Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1141 1142 [1143] 1144 1145 ... 3610

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 4454801 times)

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17130 on: February 12, 2018, 06:24:58 pm »

...I clicked on whatever you linked, selected USA.  No other inputs.

"Demographic profiles" and "probabilistic projections" use the same data AFAIK.  If you want to see the data from the demographic profiles displayed with its 95% confidence interval you can click around the options under probabilistic projections.  Any projection done according to proper statistics is going to present a range and a confidence interval, just because one graph doesn't show it to you doesn't mean that its not there.

Edit: Wow, not even going to direct that at me?  You know I meant probabilistic projections because that's the only one that displays a ranged based on a 95% confidence interval.  You know I was talking about general population because I didn't specify beyond "the population."  And you know I meant USA because I said so.  If you had just clicked on the link and looked at the only possible graph I could have been referencing, you will see that the data agrees with me.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 06:28:19 pm by EnigmaticHat »
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17131 on: February 12, 2018, 06:37:07 pm »

...Enigmatic Hat, I don't see the 500% difference you claimed. Here is a screenshot of the settings I'm using and the accompanying graph.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17132 on: February 12, 2018, 06:41:57 pm »

Okay, if I came up to you and I was like "the US population will go up."  And you asked, "in what way?"  And I answered "I dunno.  It'll probably go up tho, some amount less than double.  But like, it might be wayyyyy less than that, like it might go up by only an eight.  And I'd plausibly accept that it in fact double, go down, or stay the same."  If I said that, would you think I had anything interesting to say about the US population?  No, no you wouldn't.

The people who made that graph were clearly mathematicians instead of journalists.  And they made a good graph, an honest graph.  And what that graph says is, in regards to the population in 2100, "I dunno."  Its a very tied down, rigorous "I dunno", an "I dunno" with some real data behind it.  Sometimes you do good honest statistics and it doesn't reveal that much.

Like, okay.  "Past trends of population growth will continue but they'll slow down because the industrial revolution is over, and in countries that currently catching up with the industrialized nations the population will rise faster as they follow the same trends over a temporary period of time.  But maybe we'll have a nuclear war or invent infinite pizza and the population will do something bizarre."  That's what the graph says.  I could have told you that.

Edit: It is a graph of population change.  The rate of change presented by one is 500% of the other.  But, fine.  Within a 95% confidence interval, the population of the USA in 2100 will be 120% to 180% of the current population.  I don't think that changes anything.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 06:51:55 pm by EnigmaticHat »
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17133 on: February 12, 2018, 06:42:50 pm »

It just looks exponential if you look at it over a long period of time (going back centuries, maybe a millenium or two) since the population growth is in such a short time that it shows up as a big spike.

Still though, as EH said, it's just a projection from that specific moment in time and assumes the trajectory stays the same. There is a hell of a lot that can happen in 80 years that would have an effect on population growth, but the general trend is that population growth as a whole is stabilizing. Individual countries are a completely different can of worms though.

Not sure what this has to do with politics, other than maybe tangentially immigration.
Logged

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17134 on: February 12, 2018, 07:00:34 pm »

Ah. I though the 500% difference was supposed to be between the endpoints of the 95% interval.

And yes, I agree that using this ratio on confidence intervals is a bit misguided. Notice that there's nothing special about the present date; if one or two hundred years ago humanity had found this same 95% confidence interval, and you computed the same ratio, it would've been much smaller. Since this ratio changes if you change its reference point, it doesn't reveal anything intrinsic about the confidence interval. The ratio between the endpoints of the 95% interval, or the absolute difference between them, would count as something intrinsic, since it doesn't change according to the current date, which is completely arbitrary.
Logged
Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17135 on: February 12, 2018, 07:10:50 pm »

I agree that it is irresponsible to have children you can't support, and it can be interpreted as cruel to the child.  I also think people should be discouraged from having children in general, because I do think overpopulation is a problem.

Yet I still think it's abhorrent to actually expect people not to have children they can't support, because the ethical implications are despicable.  The natural conclusion to that line of thinking is that only those who are born to advantageous positions in society should breed.  That anyone who isn't born into privilege and chooses to breed or makes a mistake deserves to be, at minimum, judged.

