domain:x.com
Ioper
24m ago
There is also the possibility that the underlying cause for the bias could have changed. Support for Trump can have normalised in poll answering demographics for instance.
I still find it likely that some underestimation is going on but I wouldn't be surprised if the poll aggregate is largely accurate or even overestimating Trump.
Dean
44m ago
While I fully agree with your general point and thrust of argument, particularly in overall polling differences compared to previous elections, the current leads in key states are still well within normal margins of error. We are in various cases talking about leads of 0.X% when a margin of error can be wide.
While I fully agree that based on historical patterns this would be a shoe in, there is a point that this assumes no changes in how polls were conducted between election cycles to try and improve their accuracy. There are many interests- commercial, strategic, and political-competitor- that have incentives to try and improve polling accuracy, and so it's not good to assume the same errors will continue to be repeated in the same way.
New equivalent errors may be introduced, and there are even conspiratorial takes on why polls may be wrong (such as presenting polls claiming a much closer race to support the effectiveness of future cheating by reducing the amount of cheating needed to plausibly 'narrowly' win), but these would have to be made and I don't think you or most other people are making them.
SerialStateLineXer
47m ago
We should similarly expect a higher number of cases of multiple bullet wounds, as in the case of their being shot due to crossfire fighting.
Why? Being hit by one stray bullet is pretty rotten luck. Two or more seems much less likely.
Note that any Palestinian child shot or grazed by a bullet is going to be sent to the hospital
With Gaza's limited resources, during a war? Maybe, but I don't think this is a safe assumption.
You also have to account for the possiblity that a) at least some of the doctors are lying, and b) the worst cases may have been sent to American doctors either for propaganda purposes or because of their better skills.
Note that one of the X-rays shows a bullet that seems to have entered at a path nearly perpendicular to the top of the skull, implying either that the child was shot while lying down, likely either by a stray bullet while lying in bed, or perhaps even by a bullet fired up into the air and coming back down, a phenomenon associated with the Arabic tradition of celebratory gunfire. Another shows a bullet that seems to have entered through a downward path about 45 degrees below parallel, which is hard to explain with a sniper shooting at a distance, and again more consistent with a bullet shot into the air and coming back down.
Dean
56m ago
Here are the problems with that: I don’t see evidence of that happening in the past;
Then you ignored past evidence. As such, no reason to link it again when you can easily see for yourself if you search.
Hamas would like to maintain access to top medical care, which would be jeopardized if they began to threaten medical providers;
Hamas is not prioritizing civilian access to top medical care over things that jeopardize access to top medical care.
This is demonstrated when it regularly does things such as turn medical centers into military bases and steals aid from the public and co-opts local palestinian medical organizations into logistics and propaganda associates, all of which decreases the quality and availability of medical care. Hamas does them anyway.
Hence, there is no reason to believe maintaining access to top medical care prioritizes goals (such as control of the Gazan territory) that could be advanced by threatening medical providers (who could complicate narratives if allowed to be outspoken, but whose shortage serves as a useful propaganda tool for soliciting international sympathy).
Note that this is paralleled with Hamas's use of interior ministry regulations and enforcement of journalism coverage from within the strip, which itself has had observable not-back effects as while these rules nominally don't apply to organizations like the Assoicated Press, the reliance of these organizations on people within the strip, and thus subject to Hamas retaliation, shapes which relationships with the outside world can form in the first place.
Most of the volunteer doctors are not making a career in the Gaza Strip, so there is no reason for them to cowtow to the ideology of Hamas;
Sure there is- access to Gaza in the first place.
In order for external actors to operate within Gaza, they must be permitted by whichever authority controls access to the ground the organization wishes to work on and from. Organizations which do not cowtow, do not gain or retain access. This is basic access-control policy.
the very same survey we are talking about has 20% of the doctors say they didn’t see shot children — so why did this 20% say that? Where’s the evidence that 20% were harassed or asked to leave?
You are reversing the cause and effect of a filtering process, and in turn running into the issue of the nature of small-scale surveys which you are conflating with the filtering effect.
