justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
5d ago
Take away the subsidy and let ABC, NBC, or CBS bid on the broadband. Use the money to pay down debt.
Thats an entirely different argument. If thats where the goalposts are, then Reason types would be on board, as it isn't about one man labeling something "fake news". The context is very different from what is being proposed team Trump which sneaks in viewpoint discrimination under the guise of free speech.
If he is actually consistent of free speech, then there wont be objections by reason types.
justmotteingaround
6d ago
I think it'll be a continuation of the polarization arc, guided by the incentives of profitable content. Obama was a Marxist Kenyan and we got the Tea Party. Trump was Hitler and we got Wokeist nonsense. Election conspiracies and QAnon notwithstanding, I think Jan 6th was peak derangement. Biden was more honestly criticized than either Trump or Obama because it simply wasn't profitable to publish election conspiracies for 4 years. Bidens brain really was mush. He really was hiding. The border really did get worse. Crime really was being minimized. Trotting out ye olde "this president controls gas prices" chestnut was practically quaint.
Conservatives are dominating media. The MAGA narrative and style really are popular. Liberals will have to find or wait for a narrative and delivery that actually resonates. People are sick of race and trans obsession and a style of condescension. Harping on these issues isn't nearly as profitable as it was in 2016. For the last four years it was hard to get rich running ads on dem narratives. It was much easier to get rich harping on US foreign expenditures, inflation, the plight of the working man, the plight of men, crime, and just straight up duking on dem talking points. The anti-Trump machine is comparatively weak right now. It'll have to pivot or die as the well that pays the bills is running dry. Orange man bad will still work to a degree, but nothing like in 2016.
justmotteingaround
6d ago
My response is silent on the subsidy. I'm asking who decides what is "fake news", or whether speech "undermines the public?". Trump says his regime should determine that, in accordance wit his whims. The Reason article points out why this might be a bad idea as far as the 1A is concerned.
justmotteingaround
6d ago
Because of the 1A. Fox News and OAN should be allowed to broadcast their opinions. The regime shouldn't be in the business of telling them what they can and cannot say. Trump is arguably a public figure, although some people are saying he is a Marxist born in Kenya. Big if true.
justmotteingaround
7d ago
If 1.5ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 1000ppm in toothpaste cause?
You're claiming this is a huge scandal on the level of leaded gasoline. Given what the report found, that seems hysterical.
2-5 IQ points are very important. Getting fluoride via toothpaste is superior solution.
justmotteingaround
8d ago
Belief precedes action by necessity. This will boil down to a debate about determinism, but other objections to the assertion made are irrelevant.
Homogenous Japan doesn't feel compelled to attack itself - and hadn't for 250 years - but they became enthrall to attacking their nearest neighbors for a period, then they got nuked, and then they formed warm relations the formerly enemy distant genome.
My point is that John Walker Lindh chose to fight because of idiotic Iron Age beliefs. No advanced social mechanism was necessary. High IQ might help to build better systems for producing beneficial beliefs, but its not dispositive, and doesn't preclude the intrusion of bad ideas. Adopt a low IQ tribe-baby, raise him in the west, and I don't think they'd grow up with a burning desire to return home and fight the Afro-McCoy's.
justmotteingaround
8d ago
Knowing the reason we fight is pretty much just genetics is a downer.
Isn't this backwards? The two genetically similar groups fight each other for tribal reasons. The US nukes Japan and within a decade both are cooperating to get rich as hell, improving the lives genetically distinct populations. I'm a realist when it comes to genetics, but en masse we seem to fight often because of the ideas we have.
justmotteingaround
8d ago
Doesn't the actual article imply that this could only possibly effect 0.6% of water systems in the US? And even then only to children and pregnant women. And even then the cause is not government addition of fluoride, but rather government failure to remove fluoride below the separately arrived at EPA number?
justmotteingaround
8d ago
But yeah, I think putting literally any medication in the water supply is foolish.
