cares? Why not just be tolerant?

Yes. A stranger's gender is not something you should care about. If you choose to care about it, it makes you a freaking creep.

I do think people born biological males should not be competing in women's sports.

The problem with caring about it for the tiny fraction of .005% of people where it is relevant is that invites policing the bodies of cis women too. Those Olympic boxers did not deserve any of that.

If we must, we can have some rules about people who have gone through puberty as a boy, but again, it is a tiny number of people and it opens a can of worms, so do we even need that? And hopefully even that number will dwindle as acceptance of trans kids grows and they get puberty blockers.

If Serena Williams could beat 70% of male tennis players, which I'll bet she could, there ought to be a mixed-sex league where she could do so.)

Olympic shooting (I think it was), only got gender classes after women started winning.

[Hank Chinaski]

Kamala is on Howard Stern tomorrow. In 2018 (or so) Hillary went on and admitted she felt if she she’d have won. Fingers crossed.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(Similarly, women with skill adequate to compete with males should be allowed to do so. If Serena Williams could beat 70% of male tennis players, which I'll bet she could, there ought to be a mixed-sex league where she could do so.)

.

Male pros or all male tennis players? She's already admitted that she'd get beaten by any guy in the top 100.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Male pros or all male tennis players? She's already admitted that she'd get beaten by any guy in the top 100.

IMO, she's wrong.