The filtering effect is a pre-survey effect. The effect of filtering is not claiming that 20% of the survey respondents would be asked to leave after saying 20% say that they didn't see shot children. The filtering effect can be something like that 80% of doctors surveyed are willing to say they saw shot children because they are recruited from the sort of (permitted) organizations that include a higher number of doctors who would be willing to say they saw shot children on a survey if it benefited the palestinian cause, but also would not opine on who shot the victims, especially if doing so might work against the cause.
Which goes into the data on who was doing the shooting, rather than who was shot, which not even the NYT respondents cited claim were Israeli shooters.
Except even in this case there is a far more mundane explanation for radical scores, which is survey structure of small samples.
The author is writing on the basis of surveys that includes themselves and people/organizations they know. Groups of people who know eachother are also groups of people who have a stronger tendency to have heard about the same things, often from eachother. This is how you get cultural / information silos where people can get influenced by group thought dynamics that do not have to reflect reality, and why establishing the representativeness of a sample population is critical.
What you presented is a story but the story has nothing evidencing it. The rest of your comment is just trying to obfuscate the fact that innocent Palestinian children ought to obtain medical care.
Medical care for being victimized by whom?
Again, I return to the data points that not only do the shooting-cases not claim that the shooters were Israelis, but that the majority of the article is focused on medical consequences of things like malnutrition and psychological damage that are the responsibility of Hamas, who have been stealing aid, compromising medical organizations, and perpetrating the conflict.
Which, while you certainly had a... take on the evilness of da joos, seemed rather light on equivalent religious analysis on the rulers of gaza.
aardvark2
56m ago
I'm trying to understand PDCAAS/DIAAS protein quality numbers. Many sources give DIAAS score for potato protein higher than its PDCAAS and higher than some animal proteins. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsn3.1809
in general, how important are these scores?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Yes, and you seem to be implying there's something strange about that?
If the bias is consistently in the same direction, I find it unlikely that they are actually trying to correct it. I'd have to look up the post I'm citing, but I think they were talking about Sweden where their right-populist party was underestimated during one election, overestimated in the next one, and finally estimated correctly in the one after that. This is what you'd expect to see if they were trying.
Dean
1hr ago
That Hamas is utilizing 8 year old child soldiers to lob grenades is a level of propaganda that the IDF hasn’t even reached yet.
You seem to have misunderstood the point of the opening, which was to contest your characterization of the limit of child soldiers, which itself wasn't limited to Hamas. A child soldier is not a 16 year old. A child soldier is a child who is used in the function of war, regardless of their age, and as such age alone does not disprove someone someone from being a combatant unless the age is so low that they physically cannot.
There has been no information coming out of Israel that Hamas is using preteen child soldiers in their operations, neither is there drone or other footage which would immediately shift public opinion in favor of Israel. This isn’t happening.
Sure it is. It's denied and disparaged as Israeli propaganda or otherwise that it shouldn't matter because children, but it is in no way hard to find information of Hamas using pre-teen children as human shields to military operations, of using preteens as messengers or conveyers of military goods, of Hamas opening fire into crowds of civilians which would involve pre-teens, of stealing and depriving the Gazan population of resources which lead to murder over or due to a lack of resources, of Hamas deliberately murdering families of dissidents for the purpose of intimidating the populace, and otherwise setting conditions in a warzone in which people are regularly shot for less-than-maximally-nefarious-reasons by maximally-nefarious jews.
This is not true. Emergency nurses will deal with children shot in all places.
There are two problems with this contestation, both demonstrating separate logical errors leading to data issues.
First is a dynamic which can be summarized as 'tell me you didn't think about triage without telling me you didn't think about triage.' Triage itself is screening function when medical issues over overwhelming and resources- included the doctors themselves- are limited. Not all injuries are emergencies to a triage, and in turn not all injuries will go to emergency treatment in the first place. If you then cite numbers of medical emergency cases, you are starting to count after triage has already filtered relevant contextual numbers.
Second, the NYT isn't citing a representative sample of emergency nurses- or even exclusively emergency nurses- in the first place. It was specifically citing people who were willing to claim observation of children being shot, which is itself a selection bias. '100% of the people I cited claimed cases of X' means nothing on a statistical when you are not citing people who do not support X, and that's if you had a representative survey basis in the first place, which the NYT opinion presenter does not.
