@FiveHourMarathon's banner p

FiveHourMarathon

Listen to Pierre

14 followers   follows 6 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.


				

User ID: 195

FiveHourMarathon

Listen to Pierre

14 followers   follows 6 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:02:26 UTC

					

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.


					

User ID: 195

US Election Bold Predictions Thread

Give me your hot takes about the results of the upcoming US Elections. These should be BOLD, don't just follow the prediction markets or the odds, and probably not about who wins the electoral college since the current best guess is that it's anyone's guess who wins. I should preface all this that on the POTUS front, I'm expecting a narrow Trump win, with a very low confidence in that prediction.

For me:

-- Trump is going to lose North Carolina badly, significantly underperforming his polling numbers. The very best recent results for Mark Robinson have him down by ten points after the Nude Africa, "I'm a black Nazi," "I write erotica about my sister in law pissing on me" scandal. Most of his staff has abandoned him. Reverse coat-tails normally don't work out, but Robinson's complete lack of any campaign infrastructure is a different animal than just being disliked. The Robinson campaign won't be doing any of the GOTV work that you'd expect from a gubernatorial campaign. I expect Robinson to do better, thanks to Trump, than his poll numbers indicate, he's probably not going to lose by 20 points. But I expect Trump to do a couple points worse than his averages, thanks to Robinson.

-- Deadlocked Senate. I don't know how, but I expect the Dems to pull out one upset in a red-leaning seat. They've overperformed in statewide elections since Dobbs, and I just think they'll pull one out somewhere. Trump is harmed less by abortion than virtually every other R candidate, because a lot of people who like him just don't believe he's pro-life. R senate candidates are getting crushed on the issue. R candidates for competitive seats like McCormick are trying to swing back towards pro-life, but it's not going to work, it's just going to make them look weak and unreliable.

I agree, but once we get into legal technical questions it's realistically beyond the ordinary person's ability to parse. You get dueling experts and the result is mostly determined by burden of proof.

Simple spherical cows a=5% b=85% sure, it's simple. But what if there's evidence that B has maxed out their approach at 85% while A is working on infrastructure that could eventually deliver 100%? B is a mature company while A is a startup? Or if the experts argue that one or another of the statistics turn out to be massaged? Etc etc.

I tend to agree with your comment that Musk/Tesla's achievement in creating a new standard setting luxury car company cannot be overstated. How many other manufacturers have poured cash into trying to make Cadillac/Lincoln/Infiniti/Chrysler/etc into legitimate luxury competitors and failed? Tesla has upended the upper end of the car market in a way comparable to the quartz watch's impact on horology.

But it's never going to be easy to figure out who gets government grants, which is why I tend to oppose them.

Is your opinion at all altered by the other comments pointing to contractual provisions that were not reached?

Because they said they would?

[T]his seems blatantly partisan and all culture war. Is there a not-culture war aspect to this? $885 million seems like small potatoes compared to all the other numbers that have been floated around lately. I have a hard time strong-manning the decision to not release the funds. It seems like another pebble in the bucket of reasons why Musk, for the sake of his ambitions and livelihood has to support Trump. People can get mad about it, but what else is the dude supposed to do with the power of the Dems fully against him?

This would be more or less my definition, reversed as the case may be.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with government contractors lobbying openly, in the same way that it's often argued that people on welfare shouldn't be able to vote. Which of course becomes an argument about what is a government contractor and what is welfare.

But Musk, here, feels like a special case, in either direction, and I don't really have an answer other than being deeply uncomfortable.

Yeah I wasn't flagging this post or you in particular. Just registering concern that the genre can be very dangerous. I've seen several forums/channels/etc end up inundated with a firehose of bullshit that way.

I'm also of the opinion that the primary thing keeping this forum interesting is that it is totally impossible to monetize at the moment. Former posters from this very forum have gone on to monetize work that is very similar to what they used to post here, and you can see how they've gotten (in my humble opinion) significantly less interesting as they've run into the rutted wagon wheels of how you make money at shitposting.

Shitcoin shilling is one way the forum could become monetizable for someone, and then you get an avalanche of shit flowing down from there. Keep this place useless.

If you're advocating for this policy on the basis of culture-war reasons, prepare to be dissapointed. If you're advocating for this policy on the basis of being part of a non-urbanite interest group, prepare to be very dissapointed. In the short run you'd probably stand to benefit, which is why I as an urbanite would oppose you. But in the long run I think I'd get the last laugh.

I wouldn't really label any of those as reasons for the policy, nor am I really advocating for it, I expect for me personally it would negatively impact my day-to-day interactions with government.

