Senator vows to go to El Salvador if Trump administration doesn’t return Maryland man
Is america great again yet?
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.
So lets just cover a few things..
Hypothesis testing:
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.
Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can be
deportedindirectly murdered by the state.
ftfy judge.
So I modeled that with a Poisson distribution, and I learnt that to a 5% significance level, if your post got less than 4 comments, that was statistically significant. Or in other words – there is a 95% probability that something else caused it not to get more comments. Now that could be because it is an AMAZING post – it covered all the points and no one has anything left to say. Or it’s because it’s a crappy post and you should be ashamed in yourself. Similarly a “good post”, one that gets lots of comments, would be any post that gets more than 13 comments. Anything in-between 4 and 13 is just an average post.
So, like, I do have a background in stats and network analysis, and I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
if your post got less than 4 comments, that was statistically significant.
Statistically significant what? What hypothesis are you testing? Like, how are you setting this question up? What is your null?
Because I don't believe your interpretation of that conclusion. It sounds like mostly you calculated the parameters of a poisson and then are interpreting them? Because to be clear, thats not the same as doing hypothesis testing and isn't interpretable in that manner. Its still fine, and interesting, and especially useful when you are doing network analysis, but on its on, its not interpretable in this manner. It needs context and we need to understand what test you are running, and how you are setting that test up.
I'm asking these questions not to dissuade you, but to give you the opportunity to bring rigor to your work.
Should you like, to further your work, I have set up this notebook you can maybe use parts of to continue your investigations or do different investigations.
Almost assuredly there is some of that. But if politics is going to survive this it has to start somewhere. I think its more likely that you can bully warren into being more of a bulldog than you can convince her fans to come to Bernie.
Well, I mean, you've shown that you aren't interested in winning elections. And obviously, you understand at this point, the discussion is never really intended to work on you, in terms of rhetoric, so much as it is to put your deep, deep cynicism on display.
You don't want to win elections. Its not what you are into politics for. You've made that clear. You want some one to excuse your failure on. Winning elections isn't the goal of why you think what you think or do what you do. I've been successful in-so-far as making that self-evident, even if I can't convince you to move away from it.
And thats the fundamental difference, right?
I actually want to win elections. Which means I cant' simply play a blame game with people who stood aside, even if I deeply resent them for doing so. If I want to win this game, I have to have empathy and try to understand why those who didn't vote made that decision. I can't blame the board or its pieces. I have to try to understand them.
You talk about self-reflection and growth, but your mentality the toxic fundamental at the core of the failure which is the modern Democratic party. They don't want to understand voters or hear criticism. They don't want democracy within the party. Party leadership wants to manage the party in support of pro-corporate oligarchy, even if they lose elections.
There is no failure to grasp anything here. Its just, looking at the sad, deep cynicism which is represented by what is the mainstream Democratic view of things. If you genuinely cared about this Democracy, you would have put your effort into figuring out and understanding why the Democratic party is so deeply unpopular with voters. But you don't care. Its all a write off to you so you can morally wash your hands of the matter. As long as you've got someone to blame, you are good.
Is c/SCP leaking?
I'm gonna put a wager down that this was bigger than the CO, record breaking rally.
I bet we're 50k+ in person. I did some basic crowd size estimates using the park. Then Bernie said there were people up to a half mile away. I think they set an new record today.
Yeah I always wonder the same thing with YT viewers. I think its mostly real.
So probably 35-50k watching across all streams?
Man. Hasan puts up numbers. How "real" are twitch viewer counts? Is that bot inflated or like, a genuine count?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw it.
Yeah my biggest regret politically was not going to a Bernie rally in 2016. I think I was knocking doors and told myself it was a better use of my time to knock doors for Bernie than to go enjoy a rally.
It ended up being the Birdie Sanders rally.
Yeah, I was like, can we get a musical act from this century?
But I really did like her cover of "Imagine"; I actually think it has good rhetorical undertones.
Its a huge problem with mainstream Demcorat's. They don't have a vision. They are offering you nothing other than "that side is worse (on some things)". The song "Imagine" is a counter to that: the songs central thesis highlights the value of putting out a competing vision.
Ro Khanna was on stage. I love the man, he’s one of the best, but he sounds like he’s announcing for a youth baseball game. Some one needs to get the man some signing lessons, teach him to speak from the bottom of his lungs.
Pramilla Jayapal on stage now. 5k watching. Unclear how many showed up/ in audience. This one might break another record. Glad to see they are growing the membership in terms of who Bernie and AOC are bringing on the roadshow. Movements need counterparts in politics. This shows people they’ve got backup in the halls of power. Medicare4All getting introduced in the next few weeks.
Musical interlude with Joan Baez. She should take Ro aside and do a bit of voice coaching on her way out. Great cover of “imagine”.
Lorena Gonzalas, union organziser, starting her time with a “fuck yeah”. Also, wow what a strong speaking voice. Drops two F bombs. Creates connection to families by mentioning her kids. First time hearing her speak, but damn. She needs to be elevated. She’s good. I really like this “whose side are you on?” rhetorical framing. I really like that she is highlighting the battle lines. Too many speakers want to have it both ways and not distance a side (third F bomb). Great use of history.