There's an irreconcilable contradiction here in the values and expectations society expresses towards poor people.  We encourage those who aren't born with silver spoons in their mouths to be patient, work hard, make responsible choices, etc, and eventually it will pay off.  We shame people who are in their late 20's and complain that they still struggle.  We call them naive and entitled.  But what if someone really wants children?  Do we still expect them to wait until they're middle-aged and finally achieved stability to pursue what they really want in life?  Woops, too late.  Sucks to be them.  Guess all that stuff about hard work and patience wasn't really aimed at people who are family oriented, huh?  All we really meant was they might be able to party through the later half of their lives.  That's apparently all society believes anyone should aspire to.

It also invalidates the more somber lines you hear pushed on the poor sometimes about how those born into poverty shouldn't expect their hard work and patience to pay off for themselves, but they can set their children up to live better lives than they did.  I hear this sort of thing a lot to convince the poor to be humble, and nobly work their asses off for the sake of future generations.  But combine these two sentiments and what it really means is 'Yeah, you're just fucked.  Please continue being a slave for us.  But also don't make any more of you."

The practical implications suck, too.

Even for people who manage to reach financial stability at a late-fertile age, there's a direct correlation between a women's age and the likelihood their offspring will have various health problems.  You're literally asking people to produce a population that will have more health issues.  And while it may be financially easier to raise children later in life, it's harder in many other ways.  Have a child at 20 and when that child is a teenager, you can still keep up with them.  Not so if you have a kid at 35.  A 35 year old also won't handle the sleep deprivation and energy needs of a young child nearly as well, either, and will thus be more prone to neglect or make accidents in caring for them.  Yeah, they'll be able to provide better materially for their kid, but that's not all their is to raising a kid.  The expectation we're talking about tells the poor that they should risk their child's health and offer them lower quality parenting, in order to provide for them better materially.

Finally, what we're talking about also results in money management being our #1 factor in natural selection.  Not only are there many, many other qualities that can be desirable in a person that we should want to be passed on, but getting rich often involves being a fucking asshole, to put it bluntly.  The corporate executive demographic has a pretty fucking high concentration of sociopaths.  That's not what I want the evolution of our species to be based on, thanks.

If people want children, they should be able to have a couple children, and receive whatever support they need to be able to properly raise their kids.  Regardless of whatever their financial circumstances are when they make that decision.

And ultimately, there's still no excuse for poverty in the modern world.  It's something that at this point is enforced.  The proper response is to fight back against the people that are enforcing it, not to encourage the victims of class war to make such sacrifices.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 07:17:23 pm by SalmonGod »
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Duggin was the hero we needed.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17136 on: February 13, 2018, 01:43:34 pm »

Hey guys what do you think about this food stamp thing going on?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-cut-back-food-133500122.html

All the articles I've read seem to state that the white house budget guys have billion-dollar-savings estimates but all the private businesses that profit from food stamps are up in a tizzy. Wal-Mart, that generous institution that is so often taken unfair advantage of, seems to be in opposition to it.

Also, every article title reads akin to "TRUMP WANTS TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE POORS' FOOD FOR NO REASON and maybe has a better idea we aren't sure yet AND STARVE YOUR BABIES."
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

bloop_bleep

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17137 on: February 13, 2018, 01:55:40 pm »

Hey guys what do you think about this food stamp thing going on?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-cut-back-food-133500122.html

All the articles I've read seem to state that the white house budget guys have billion-dollar-savings estimates but all the private businesses that profit from food stamps are up in a tizzy. Wal-Mart, that generous institution that is so often taken unfair advantage of, seems to be in opposition to it.

Also, every article title reads akin to "TRUMP WANTS TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE POORS' FOOD FOR NO REASON and maybe has a better idea we aren't sure yet AND STARVE YOUR BABIES."

...I don't see the point in actually delivering boxes of food, since it would cost the government the price of shipping and piss off a lot of companies at the same time, for some unknown benefit. Unless there's some kind of ulterior motive, which there very often is in cases like these.
Logged
Quote from: KittyTac
The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum mechanics.
Quote from: thefriendlyhacker
The trick is to only make predictions semi-seriously.  That way, I don't have a 98% failure rate. I have a 98% sarcasm rate.

WealthyRadish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17138 on: February 13, 2018, 02:01:06 pm »

I had assumed that the farm bill would be the next item following taxes, it has been cooking for a while. Mike Conaway, the head of the congressional committee on agriculture, has been pushing for it as a top priority for over a year.

