ToastedPlanet @ ToastedPlanet @lemmy.blahaj.zone

she/her

---

Read more

Posts

46

Comments

1,180

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh, like you would jokingly expect it to be Canadians because Wisconsin is on the border with Canada, but the idea of a bunch of Canadians apologizing as they commit a physical tidal wave of crime is surprising?

Is there a different put route for updating where the meta data is processed differently or given a longer timer? Because the federation seems to work fine in that case.

https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2025-33892-004.html

We recruited 2,180 participants on Lucid between January 31 and February 17, 2020, about 9 months before the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Lucid, an online aggregator of survey respondents from multiple sources

https://support.lucidhq.com/s/article/Sample-Sourcing-FAQs

How are respondent incentives handled in the Marketplace?

Our respondents are sourced from a variety of supplier types who have control over incentivizing their respondents based on their business rules. Each incentive program is unique. Some suppliers do not incentivize their respondents at all, most provide loyalty reward points or gift cards, and some provide cash payments. Lucid does not control the incentivization models of our suppliers, as that's part of their individual business models. The method of incentivization also varies; for instance, some suppliers use the survey's CPI to calculate incentive, others LOI, or a combination of the two. Each respondent agrees to their panel's specific incentivization method when they join.

So the study didn't use a random sample. They took people who volunteered to do promotions that were funneled to together by one site. This is how we got those bogus polling data that Gen Z was secretly conservative because all the data was from YouGov.

The study they cite as justification really is about using Lucid over MTurk, not using Lucid over random samples. So they cite another study.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053168018822174

We would note, however, that even extremely idiosyncratic convenience samples (e.g. Xbox users; Gelman et al., 2016) can sometimes produce estimates that turn out to have been accurate.

https://researchdmr.com/MythicalSwingVoterFinal.pdf

The Xbox panel is not representative of the electorate, with Xbox respondents predominantly young and male. As shown in Figure 2, 66% of Xbox panelists are between 18 and 29 years old, compared to only 18% of respondents in the 2008 exit poll,4 while men make up 93% of Xbox panelists but only 47% of voters in the exit poll. With a typical-sized sample of 1,000 or so, it would be difficult to correct skews this large, but the scale of the Xbox panel compensates for its many sins. For example, despite the small proportion of women among Xbox panelists, there are over 5,000 women in our sample, which is an order of magnitude more than the number of women in an RDD sample of 1,000.

The idea is to partition the population into cells (defined by the cross-classification of various attributes of respondents), use the sample to estimate the mean of a survey variable within each cell, and finally to aggregate the cell-level estimates by weighting each cell by its proportion in the population...MRP addresses this problem by using hierarchical Bayesian regression to obtain stable estimates of cell means (Gelman and Hill, 2006).

Maybe this is a lack of stats knowledge on my part, but can a person really successfully math out the responses of demographics the study didn't sample from when it mostly had respondents predominately from one age, one racial, and one sex demographic?

This seems like they are using math to make stuff up. It seems like the main driver of online surveys is to cut costs and save time for researchers. I'm taking this survey with a grain of salt for now. Maybe that's just my bias though. =/

So funny story on trying to get this to federate:

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18177682/11384061

If anyone has any insight, please let me know.

I finally got it to federate. I had to post an article for CNN and then edit to post it to what I wanted. This is the link I used and then switched out:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/05/health/daylight-saving-time-explainer-wellness/index.html

I also tried these, but they had the same problem and wouldn't federate: https://www.usnews.com/news/elections https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/

If anyone has an explanation for this I would be very interested to hear it. Are there exclude/include lists for certain websites on certain communities?

I guess it wasn't a me problem or a blahaj problem, but it's weird that two different politics communities on different instances had the same problem.

Other posts with different links work, just not this link. =/

Yeah, it goes to our instance first. But then it's supposed to be sent to the other instances we are federated with too. When I go to those instances' web addresses, not via Blahaj, I don't see the article.

It's good to know someone else had this problem though. It happened to me once before, but reposting fixed the issue so I think that case was just lag. edit: typos

How long have you had this?

Like military time or a count down or is it colon separated?

What does the text look like for you?

If Trump wins our democracy is over. The way to stop this is to Vote Blue!

The strategy is tell everyone the polls are bogus and then vote in record numbers.

Exactly, that's why this election is so important. The only way there will be consequences for the fascists is if they are out of power.

The plan is for people to vote in record numbers. Be vocal! Vote Blue! =)

There are people who are not plugged in to US politics that check in somewhere at the end of an election cycle. With so much information to consume and so little time it's easy for people to have missed something. For political junkies, this is a reminder, but for many people it is a warning.

I try to take a break from the news at least once a week. Even that one day away can put me behind with everything that happens.

It's like that Doctor Who episode with the spaceship next to the black hole. The closer we get to election day the more news that happens in a given day. It's like we're slowing down by the black hole and years of news are rocketing past us on the other end of the spaceship.

Planning for failure in a democratic election definitely makes the Republican position look weak. Regardless, vote Blue!

I’m just saying they have a plan for a narrow loss and a plan for getting the shit kicked out of them.

No, your argument is mistaking nonsense and lying no matter what as a plan. The way we win is by them getting the shit kicked out of them in the election count results. It makes MAGA Republicans sound absurd when they try to say millions of votes were faked. The majority of people know that's ridiculous because we all live in reality. Making the MAGA movement look like clowns when they inevitably make their false claims is how we win.

To put it another way, we don't need to win over MAGA loyalists, we need to win over everyone else. The smaller the margin of the victory for Kamala, the more credible the MAGA movement's claims seem. They will make the same claims no matter the actual results. That's not logic, that's additional evidence that the MAGA movement is a cult. So we need to pull the rug out from under the MAGA movement with a landslide victory for Kamala by voting in record numbers.

It's not a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a case of making it clear that the inevitable lie from MAGA is in fact a lie.

If all people are seeing are the polls, then they could easily be misled. Tell people right-wing organizations are skewing their polls to create a red mirage.

Spread the word. People need to know to ignore the polls and vote for Harris and Walz.