FiniteBanjo @ FiniteBanjo @lemmy.today

Posts

11

Comments

2,432

Joined

1 yr. ago

Well the text does very specifically state it would trigger investigation of things that have caused harm, but yeah it's not worth the risk if the FTC decides what harm is.

Alright but if an entity, for example, teaches children about self harm for pleasure or gambling then that entity should be punishable, imo.

But another user makes a great argument that the FTC could decide anything they want is the definition of harm, which could include LGBT+ and therefor KOSA isn't worth the risks.

Does THIS LINK work you or no?

It's a little hard to find copies of prep guides for each year since it's so niche. I had copies over a decade ago but those are probably useless now. In general its really hard to get pirated technical books, I've had some luck with Library Genesis, Z Library, Liber3, or project Gutenburg.

An alternative to look at might be doing all of the AP High School and College subjects on KhanAcademy. And practice handwritten essays if you intend to take the optionals.

TBH scoring a 30 or higher on the ACT is a lot easier than scoring high on the SATs. None of the subjects will ask you to solve multivariate differential equations or anything high level like that.

Yeh tbh not sure why users here are opposed to KOSA.

What exactly is the benchmark for triggering an investigation? Child Gambling or just cartoons which say the ungodly word "taint"?

Idk, depending on the context I might support this bill. If you need to have real quantifiable evidence of harm done to children then you should expect the authorities to come in and clean it up.

Check the context of this thread. Then my words will make more sense and your point reveals itself to be coping to reaffirm unscientific bias.

But whats the interval on shit you just make up? Probably not as good a source as the polling.

You have selective vision, I wonder if optometrists can do anything about that?

I can't stand to fly I'm not that naive I'm just there to find The better part of me

I'm more than a bird I'm more than a plane I'm a birdplane I'm a birdplane I'm a birdplane

A part of me is a bird The other part is a plane See my feathers Hear my engines My beak and my hydraulic suspensions

Birdplane (A birdplane) I'm a birdplane (A birdplane) I'm a birdplane (A birdplane) Check me out I'm a birdplane (Check me out I'm a birdplane)

I wish that I could cry And fall upon my beak Find a way to lie And pretend I'm not a freak

It may sound insane It might be absurd But I'm a plane and I'm also a bird

You may be confused Now don't be naive Cause I can eat diesel-flavored birdseed

Cause I'm a birdplane (A birdplane) I'm a birdplane (A birdplane) I'm a birdplane (A birdplane) A motherfuckin' birdplane (A motherfuckin' birdplane)

And it's not easy To be a birdplane

I literally did, my entire statement is that there isn't any data to support the claim of an eruption of Harris enthusiasm in Florida, if anything there is only limited data to the contrary. The article doesn't even mention any polling at all.

That is completely off topic. The conversation here is about whether no polling is more trustworthy than some polling.

Thats what I said.

Now here is what I am saying: Rely on the polls. Use data to back your beliefs. Reject emotional responses which fuel your personal biases, be objective and make the best choices based on verifiably true information. If you have a better source than a poll that is great, if not then the poll is better than you.

Polling is not an inferior source to your gut feelings.

Look at this list of polls for 2016: LINK

You can see the largest sample size polls say about Clinton +2, which is close to the national popular vote, but there are several in the list that predicted a trump advantage. Trump won due to single digit wins in swing states.

1. Not all polls predicted that
2. The polls pretty accurately predicted the popular vote, but Trump won in 6 highly contested swing states which at the time included Florida

Then what exactly are we deriving these claims of surge of support for Harris on, if not quantifiable recorded support for Harris?

Even if Polling is less accurate than it was, and I haven't seen any such claims by an authority on this matter least of all Pew Research, it is still a lot more accurate than your thoughts and feelings, mate.

Take a look at THIS LINK. It's FiveThirtyEight's composite polling for the state with individual polls listed down below, one by Redfield & Wilton Strategies sponsored by The Telegraph with Trump +8 and another by InsiderAdvantage sponsored by WTVT (Tampa, Fla.) with Trump +10.

Don't rely on data or logic? The fuq?

fuck off, mate