As would surgeons, parademics, and critical care doctors. Any child shot is going to see these professionals. There’s not some “child shot in the head super-specialist” at these clinics. I mean, maybe neurosurgeon, but that’s not even a listed specialty in the article.
Thank you for admitting another issue in the article's data base, I was hoping to lead you to that point.
Yes, the lack of professional characterization is a separate issue for the brilliance of the research, as it conflates the medical supporters who might have a more representative understanding of general child injuries as part of the triage process (who, in the article, aren't even claiming Israeli snipers or the such in the first place) from more specialized medical experts whose expertise in specific things- like, say, chest surgeries- who would only be under a significant selective survivorship bias of what they are exposed to (both the nature of the injury, but also operating on people who survive long enough to get to them).
This conflation of category of medical experts, in turn, can be and is used to conflate the different viewpoints to distorting effect. As the viewpoints of people with wider-but-less-serious issues are presented in equal ground with more narrow perspective that are narrower-but-more-severe (because the person in question is primarily dealing with the most severe cases). This is a technique to shape audience perception by insinuating that the equivalence of the reports suggests that the conflated categories are a single category that is both more common and more severe on average than the spread actually is.
But since relevant medical and surgical specialties do exist, and the volunteers of any previous or accumulated experience will be allocated those cases as a matter of course, we can infer from organizational practicalities (and some parts of the article itself) that there is a relevant degree of case selection filtering going on.
Who do you believe is the lower specialty on whom they drop off the children only merely shot in the abdomen or thigh?
Or the hand or the foot or the arm?
The person with clearly vestigial wounds is clearly the lower priority and will receive more limited care by less trained or specialized people. A surgeon who specializes in opening up chest cavities to remove things that can kill people is not going to spend their time resetting dislocated joints or applying splints, when that level of care can be provided by a more-numerous non-surgeon whose use in that role can free up the surgeon to do surgeries.
Now, if you wish to make the argument that the Gazan medical situation is not so dire such that there is no need to triage and thus more specialized medical professionals see a representative selection of wounded children...
Hyperion
1hr ago
Could be an old CT scan from a casualty of one of those Arab weddings where they fire guns in the air indiscriminately.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
1hr ago
It all depends on their class. For example, if you're a working class family from flyover Russia or Ukraine (or China or India), moving to a Western country, even to a flyover location just like yours will be a massive boost to the quality of life.
On the other hand, you lose all the benefits of your lifestyle if you emigtate as a PMC, with a few exceptions like joining a faang on a faang salary. Others have enumerated them already.
georgioz
1hr ago
I may be one of those people, but I do consider all rights as privileges. Right means entitlement absent of any duty, which means somebody else has duty providing you with said right. Even original US set of rights in American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man gives government duties through law to to enforce these rights privileges.
In this case right for asylum means nothing else other than duty of you fellow citizens to accommodate foreigners. If society as a whole refuses these duties, then said "right" is dead. Duties related to rights are not enforced by god who strikes you with lightning and they are not enshrined in trajectories of planets in Solar system. They are social conventions and they are direct results of what duties citizens are willing and capable to undertake - we have all seen what happened to human rights during COVID for example.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
2hr ago
For those watching the Presidential election, things have been looking very bad for Kamala lately, with national polls tightening, and Trump ahead in several key states. Although it remains too close to call, Trump's odds have shot up to 57% according to Polymarket.
And I still don't see how people can take any of that seriously. Meanwhile, I'm just trying to prepare myself for how much worse things are going to get under the inevitable eight years of Harris.
But most importantly, it's explicit racial discrimination against the 86% of the country who isn't black.
What's new about that? If you were the sort to care (negatively) about that, weren't you already highly likely to vote Trump? What's one more such thing on top of the many that already exist. And for liberal whites, you've got their whole pro-outgroup feeling thing.
Personally, I think this appeal is likely to backfire as most swing voters are sick of handouts to people who aren't them.
Aren't most "swing voters," particularly these days, the politically "checked out," who don't pay attention to any of this, and thus are unlikely to hear about this particular proposal?
georgioz
2hr ago
It may be statistically correct, but it doesn't justify restricting my liberty to make my own choices.
