Or, it's a cautionary tale that when the political system fails to support its people, they become disenfranchised and easily manipulated.
Keeping telling the non voters that they're wrong for not voting. I'm sure they'll find your obtuseness and unwillingness to understand very convincing.
You are a hole the boat when it comes to stopping right wing movements.
I still stand by the fact that the non-voters in the US fell asleep at the wheel.
To be clear, the point that I am making is: if the above is your point, then you both a) do not understand how elections function; and b) are contributing to the rise of right wing nationalism by giving them the opportunity to co-opt disenfranchised voters by blaming them instead of understanding why they dont vote.
Well the one thing I would strongly advocate for then, is that you make a concerted effort to understand why people feel the things that they feed and believe the things that they do, and demand that "your" politicians and political enterprises put addressing those issues in a material and substantial way front and center.
The denial of peoples lived experience is central to the failures of modern neoliberal ideologues; like you, they are disinterested in criticisms of their own approaches to politics, because it calls into question their entire ideology. In doing so they create the surface for right wing nationalist, reactionaries to come in, speak to peoples grievances, and misdirect that energy.
Not understanding and acknowledging that people do feel pain, are struggling, and maybe do have valid reasons for not participating in the political process is part-and-parcel to precisely how and why right wing movements have gained such significant traction.
Yeah we've been through this. l'm just using you to highlight how deeply cynical, toxic, and obviously counter productive your world views is.
It's a world view that will continue to allow rightwing grievance politics to persist, and even, help them gain traction.
You don't hold your view because you think it's going to help win elections or stop right wing nationalism: you're simply deeply emotionally attached to believing you are "right", even if that moral high grounds doesn't give you the outcomes you want.
You want voters who don't approach politics or elections to do their calculus your way, and if they don't, in your opinion that's their fault.
By carrying on with this, obviously counter productive approach to electoralism, you doom any chance you have of actually winning back voters to your cause.
You aren't an ally of what's right, your aren't even an opponent to that which is deeply wrong.
It's not a new way if looking at things, or even an interesting one, that you have. It's also an extremely predictable one, where we've seen Democrats focus their campaign around a basically identical rhetoric, to speculator and catastrophic failure, dooming us all.
This approach to politics, you approach to politics, results in Democrats to get their asses handed to them by right wing nationalists who are willing to understand why people feel so deeply disenfranchised by the system. They (rws) will speak to the deep pain and struggle people feel. Because people feel heard, they grow their base.
You aren't interested in growing a base or hearing or understanding why people largely don't vote. You just want to blame them. And because of this you're a destructive and toxic element within any kind of movement to try and stop rw nationalism.
This is on some prior world view that a sitting Senator would receive the full faith and backing of the US Government. That should anything ill befall them, there would a special kind of hell so furious to pay that world would balk.
How do we think Trump would react if Van Hollen were taken into custody? Would he demand his return? Or would he reward Bukele?
We can't live under previous assumptions we know no longer hold.
Well I appreciate the effort regardless. If you want any support in getting towards a more "proper" network analysis, I've dm'd you a link you can use to get started. If nothing else it might allow you to expand your scope or take your investigations into different directions. The script gets more into sentiment analysis for individual users, but since Lemmy lacks a basic API, the components could be retooled for anything.
Also, you might consider that all a scientific paper is, at the end of the day, is a series of things like what you've started here, with perhaps a little more narrative glue, and the repetitive critique of a scientific inquiry. All scientific investigations start with exactly the kind of work you are presenting here. Then you PI comes in and says "No you've done this wrong and that wrong and cant say this or that. But this bit or that bit is interesting", and you revise and repeat.
The phrase “if your post got less than 4 comments, that was statistically significant” can be misleading if we don’t clearly define what is being tested. When you perform a hypothesis test, you need to start by stating:
Null hypothesis (H₀): For example, “the average number of comments per post is λ = 8.2.”
Alternative hypothesis (H₁): For example, “the average number of comments per post is different from 8.2” (or you could have a directional alternative if you have prior reasoning).
Without a clearly defined H₀ and H₁, the statement about significance becomes ambiguous. The p-value (or “significance” level) tells you how unusual an observation is under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. It doesn’t automatically imply that an external factor caused that observation. Plugging in numbers doesn't supplant the interpretability issue.
"Statistical significance"
The interpretation that “there is a 95% probability that something else caused it not to get more comments” is a common misinterpretation of statistical significance. What the 5% significance level really means is that, under the null hypothesis, there is only a 5% chance of observing an outcome as extreme as (or more extreme than) the one you obtained. It is not a direct statement about the probability of an alternative cause. Saying “something else caused” can be confusing. It’s better to say, “if the observed comment count falls in the critical region, the observation would be very unlikely under the null hypothesis.”
Critical regions
Using critical regions based on the Poisson distribution can be useful to flag unusual observations. However, you need to be careful that the interpretation of those regions aligns with the hypothesis test framework. For instance, simply saying that fewer than 4 comments falls in the “critical region” implies that you reject the null when observing such counts, but it doesn’t explain what alternative hypothesis you’re leaning toward—high engagement versus low engagement isn’t inherently “good” or “bad” without further context. There are many, many reasons why a post might end up with a low count. Use the script I sent you previously and look at what happens after 5PM on a Friday in this place. A magnificent post at a wrong time versus a well timed adequate post? What is engagement actually telling us?
Model Parameters and Hypothesis Testing
It appears that you may have been focusing more on calculating the Poisson probabilities (i.e., the parameters of the Poisson distribution) rather than setting up and executing a complete hypothesis test. While the calculations help you understand the distribution, hypothesis testing requires you to formally test whether the data observed is consistent with the null hypothesis. Calculating “less than 4 comments” as a cutoff is a good start, but you might add a step that actually calculates the p-value for an observed comment count. This would give you a clearer measure of how “unusual” your observation is under your model.
Open AI: