We do not know the context in which the OP stated the 33%, so I took it at face value. You bring up a good point about multiple causes not being mutually exclusive.
In fact, you can absolutely assume it isn't 1st, because 1st would be "driving related". 100% of all driving accidents are driving related, and 100% preventable by not driving.
I disagree. We're already talking about car accidents, so that comes as a prior, and the goal of the analysis is specifically to discriminate that prior from other causes. Basically what you're saying is that car accidents are car accidents. True, but meaningless and uninformative.
Your abuse and/or ignorance of statistical analysis is staggering.
Due to the nature of driving, many accidents are simply not preventable. Everyone is doing everything correctly, nothing in the cars fails, but accidents still happen. This is why people designing self-driving cars have to deal with the moral quandary of what the car should do when an accident is unavoidable.
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable. It doesn't matter that they comprise a minority of overall accidents. Also, your assertion that 66% is the "vast majority" is an overstatement. This isn't politics. 2/3 is a significant majority, but 1/3 is also a significant minority. In fact, it is likely the largest single factor that contributes to car accidents. (With a bit of arithmetic, you can easily deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd.)
You missed an important point in TFS. It was right at the end, so you probably couldn't see it from up on your high horse:
"How will people accidentally cursed with the wrong data profile get affordable insurance?"
The first sentence of your post is flawed, because it assumes that Your Data and My Data are correct, and can't be manipulated. Frankly, that is naive and foolish, and exactly why we need to discuss the issues of how data is collected and who or what has access to it.
There are many, many jobs/professions where you must take into account the curvature of the Earth. All those people must be in on it.
For example, when Civil Engineers design a bridge above a certain length (not even really that long), they must account for the fact that the Earth curves. If they don't, the ends of the bridge will literally miss each other by a non-trivial amount (this has actually happened before). So the entire profession of Civil Engineering is in on the Round Earth Conspiracy.
At this point, the Round Earth Conspiracy has to be so large that it pretty much encompasses everyone who isn't a Flat Earther.
Either you know the Earth is flat because you're part of the conspiracy, or you don't believe the conspiracy anyway. Simultaneously the most successful and least successful conspiracy ever, encompassing the entire globe (pun intended) yet at the same time entirely ineffective.
Congress is intent on not allowing Trump to keep a campaign promise, regardless of anything else.
I agree, the Republicans who controlled Congress for the last 2 years really let the President down.
The leading House Democrats voted for walls before - that's how we got the partial wall that's already there. And $5B is (unfortunately) pocket change. It's all politics.
Yeah and the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the budget, which would override a veto... Why are you holding House Democrats responsible for changing their mind but not Senate Republicans?
And the wall before was not coerced by holding the entire government hostage. Giving into the whiny (trigger warning for pussy grabbing MAGA snowflakes) motherfucker will just enable this behavior in the future.
Yes, and just like the wall, the barrier isn't the President's will or honesty, but rather Congress. Co-equal branches and all that. So I wouldn't call either Obama failing to close Guantanamo or Trump failing to build the wall a lie, strictly speaking. Had Congress backed the Guantanamo shutdown, I have no doubt Obama would have come through. Similarly, if Congress funds the wall, I expect Trump to at least try to build the wall. I say try only because he and his administration are incompetent and I could totally see them botching the whole fucking thing. I could also see a lot of the funds being squandered due to corruption, and thus the wall ultimately never being completed.
But that aside, the lie was that Trump promised we would not pay for the wall, and now he is demanding that we do. And unlike Trump supporters who gladly overlook the lie and actually start to pledge their own money to a GoFundMe without hesitation... I am not happy with the fact that Obama was unable to close Guantanamo. He himself has said that it's one of the biggest regrets of his Presidency. If Trump makes taxpayers pay for the wall, do you think he would ever admit regret at not getting Mexico to pay for it?
Your attempt to create this false equivalency falls apart at every single level. I think, regardless of what your political leanings are, very few people would consider Barack Obama and Donald Trump to be anything alike.
Anyway, now that I've dealt with your whataboutism... my point wasn't that Trump lied. It's Trump, of course he lied. I was primarily responding to OP's complaint about, and I quote:
liberal BS demanding more of your money out of your pocket
The fact that Trump lied about Mexico paying for the wall merely makes the irony all the sweeter.