You have to count the hits and the misses. Lets just concede that fluoride in drinking water was or is now a mistake. There is still chlorine/chloramine. Also gov't mandates and/or influence in the food supply: iodine, vit D, niacin, folate, iron, thiamine, riboflavin etc.
Interestingly, the gov't got I think niacin temporarily wrong, assuming the cause of pellagra was a corn heavy diet, delaying the addition of niacin. Which is fine I guess as extreme caution with the food supply is probably a good idea.
justmotteingaround
8d ago
Per the article, as of 2015 the US has the same 0.7mg/l recommendation as the upper limit. 0.6% of water systems in the US are above the 1.5mg/L studied. The EPA limit was arrived at separately, the impetus being fluorosis.
justmotteingaround
8d ago
Nothing was more "move fast and break things" than entire neighborhoods of kids riding their bike behind "the fog truck" spraying DDT everywhere.
justmotteingaround
9d ago
Its worth keeping in mind the pitfalls of the media landscape. A fund manger posts screenshots of an AP article to 1.5M followers, with the incisive commentary "wait, what?!" What does the payoff matrix look like in this environment?
On one hand, information is spread widely and quickly. Great! On the other hand, I have an aunt who has long told me that Hitler put fluoride in the water to shrink the pineal glad of the populace, reducing their creativity and making them obey. She teaches anatomy and physiology at a community college, and loves listening to Coast To Coast on the AM radio. Crank it up fuckers!
But what does the article say? Well, the AP reported on this "long awaited study" two months ago. We didn't find this out this until quite recently. However, it seemingly only applies to 0.6% of US water systems, and then again only to children and pregnant women. For adults, more study is needed. The 300 page report was done by the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. In 2015 Federal authorities revised their recommended level of fluoridation down from 1.2 mg/L to 0.07mg/L. This study pertains to levels of fluoridation of 1.5mg/L and above. How much above? I don't know, but the WHO currently thinks that 1.5mg/L is safe. The EPA actually mandates that water systems contain less than 4mg/L, the impetus in that case being fluorosis. This study extends research done in China in 2006 about cognitive effects of fluoride - naturally occurring and otherwise - and wait, what!? This is fucking booooooring. A bunch of nerds debating a the effects of less than one PPM of fluoride in a country that already recommends half the level studied? Fuck that. Give me Hitler. Give me chemtrails. Inject me with autism. Lets blast some Coast to Coast on the AM radio!
justmotteingaround
9d ago
I'm pretty comfortable and drink liters of tap water daily. Always have. I always saw drinking bottled water at home as low class coded, like buying furniture on credit, or keeping a cc balance. Who pays that much for water? Tap water where I grew up and live has been pristine. Superfluous bottled water at events, or premium branded water is the real divide in America. I'd bet that anywhere in the developed world the the risk adjusted ROI for drinking bottled water is massively negative barring govt alerts (ie blue baby).
Trump got 12M more votes vs 2016. Fraud? I asked chatgpt to make a table of voter turnout by year, % turnout for D's and R's, and voter registration rate - for the last 5 elections. It supposedly took data from here:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p20-585.pdf
2020 had the highest values in every singly category. I think a lot of people voted in 2020.
justmotteingaround
11d ago
If a weather forecast says there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, and it does not rain, was the forecast wrong? If a betting market says there's only a 40% of rain, and it doesn't rain, did the betting market crush the weather forecast?
justmotteingaround
14d ago
This is kind of how it worked at the top levels of online poker in ~2016ish. Various groups spent 100kish each to build analysis software years before a dev released a version for sale. Top regs eventually pooled resources to build GTO bots, prompting top poker sites to learn how to ban them. For prediction markets the stats are way different (ie fewer trials, lots of noise) and a 10% edge wouldn't translate translate into a lot of money unless you could bet many millions, plus the variance would be insane. With active trading (ie more trials) I could see decent profits, but I don't know what liquidity looks like.
