geekwithsoul @ geekwithsoul @lemm.ee

I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comp

---

Read more

Posts

27

Comments

596

Joined

2 yr. ago

This has the same energy as the folks running around doing a disinfo op on Wikipedia. None of this is true and either OP wildly misunderstood the situation or they're intentionally being deceitful.

Um…no… this is just gender-swapped RFK Jr (from her Wikipedia page):

A "both-and" approach (both prayer and medicine) to physical and mental health has been attributed to Williamson.[98] Williamson has said, "People who are prayed for get out of the emergency room faster," and "people who have been diagnosed with a life-challenging illness, who attend spiritual support groups, live, on average, twice as long after diagnosis".[11][99][100]

Williamson has stated her support for the necessity and value of vaccinations and antidepressants,[101][102] but has been criticized for her skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry's influence in setting guidelines for how they are administered, citing her belief that their profit motive could result in harm to patients.[103][104][105]

She has also criticized overprescription of antidepressants,[97][106] questioning whether antidepressants play a role in suicide, saying that the prescriptive definition between sadness and clinical depression is "artificial", and having called the process by which clinical depression is diagnosed "a scam".[107][102]

Read what I wrote slowly again. I said Pew was the gold standard, said how many they polled in a recent survey as an example, and highlighted that they posted their data and methodology. I never said there was a minimum.

CNBC doesn't provide any of their data, has no published methodology - this might as well be results from an online survey like Fox News does all the time.

Did you even watch the video? Do you not see the difference between what Pew does with a 1,000 people and what fucking CNBC does?

Pew Research is pretty much a gold standard. In a recent survey on Ukraine they polled almost 10,000 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/25/wide-partisan-divisions-remain-in-americans-views-of-the-war-in-ukraine/

Also they post their dataset and methodology. Any poll/survey that doesn't do that is reasonably suspect.

On Bluesky, if you block the creator of the pack, it removes you from it. I would be surprised if the folks creating this on Mastodon didn't do the same.

You can choose to be removed from a pack, but it requires blocking the account that created the pack.

I've been thinking about this and wondering what happens if he dies from natural causes in office. The GOP infighting would be tremendous and without the cult of personality to hold the administration together, I'm not sure what would happen. Vance doesn't have what it takes, but with Peter Thiel backing him, it would essentially be a wackadoo billionaire being the power behind the throne.

Yeah, these are popping up all over the place - all from different users with newly created accounts and no other post/comment history. Most definitively sus.

In addition to the point about Western mythologies dominating because of cultural exports, I think there is also the undercurrent of England's original mythologies having been "lost" and so the English were always fascinated by the mythologies of the Norse (due to being invaded) and by the Greeks and Romans (as previous "great" civilizations they aspired to be).

Combine that with America's obvious English influences and the influence of England as a colonizer around the world, and those mythologies gained a huge outsized influence.

I'd say yes, but he's so much of a narcissist and so self-obsessed, I doubt it would've occurred to him. Especially as back then he was 90% tech bro and 10% weird idea guy. Those values, of course, have since fully flipped.

I think that's sort of the point - if 2016 was our last "normal" election and early voting wasn't prognosticative of election results then, there's no hope it would be anything other than more variable and chaotic now.

The point wasn't about a "return to normal" or else he would be saying it was an indicator.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. There's no way to reconcile what he's saying with the video evidence.

Several citizens were permitted to run “test” ballots through machines assigned to their county, including Savage, who was spotted on camera folding the ballots into his pocket while confirming with an election official that they were “absolutely, totally real ballots.” Although they weren’t official ballots, the ballots did not say “fake” or “sample” and were being tracked and counted by the state.

That would be "ornithological" :)

Weirdly antagonistic tone and not sure when Silver pissed in your Wheaties, but you obviously have a hang up about him. No desire to go tit for tat, other than to say he's been more reliably accurate over time than anyone else when it comes to politics. It's like baseball - if you lifetime hit for .300, everyone is going to know your name.

Also, the whole point of the article is that early voting patterns are not indicative of final results. That's not polling analysis or data modeling, that's just historical fact. I don't think Silver is perfect, and he's got problematic issues, but on this point he's just pointing out the thing the media ignores because it gives them headlines galore for the last two weeks before the election.

2008

Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, missing only the prediction for Indiana.

2010

His 2010 congressional mid-term predictions were not as accurate as those made in 2008, but were still within the reported confidence interval. Silver predicted a Republican pickup of 54 seats in the House of Representatives; the GOP won 63 seats. Of the 37 gubernatorial races, FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the winner of 36.[71]

2012

At the conclusion of that day, when Mitt Romney had conceded to Barack Obama, Silver's model had correctly predicted the winner of every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.[79][80] Silver, along with at least three[81] academic-based analysts—Drew Linzer,[82] Simon Jackman,[83] and Josh Putnam[84]—who also aggregated pollsfrom multiple pollsters—thus was not only broadly correct about the election outcome, but also specifically predicted the outcomes for the nine swing states.[85]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver

I'd list others but I doubt you'd read it anyway

He literally talks about that at several points. 2020 is a horrible baseline for looking at anything analytically because it was such an outlier because of COVID. Too many other variables in 2020 for it to be applicable for anything

What an odd take, and so orthogonal to what the article was about.

What the hell is this shit? Well, I guess rather than trying to link to Fox News, linking to where they get their bullshit talking points from is a choice.

I probably didn't explain well enough. Consuming media (books, TV, film, online content, and video games) is predominantly a passive experience. Obviously video games less so, but all in all, they only "adapt" within the guardrails of gameplay. These AI chatbots however are different in their very formlessness - they're only programmed to maintain engagement and rely on the LLM training to maintain an illusion of "realness". And because they were trained on all sorts of human interactions, they're very good at that.

Humans are unique in how we continually anthropomorphize tons of not only inert, lifeless things (think of someone alternating between swearing at and pleading to a car that won't start) but abstract ideals (even scientists often speak of evolution "choosing" specific traits). Given all of that, I don't think it's unreasonable to be worried about a teen with a still developing prefrontal cortex and who is in the midst of working on understanding social dynamics and peer relationships to embue an AI chatbot with far more "humanity" than is warranted. Humans seem to have an anthropomorphic bias in how we relate to the world - we are the primary yardstick we use to measure and relate everything around us, and things like AI chatbots exploit that to maximum effect. Hell, the whole reason the site mentioned in the article exists is that this approach is extraordinarily effective.

So while I understand that on a cursory look, someone objecting to it comes across as a sad example of yet another moral panic, I truly believe this is different. For one, we've never had access to such a lively psychological mirror before and it's untested waters; and two, this isn't some objection on some imagined slight against a "moral authority" but based in the scientific understanding of specifically teen brains and their demonstrated fragility in certain areas while still under development.