Rather, my point is that the cities in question (Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia) are all examples of cities where there's a significant population living outside of the city limits that consists largely of commuters into the city center, or businesses dependent on those commuters. Philadelphia has the main line, Atlanta has Decatur, Detroit has Northville. These are all well run, largely white, wealthy areas. Those populations would have a moderating and improving impact on City politics. As long as those populations lie outside of city limits, with no vote in city politics, city politicians will be elected entirely by city populations. As a result the outlying areas will view the city politics as corrupt, dysfunctional, machine politics until those kinds of voices are represented.

Question for the group:

What size contract, awarded to Musk-related-entities next year by the Trump-II admin, would you consider similarly presumptively corrupt?

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about a guy who made his money largely thanks to government regulations and contracts getting heavily involved in politics.

This and the CA decision seem targeted and corrupt to me, but I'm going to feel even ickier when the Trump admin awards SpaceX a billion dollar contract or tariffs Tesla competitors.

I would be interested in updates, but I also think we should have a forum policy to instaban anyone shilling crypto on here.

Not anti crypto as a concept, just don't want to see this place turn into a zoo for scammers.

I'd have to imagine that you lose a lot of team spirit when you realize the cavalry isn't coming, your great QB isn't coming back, and you're basically fucked as a team.

The Jets are almost a perfect parallel here, without the whoremonger's moral opprobrium, where you had a great defense hamstrung by an MIA but theoretically great QB, and this year their QB has returned but scuffled, leaving the team in the same position but without the hope they had before.

Without fail, huge chances of any major statistical trend being an artifact of changing methodology. Thanks for doing the work.

Sure, but that makes the argument about "alcohol can't be outlawed because you can just ferment berry juices" rather silly and sophistic as a point of comparison. Sorta like what shinzo Abe zip gun is to gun control. Like yeah you can do it, but gangs in gun controlled countries aren't and haven't been killing each other with gizmos.

I'll always just return to my actual experience: as a teenager weed was illegal period while alcohol was illegal for me. I could text any of half a dozen people and get weed within a day. Getting alcohol was a process.

Yes but you can't get it in volume from the local corner store, which was the qualifier I put on it. Nobody drinks 64oz of spontaneously fermented homebrew and beats his wife.

We know this because even in countries with significant illegal alcohol problems, no illicit alcoholics are drinking homemade wine or beer in a problematic way. They're going blind from moonshine or bathtub gin.

Why don't more Americans change their names? It's very easy to do so, procedures are simple, and unless you have a felony there's few restrictions.

And there's a lot of people out there saddled with TERRIBLE given names.

So why is it so rare?

I probably profile as a "young man" for their software models and i get near constant ads built around vote for Trump because of Crypto/Zyns/Sports Gambling.

This feels like sophistry. No negative social consequences that result from alcohol will result from people home brewing weak berry wines. The bad stuff, alcoholism etc, happens because of readily available distilled liquor and beer in volume.

What city exists that Republicans actually trust?

Until we get annexation of metropolitan areas it's just going to be like this.

Oh man I forgot all about that. Good pick.

While we're doing a campaign thread, I can't get through the ALCS without seeing ten of these fuckers, so y'all need to as well: How does everyone feel about this ad?

You may be wondering what's the difference between Bob Casey and me on abortion. We both believe in exceptions for rape incest and the save the life of the Mother. We differ on the third trimester. I support Pennsylvania's limits on elective abortion in the last months of pregnancy. That seems reasonable. Bob Casey supports late term abortion and tax dollars to pay for them. Senator Casey has the more extreme position. I'm more middle of the road and. looking for common ground. I'm Dave McCormick I approve this message

I generally think it is smart and well produced, except for the use of the term "Trimester" which is obfuscating for most people who don't think about abortion much, I think it would be more clear to say "after six months." I'm sure there's a focus grouped reason not to do that. Every time I talk to an abortion activist, pro or anti, they always talk in trimesters or weeks, instead of in months.

This represents a pretty major change from the messaging I, as an involved Republican, had been getting from the McCormick campaign for years now, which went something like "Pro-Life" or at the most liberal "Leave it to the States (Does Not Support a Federal/National Ban)."

This is McCormick directly advocating for a policy of elective abortion through six months of pregnancy, with exceptions for Rape etc. Though he does not indicate an intention to introduce national legislation on the matter, that is implied by the context of the ad when he's running for Senate, though limited by supporting "Pennsylvania's" laws on the matter. I suppose you could maybe weasel what he says here into supporting abortions for reasons of rape, incest*, life of the mother through six months; but it seems like the obvious meaning of his phrasing is that he's in favor of elective abortion through six months and exceptions later. This would, in my mind, be very hard to flip-flop on later; though of course we've seen worse.

My first thought is that this is the polity healing itself. Now that the legislated-from-the-bench forced compromise of Roe v Wade is behind us, Americans and their politicians are getting down to horse trading and finding a reasonable political compromise on the issue.