Do you even care that a wall won't actually be that effective at preventing most illegal immigration? Most illegal immigrants don't jump the Rio Grande, they come on legal visas and just overstay them. How is a wall going to prevent that?
Aren't you interested in solutions that actually work? I think you like the idea of the Wall more than you actually care about illegal immigrants.
I love how everyone is so quick to make these super deep jumps in logic using only this single 1-dimensional metric.
"Should I move out?" could mean California has more basement neck-beards than everywhere else. But it could just as easily mean that the basement neck-beards in California are at least considering moving out, whereas everywhere else they don't even bother.
I agree, California is a shit-hole, which is why no one lives there.
It's also a socialist boondoggle, which is why the economy is such shit and no companies want to be based there.
Clearly whenever someone asks "Should I move out?" with no other context, they must mean "out of their State", right? That's by far the most common usage of the phrase.
I mean, if California is such a paradise, how come it's not the most populous state with the largest economy? Checkmate, libtards.
Ballot initiatives were somewhat successful in bringing in some nice electoral changes, mostly with regard to district drawing, in certain states.
Similar initiatives could be used to end First-Past-The-Post (I think Maine voted for the first time using instant runoff in this election), which would remove the spoiler effect and make third parties viable.
As long as FPTP prevails, the 2-party system will remain. It's not just about who people vote for, but the choices they have. Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but he only had a real chance running as a Democrat.
Slashdot Mirror
You sure haven't understood the scientific method if you think that it is necessary for anyone to prove that the book is false.
We do not know the context in which the OP stated the 33%, so I took it at face value. You bring up a good point about multiple causes not being mutually exclusive.
In fact, you can absolutely assume it isn't 1st, because 1st would be "driving related". 100% of all driving accidents are driving related, and 100% preventable by not driving.
I disagree. We're already talking about car accidents, so that comes as a prior, and the goal of the analysis is specifically to discriminate that prior from other causes. Basically what you're saying is that car accidents are car accidents. True, but meaningless and uninformative.
Your abuse and/or ignorance of statistical analysis is staggering.
Due to the nature of driving, many accidents are simply not preventable. Everyone is doing everything correctly, nothing in the cars fails, but accidents still happen. This is why people designing self-driving cars have to deal with the moral quandary of what the car should do when an accident is unavoidable.
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable. It doesn't matter that they comprise a minority of overall accidents. Also, your assertion that 66% is the "vast majority" is an overstatement. This isn't politics. 2/3 is a significant majority, but 1/3 is also a significant minority. In fact, it is likely the largest single factor that contributes to car accidents. (With a bit of arithmetic, you can easily deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd.)
Why don't you ask some of the best predictive statisticians in the world about the significance of 30%.
It's amazing how you can type so much and yet say absolutely nothing.
I bet he gets more jail time than Manafort. The system is fucking broken.
As a non-government engineer, please don't speak for me. These guys at NASA are everything that I strive to be and more.
OK, now I'm convinced you're just a troll. Have a nice day!
You missed an important point in TFS. It was right at the end, so you probably couldn't see it from up on your high horse:
"How will people accidentally cursed with the wrong data profile get affordable insurance?"
The first sentence of your post is flawed, because it assumes that Your Data and My Data are correct, and can't be manipulated. Frankly, that is naive and foolish, and exactly why we need to discuss the issues of how data is collected and who or what has access to it.
You misunderstood my point.
There are many, many jobs/professions where you must take into account the curvature of the Earth. All those people must be in on it.
For example, when Civil Engineers design a bridge above a certain length (not even really that long), they must account for the fact that the Earth curves. If they don't, the ends of the bridge will literally miss each other by a non-trivial amount (this has actually happened before). So the entire profession of Civil Engineering is in on the Round Earth Conspiracy.
He is doing a great job.
I agree! It takes a lot of butt-hole exercise to prevent prolapse when you're taking that much corporate dick.
Collusion is just how business is conducted these days, amirite?
Giuliani is that you?
Calling Ajit Pai a whore is an insult to whores.
At this point, the Round Earth Conspiracy has to be so large that it pretty much encompasses everyone who isn't a Flat Earther.
Either you know the Earth is flat because you're part of the conspiracy, or you don't believe the conspiracy anyway. Simultaneously the most successful and least successful conspiracy ever, encompassing the entire globe (pun intended) yet at the same time entirely ineffective.
