I got the skin cream thing right, but I am an ML guy. I think the way the data is presented is more of a trick question honestly, not a real actual thing - I find it kinda stupid. Usually you see these things reported as positive or no effect, not positive or negative (with an unbelievable 0 as no effect)
Man that Veritasium video is garbage. Had to turn it off when he started going radical centrist about tribalism and shit. Give me a break
1 Like
Thatâs pretty interesting. The problem I see is that in the initial example, the face cream numbers are clear and unassailable while the gun control numbers could be caused by conflating variables. For instance there are 420ish âcitiesâ in the gun control data. What were their gun laws before the hypothetical change, how big are they etcâŚ
Also, he posits that being numerate and scientifically curious leads one to think fracking is extremely high risk even for garbage republicans. I donât think you agree that fracking is extremely high risk.
1 Like
Democrats with high numerical literacy trust the scientific community (mostly) which have produced mountains of evidence about gun control and itâs effects. Of course they are going to initially think that any new data would support that by default, so goofballs showing people fake data to the contrary isnât some gotcha, itâs just showing people donât actually understand to re-revaluate data for themselves removing all learned context which is obvious. What are we even doing here?
Thatâs not what he is saying. The graphs measure when people interpret the data correctly. Itâs not about some objective truth about fracking, climate change or gun control. Itâs just about if the data presented is interpreted correctly.
You are sort of making his point.
This would only be a a good critique if the opposite effect wasnât also shown.
I thought the heading on the bottom graphs was âfuckingâ at first.
This is more likely at the Woodley Park exit. 
3 Likes
1 Like
If thereâs a battle at the Capital in DC, youâll want to avoid the botanical gardens and the American Indian History Museum, but the US History and African American History museums should be out of gunshot range.
1 Like
Also, Jose Andres owns like 5 restaurants in Chinatown, and he seems to handle crisis situations relatively well⌠My plan is to hunker down in Jaleo until we drain their stockpiles of Sangria and jamon iberico.
2 Likes
(wrong thread)
https://v.redd.it/4qgl8rkbhjzd1
Elmo toy under high voltage
Torture Me Elmo
I canât stop laughing at the end
As the GOP brings in more kooky types this kind of fusing environmental and anti immigration arguments is going to get more traction
But the movement seemed to be experimenting: What would happen if you took Tantonâs warnings about population and the climate and merged them with peopleâs fears of outsiders and paranoia about the limits of resources? What would happen if you truly turned the immigration debate into an environmental debate?
In February 2010, as Republicans gathered for the prestigious annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Center for Immigration Studiesâ longtime executive director, Mark Krikorian, sat on a panel about immigration reform in front of a packed audience, along with Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation and Steve King, the lightning-rod congressman from Iowa. Near the end of the session someone in the audience asked why the center was publishing reports about climate change if it was a hoax?
Krikorian, who declined to be interviewed for this story, offered the group a simple yet telling answer: The climate issue was a potent opportunity. He saw it as a wedge that could scare â and divide â the American left on immigration. The suggestion was that by doing so the Center for Immigration Studies would give liberals reason to support hard-line immigration controls and perhaps also offer conservatives an avenue to fold global warming into their narratives of a country under assault.
Itâs stuff like this that makes me believe in the long-run progressive/liberal/leftist (whatever you want to call them) views will never persist as long as these people and other conservative institutions like them have essentially unlimited funding. No one on the left can compete with this type of cynicism when itâs coupled with funding and a massive media apparatus.
1 Like
Weâve been mostly winning for 250 years. I donât expect that to stop, but setbacks can arise, sometimes for decades. We write the books and, ultimately, we write the history.