justmotteingaround
14d ago
Some further digging and it seems "election prediction by SM (usually twitter) sentiment analysis" is an academic area of research with dozens of papers going back at least to 2010, getting more advanced. However I can't find anyone doing publicly. This is why I wish the election prediction markets were more accessible and liquid. Eventually it'd be profitable to build the most accurate model even if you gained only a few percentage points in accuracy. With enough to be gained you'll get a Jim Simons team of election forecasters.
justmotteingaround
14d ago
Does anyone know if there are models that take into account sentiment analysis (ie ingest lots of data from TV viewership, FB,YT, comment sections, clean it, weight it, etc)? This is how I'd solve the game for betting purposes.
Just by eyeballing it, Trump seems to have a massive advantage. Trump-positive yt vids are more viewed and have a better like/dislike ratio than any vaguely Dem positive video. The top comments are often mostly pro Trump. A large percentage of MSM TV coverage is pro Trump, FB used to lean more pro Trump, Twitter is operated by a Trump fanatic. Polling leans old, this leans younger. The comment section of NYT, WaPo are obviously anti Trump, but these are comparatively microscopic players. What does themotte think, and what might I not be seeing?
justmotteingaround
14d ago
Trump has been a brand for decades that has been plastered on buildings, steaks, planes, bottled water, casinos, vokda, perfume, sneakers, and more.
justmotteingaround
14d ago
Given that the election is a dead heat, the House is split and by thin margins, and a conservative leaning SC, perhaps there isn't any non-conformity so much as an extremely common difference of opinion. I'd wager that R's win elections because approximately half of voters are R's.
justmotteingaround
15d ago
hahah no I think Zorbas dedication is unimpeachable. This fleshes out what I gathered from perusing the megathread about the move. A Seattle sub mod chimed in about getting new admin attention over milquetoast issues like homelessness and trans stuff. I suppose the chilling effect was bad enough, though I do think they should have forced the admins to kick us off with an escape plan in place. On one hand, I have a very open to any mere speech, but I can well understand why a private company wouldn't want themotte on reddit even if I think its the pinnacle of moderated free speech. The move did what I expected, but it was perhaps inevitable.
justmotteingaround
15d ago
Specifically, did we ever see these threats? I hit bedrock here
On reddit Zorba:
Alright, so the admins are paying attention to us now. Not going into details, they aren't relevant and I don't want to draw their attention more; ask me again once this is done and I'll vent.
Poster:
Ok, it's a year later. Spill. I'm really curious about the fucked-up internal politics of Reddit.
Zorba
I am confused why this is coming up so often, you're the second in the last two days and I'd totally forgotten about it for months before that.
But anyway, out of a possible overabundance of caution, I'll PM it to you.
AFAICT, the threats were never discussed openly. I could be wrong. I only ask because this new threat rang some bells. Lots of arguably paranoid cloak and dagger stuff in the Meta: the motte is dead thread. I'm still grateful for all the hard work that goes into this place. Its the kind of place I can ask: does this place exist here because of a persecutorial complex; or was the move, like, justified...
justmotteingaround
15d ago
Thanks! That fleshes out my memory, but I'm still lost as to what the mods knew regarding the need to move. Was it "safteyism"? Did they say 'we wont elaborate further at this time' or am I hallucinating that?
I'm interested in that because at the time I thought the move could be plausible, but was leaning paranoic. However, there is a lot I didn't know as a casual reader. I'm trying to put context around OPs claim that JD Vance allusion to a Scott Alexander article threatens the motte. Is this a pattern of persecutorial complexion, or am I off my rocker.
justmotteingaround
16d ago
Why did they put us there? I suggest you ask them.
This is a genuine curiosity of mine. Iirc, the reddit mods were explicitly not going to explain their actions beyond vague gestures to the Eye of Sauron somewhere around the time Scott (happily) landed in the financial security provided by substack.
The election doesn't effect the argument not to agitate against Swift. If it was a bad idea prior, its a bad idea now.
More options
Context Copy link