Of course it may justify it, there are situations where your choices are limited exactly on these grounds - like with myriads of other illegal drugs and many other illegal activities, that limit your liberty to make many choices. What are you talking about.
pbmonster
2hr ago
I get what you mean, but the Chinese navy is purpose built to blockade the island anyway, and innovation that is making this easier isn't really helping them much. Instead, it moves the power balance towards parity in favor of Taiwan, who now will have a much easier time attacking ships than they had before. At the same time, it is of course also moving the power balance from a US carrier group towards China - for the same reason. And sure, I have no doubts that China's drone capabilities will be (or most likely, already are) top of the line. The thing with drones is just that offense is vastly easier than defense.
I also think that marine drones (as in: relatively large drones that are swimming and/or diving) will have a bigger impact on the Taiwan situation that quadrotors will have.
mdurak
2hr ago
This is why cases like Citizens United were always straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
What do you mean by this? What camels did it swallow?
mdurak
2hr ago
You make it sound as if pollster bias is just a simple matter of them deciding not to correct for them, rather than them trying repeatedly to correct for it but reality being surprising in various ways.
I watched a Sagaar/Crystal Breaking Point show on the topic, and to me it seemed funny that for some reason none of them mentioned the potentially most important reason: crypto has been historically used to protect money from various actors, including garnishing the income due to child support or other such obligations. If you have irregular or under the table income, you can store it even using cash such as with bitcoin ATMs or peer-to-peer trading, there are also other methods. Sending signals that the government will be easy on these practices may be very important for black men specifically.
SerialStateLineXer
2hr ago
Real estate has appreciated over the recent past, but YIMBYs would argue it's just because local governments restrict good land use
I don't think so. Upzoning increases land value, because you can build more valuable structures on land zoned for higher density. The main reason housing has appreciated is a combination of high-skilled workers centralizing in a relative handful of cities, and falling interest rates driving up asset prices. When your asset purchases are highly leveraged (e.g. ten to one on a mortgage with 10% down), this can be extremely lucrative.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
2hr ago
And then stopped right there and treated them like the wider cohort instead of tailoring the message to who they are targeting.
This is fucking amateur hour.
Like how does one suck at marketing so bad that they try nanny state patronizing on the libertarian leaning business owners? It genuinely feels like being talked down to because you're black.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2hr ago
The Byrds of Virginia and Robert Byrd of West Virginia are not related. Strange but true.
NunoSempere
2hr ago
Very nice!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3hr ago
Usually kill-on-sight zones are in military bases behind fences and extensive signage. They're not on the edge of refugee camps, places you'd expect civilians to be walking around.
phailyoor
4hr ago
"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."
It's certainly excessive but I'd expect that shoot on sight zones aren't that out of the ordinary especially during wartime. And instead of making grunts decide what's a threat or not, have them shoot anything that moves.
America currently has the luxury of letting pro-palestine protestors occupy a warship without hurting them, but I'm sure there are still some spicy places where you can get vaporized just for showing up.
phailyoor
4hr ago
Trump's big tent rhetoric definitely makes the rising tide that happens to do all this interpretation somewhat reasonable. But Kambala's talking about straight up giving helicopter money and other benefits to black men at the explicit exclusion of others.
The prediction markets, if anything, seem to be underselling Trump's chances right now.
As much as I think the "Trump campaign is in disarray! They were not prepared for Kamala! Coconut-couchfucker-joy!" offensive was fake, I'll keep repeating "it's not over until it's over". Someone else also pointed out back then that relying on pollsters' past bias might be risky, because you never know when they might decide to correct for it.
It’s true that if you come back to Ghana with your Stanford Econ PhD then they may well give you a job at the central bank, but it’s also true that if you’re the kind of Ghanaian wealthy enough to go through 10+ years of tertiary education in the US you’re probably pretty well connected in the local ruling class anyway.
In many ways it’s nicer being a developing country PMC making $100k a year than an American making $400k a year. You have (more) servants, the cost of living is low etc. But a big reason people return is the same regardless of wealth, which is that home is home and people like being surrounded by friends and family in the community they grew up in, whereas life as a foreigner (even a wealthy one) involves a baseline higher level of mental stress because of the unfamiliar environment.
More options
Context Copy link