I believe what you can expect from this bill are cuts to nutrition assistance (the bulk of funding in the farm bills) and increases in the pork that goes into every USDA bill (most notably the useless crop insurance subsidies that in recent years under Obama took over as our main avenue for subsidizing the profits of the richest farmers and financial institutions). Since the republicans are likely to push for cuts to SNAP that in previous years would've been considered politically impossible, I think there'll be a glut of "savings" that will allow the aforementioned pork to be greatly increased, since it is a very small part of the budget; even a doubling of the various corrupt programs could probably fly under the radar while still claiming the mantle of "fiscal responsibility", if they did manage cuts to the very large nutrition programs.
Logged

redwallzyl

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17139 on: February 13, 2018, 02:01:59 pm »

I highly doubtful of any program that Trump has come up with as a replacement will work.
Logged

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17140 on: February 13, 2018, 02:02:58 pm »

Hey guys what do you think about this food stamp thing going on?
It seems completely impractical, for one thing.  The theory is that they'll save money by buying wholesale...  But then they (that is, the states apparently) have to handle distribution.  Which may involve "commercial delivery services".

I love canned pasta, but there are reasons I don't Fedex it to my door.  Even in bulk quantities.  Local, perishable foods are much cheaper and healthier, and there's already a healthy distribution system.  It's free-market, too!

And, what, is it all going to be kosher vegetarian soylent or something?  People have so many different dietary needs.  I worry because this is supposedly intended to make people eat healthier...  What does that mean?
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17141 on: February 13, 2018, 02:09:00 pm »

Food stamps are (or were?) a little restricted, in that you can't buy certain things like rotisserie chickens, even from a grocery store.  The rule was meant to stop people from wasting money on restaurants, but apparently certain prepared foods count.

If we really want to force impoverished people to eat healthier, we could add rules along those lines I guess.
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

WealthyRadish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17142 on: February 13, 2018, 02:16:10 pm »

I don't think whatever ephemeral fantasies are swirling behind the eyes of Trump are going to be a relevant factor. He likely has only recently become aware of the existence of farm bills as something that need to be passed, has no personal connection to the issues included whatsoever, and will likely just concede the reigns entirely to the next pissant to get a meeting with him.

The farm bill is classic rural republican red meat, and nearly every republican congressman will be falling over themselves to show their agribusiness benefactors something substantial. The question is whether we are really so far over the cliff that they'll take the scorched-earth option of gutting SNAP, or will succumb to their usual paroxysms and settle for something that's merely conspicuously loaded with pork (if only just to be able to get it passed).
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17143 on: February 13, 2018, 02:28:48 pm »

Two things I'm certain of:

1. People in poverty know better about what they need to spend money on than politically compromised think tank assholes and politicians.

2. Scapegoating the poor as being obviously idiotic for not being rich and trying to impose draconian controls on their personal lives is a hypocrisy that the right will always love.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

WealthyRadish

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol: Russia investigation sheneinighans
« Reply #17144 on: February 13, 2018, 02:45:23 pm »

2. Scapegoating the poor as being obviously idiotic for not being rich and trying to impose draconian controls on their personal lives is a hypocrisy that the right will always love.

It's an idea older than industry that the poor themselves and not economic factors are the cause of poverty. The earliest example I know of where this sentiment was codified into law would be the vagabond acts in England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagabonds_and_Beggars_Act_1494
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagabonds_Act_1530
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagabonds_Act_1547
etc

Rich landowners had been driving peasants off their land in great numbers to replace the customary tenure system with the more profitable and less labor-intensive commercial production of wool, and for the crime of poverty these former peasants were then criminalized, persecuted, and often enslaved or hanged for their "unwillingness" to work. It's an interesting case of how a society previously unfamiliar with permanent systemic poverty reacted to a shift toward market capitalism, since until then they had lived in a society where it was obvious that if anybody wanted to work to sustain themselves they could find a way to do so.

Edit: Hah, actually reading that first wikipedia article, it's implying that population growth was the cause of the rise in the number of vagabonds and paupers. Malthus never dies.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 02:57:53 pm by UrbanGiraffe »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1141 1142 [1143] 1144 1145 ... 3610