Now Maggie Rodgers; Bernie-chella. At least the music is from this century. I wonder if they could get greenday. Sounds like she is having fun. Strong tone of positivity through these speakers. Its incredibly important to have these rallies be a show of "positive" force, considering how generally negative the world is.
Almost 7k watching now.
Little duet with Joan and Maggie.
Big sweeping shots of the crowd. Really though to see how many people are there. At least 5k, but thats a gimme.
April Verret speaking now. Lots of good union leaders. This feels like maybe the plan is building towards a general strike. These rallies super important for battle testing potential future candidates.
Neil Young. I mean its Neil Young.
AOC on stage now. 9k watching. Quick bump of 2k. Already this is a different speech than we were hearing 3 weeks ago. This sounds like it must have been written last night, because she's referencing events from yesterday. I think its a good thing because the last speech was getting repetitive. Focus on Republican damages. She's calling out specific California D's who voted yes on Republican bullshit. AOC gets it: the fight isn't between R's and D's. Its within the Democratic party to even have the permission structure to fight the R's. I'm wondering if she's going to call out AIPAC. Big focus on money in politics. A lot of meat on the corruption bone this week, so she's hitting the buy the dip point. Getting a bit wonky with committee stuff. Okay now we're getting back into her previous beats. This is the intro from her previous speech (her dad's cancer). Strong theme of belonging: man this is what D's needed in 2024. Grow the tent, don't push people out of it. Presentation of a path to victory ✅ . Class solidarity (are those words illegal yet?). AOC just announced Bernie.
Bernie coming on to "Power to the People", but... not the regular one he uses.. is that, a local choir? Bruh Bernie just got an upgrade. Not a lot of people have their own band for their walk on music. Bernie saying there are people a half mile away. And as usual, people chant "Bernie" and Bernie responds "No, its you!". Man LA has a strong labor showing. Drink every time Bernie says "trade union". Bump to 10k watching from AOC's peak at 9.2k. Direct calling out of Musk and Trump. Good. Tell them to square up. 10.5 on the stream. Direct calling out the conservative movement for what it is: a cult of the individual. More direct calling out of Elon. I think this is good strategy on Bernies part. Elon has no control of his behavior. He isn't capable of not responding. 11k on the stream. This whole rally approach is, really smart and very strategic on the part of Bernie/ AOC. Gives them their own platform, which gets news cycles, and really, neither Trump nor Musk have access to it. This speech is, basically the same as the one he's been giving for the past 2 months (at least so far). Good focus on criticizing Democrats by Bernie. Always bananas' in the banana stand as long as Dems keep being shit. EMT getting called in to a place. I want to update but this really is the same speech that Bernie was giving two months ago. Honestly, AOC's was stronger. Hmm. I didn't like his "entitled to rights" wording. This could be stronger. Break up the concept of entitlements. I've been watching this speech for a couple months now. It really feels like Bernie is handing off his legacy. Hence the repetition. Now he's getting into his 99% framing. I haven't heard that since the 2016' speeches.
And thats the ball game. Great showing. Rally interested in seeing the numbers. Bernie said there were people in the streets up to a half mile away. Could be even bigger than the CO numbers they put up.
You again fail to see my point, which is logic based.
No one is missing your point. You are simply too obtuse to realize its consequences. Its also obvious that you aren't incapable, but simply unwilling to understand this main point. You want the world to be an a way which it isn't and because of that we lost an election. And to be clear, you are in no manner unique in holding that perspective. Your argument, was the core argument that almost all of the DNC infrastructure was relying upon to convince voters to show up last November: and it cost the US its democracy.
In my view this is where the non-voters actually failed and they need to learn from their mistake.
Yeah, we know dude. We've been over this. Ad nauseam. Your world view is wrong. Like its just straight up wrong. As in, it has no basis in reality.
Your worldview results in wrong outcomes (based on the charitable assumption you actually wanted to win the election).
You want voters to be different than they are: but they aren't. You want elections to work differently than they do: but they don't.
Having a view that doesn't map to reality: thats at the core of the problem Democrats faced last November.
They didn't want to meet voters where they were. They didn't want to address voters concerns on the voters grounds. They didn't want to hear criticism. They didn't want the candidate to have to move to where the voters were. They wanted the voters to move to where the candidate was. They didn't want to convert non-voters into voters by addressing their grievances with the current state of things. They didn't want to address the fact that Democrats were deeply unpopular with voters and non-voters alike.
But thats not how the world works. And any one could have told you that the above strategy, and more general, approach to interpreting the world and understanding the outcomes and consequences of decisions, any one since Aristotle could have told you that this would obviously fail.
You can't just completely fail to enumerate the board, the pieces, and their positions correctly, fail, and then complain that its the board or the pieces who are wrong because you didn't want to even look to understand how the game was set up.
You are blaming the board and the pieces for losing a game.
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.