But of course this is dependent on McCormick winning using this strategy. If he gets back more votes from squishy pro-abortion voters than he loses from strident pro-lifers, then the compromise has been accepted and succeeded. But if he loses because pro-life voters are now watching him on TV every day say that he supports six months of abortion-by-choice, well then we might see a hardening of positions after this election.

Of course, my biggest frustration with McCormick remains that he refuses to talk about his best achievements. Every ad, every day, talking about how he grew up in Bloomsberg, went to West Point, wrestled. That's it. Nothing about his PhD from Princeton. Nothing about running one of the world's largest hedge funds. I only know these things about him from outside newspaper articles and wikipedia. According to McCormick's own campaign, he sorta went into stasis after the Army. By outside qualifications he is probably the smartest politician I've had the chance to vote for since Romney, and he refuses to bring any of it up. Sad commentary on modern politics.

*I've never understood why incest gets its own heading on the list. All the examples pro-abortion folk use to talk about incest are just rape-by-family-member which would obviously fall under the rape heading; and it's not clear to me that voluntary adult incest leading to pregnancy leading to abortion is a common enough situation to even need an exception drawn for it, or harmful enough to require one.

A far more reasonable standard for a good year would be to have a strong enough regular season to get invited to a decent quality bowl, and to win that bowl game.

Yeah, around 2001 or so when I was forming my sports fandoms, I just couldn't figure out the whole Bowl Game hierarchy, and never much got into college sports at all as a result. It confused me that the AP rankings seemed just kind of arbitrary, compared to NFL or MLB standings which were very clearly based on winning/losing games between teams that have relative parity between them. I've always preferred the American professional sports model to the NCAA or UEFA models, in my mind a good season is finishing over .500 and making the end of season tournament.

I do wonder how much of that is downstream of location: as a child I went to tons of Phillies and Eagles games with my father, we never really went to college football games. I feel like my sports fandoms were really "set" by the time I was 12 or so, after that I've never formed a real emotional attachment to another team. I might decide to root for another team, but they can lose me just as easily by playing or acting in ways I don't like. Where the teams I fell in love with as a kid, short of, like, a major diddling scandal there's probably nothing that can change my fandom, though the Sixers have done their best to the point where I don't bother with the regular season.

It's interesting to me that this has quite obviously impacted my opinions on NBA and NCAA ethical issues, relative to how I feel about MLB or NFL ethical issues.

I'm just mystified by the idea that Harris is so certain that young men, especially young black men, would benefit from greater availability of recreational marijuana, that she has made it a highlight of her campaign.

This feels like it rhymes with the argument that because most gun deaths are suicides, it's net negative for my own well being to own a gun.

It may be statistically correct, but it doesn't justify restricting my liberty to make my own choices.

This is probably the philosophical quandary I'm facing.

Probably if I had to summarize it in a sentence it would be this: Creativity comes from Freedom, and Freedom is the freedom to be stupid. Arguing merely that a rental economy is optimal in each individual case is not enough, because on a meta level we need variety, which can only be created by making sub-optimal decisions.

RE: HOAs and architectural standards for example. I would not want to live in most developments or towns with strict architectural uniformity, but I often enjoy visiting towns in New England that do have those kinds of standards. So I don't just want all freedom or all uniformity, I want varieties of different ways of running a town.

Will Trump counter with some asinine scheme of his own? Probably.

Trump has mostly resisted the urge to engage in explicitly ethnic spoils, other than the obvious problems for certain Hispanics in certain places in an environment of mass deportation, which is priced in at this point.

Trump has mostly preferred, in the "asinine scheme game," stuff that sounds great if you don't think about it too hard. "No tax on tips;" "no tax on Social Security;" "X% Tariffs on everything in the world" etc.

WSJ Economists rated Trump's economic proposals worse than Kamala's, but also rated hers as terrible. Unfortunately, in this election I'm left hoping that the winning candidate is not able to implement their policies.

Thanks for the summary. I find CFB impossible to understand or follow, the complexity of what exactly is a good season always stumps me. I would think that any simplification of the top end of the game would be beneficial to viewership.

My intention would be to show that neither paper particularly represents the point of view of The Common Man and that writers for both have lost the Common Touch. I'm not particularly arguing for the NYT having a more middle class readership, only arguing against the NR. Nara and I agree on the NYT afaict.

Why would you say that the demographics are a bad approach, and what would you consider a better approach?

Certainly, it's hypothetically possible to imagine a magazine that has a wealthy, elderly, male, highly educated readership that skews towards DC residents but represents in its content primarily the views of those less wealthy, less educated, younger, and more rural than the readership. But I would argue that the views of the readership are highly likely to skew the views represented in the content over time. It's really hard to resist readership capture.