I always preferred the Great Iceball Earth anyway.
Oh wow! You responded directly to something I actually said!
I'll have to answer you after I get over the shock.
Congress is intent on not allowing Trump to keep a campaign promise, regardless of anything else.
I agree, the Republicans who controlled Congress for the last 2 years really let the President down.
The leading House Democrats voted for walls before - that's how we got the partial wall that's already there. And $5B is (unfortunately) pocket change. It's all politics.
Yeah and the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the budget, which would override a veto... Why are you holding House Democrats responsible for changing their mind but not Senate Republicans?
And the wall before was not coerced by holding the entire government hostage. Giving into the whiny (trigger warning for pussy grabbing MAGA snowflakes) motherfucker will just enable this behavior in the future.
Excuse me? I'm not looking the other way on anything.
The issue with the wall is not only the cost. If it was, then I'd mostly agree with you.
Yes, and just like the wall, the barrier isn't the President's will or honesty, but rather Congress. Co-equal branches and all that. So I wouldn't call either Obama failing to close Guantanamo or Trump failing to build the wall a lie, strictly speaking. Had Congress backed the Guantanamo shutdown, I have no doubt Obama would have come through. Similarly, if Congress funds the wall, I expect Trump to at least try to build the wall. I say try only because he and his administration are incompetent and I could totally see them botching the whole fucking thing. I could also see a lot of the funds being squandered due to corruption, and thus the wall ultimately never being completed.
But that aside, the lie was that Trump promised we would not pay for the wall, and now he is demanding that we do. And unlike Trump supporters who gladly overlook the lie and actually start to pledge their own money to a GoFundMe without hesitation... I am not happy with the fact that Obama was unable to close Guantanamo. He himself has said that it's one of the biggest regrets of his Presidency. If Trump makes taxpayers pay for the wall, do you think he would ever admit regret at not getting Mexico to pay for it?
Your attempt to create this false equivalency falls apart at every single level. I think, regardless of what your political leanings are, very few people would consider Barack Obama and Donald Trump to be anything alike.
Anyway, now that I've dealt with your whataboutism... my point wasn't that Trump lied. It's Trump, of course he lied. I was primarily responding to OP's complaint about, and I quote:
liberal BS demanding more of your money out of your pocket
The fact that Trump lied about Mexico paying for the wall merely makes the irony all the sweeter.
"lazy park staff going AWOL"
I'm sure your boss is glad to hear you'd be willing to work for weeks on end without getting paid. After all, you're not lazy, right?
Trump asks for $5billion to waste on a stupid wall he promised we wouldn't have to pay for.
"oMg TeH LiBtaRdS aRe dEmANdiNg mOrE $$$$$ frOM Urrr pOkkITS!!!"
Do you even care that a wall won't actually be that effective at preventing most illegal immigration? Most illegal immigrants don't jump the Rio Grande, they come on legal visas and just overstay them. How is a wall going to prevent that?
Aren't you interested in solutions that actually work? I think you like the idea of the Wall more than you actually care about illegal immigrants.
I love how everyone is so quick to make these super deep jumps in logic using only this single 1-dimensional metric.
"Should I move out?" could mean California has more basement neck-beards than everywhere else. But it could just as easily mean that the basement neck-beards in California are at least considering moving out, whereas everywhere else they don't even bother.
Obligatory xkcd.
I agree, California is a shit-hole, which is why no one lives there.
It's also a socialist boondoggle, which is why the economy is such shit and no companies want to be based there.
Clearly whenever someone asks "Should I move out?" with no other context, they must mean "out of their State", right? That's by far the most common usage of the phrase.
I mean, if California is such a paradise, how come it's not the most populous state with the largest economy? Checkmate, libtards.
Humans pretending to be Russian robots?
What's next, Russian bots pretending to be human?
Ballot initiatives were somewhat successful in bringing in some nice electoral changes, mostly with regard to district drawing, in certain states.
Similar initiatives could be used to end First-Past-The-Post (I think Maine voted for the first time using instant runoff in this election), which would remove the spoiler effect and make third parties viable.
As long as FPTP prevails, the 2-party system will remain. It's not just about who people vote for, but the choices they have. Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but he only had a real chance running as a Democrat.
Now you're just fucking with us.