• 4 Posts
  • 870 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle

  • I got the brain inflammation outcome 20 years ago. Brutal. Would not recommend.

    In the past, it’s been to just prioritize not getting bitten, so use bug spray and consider how you’re dressed. If you are going to sleep outdoors maybe consider how well your sleeping situation is going to protect you.

    Also, big one is to think about if you’re creating good mosquito breeding conditions on your property. If so, change that.

    I know years ago, there was interest in reporting/cleaning up suspiciously dead birds too. Not sure what the current direction on that is now.



  • Delegates are bound to support in all good conscience the person for whom their primaries results reflect.

    This bizzare turn of phrase has been largely been untested in the courts… But if, in good conscience, the delegates believe that the results of the primary were for the candidate who was best poised to defeat Trump (as in, they’re not supporting Biden specifically as much as they are against Trump, for example) then they could argue that based on events that have occured since the primaries that they are in good conscience representing those wishes.

    So, I dunno. I’m very glad Biden took the high road here, but I am unconvinced that this was truely set in stone. This is the exact justification for having delegates choose the nominee in the first place; that in certain critical conditions they can act in good faith.






  • For transparency, I’m Canadian, but our situation is pretty much the same: Far right candidate projected to win next election, “meh, status quo centrist” in power now, people letting projections deter them from voting, primitive “electoral college” lite making your votes less effective based on where you live, etc etc…

    We do trend towards “looking over the fence” politically. If Biden’s step-down gamble pays off, it’s possible we could get a similar thing to happen here which could be good. So, we’re all watching and hoping that we don’t end up neighbouring a country with a fascist leader…



  • Polls are surveys. They answer the question “what do people say they’re going to do?”

    Extrapolating results strictly from polling comes with a pretty large caveat: it assumes people are going to do what they say they’re going to do.

    Another large caveat is that there are issues with representation, as the group of people who will actually answer their phone is a pretty serious demographic skew.

    Oddsmakers use polling results as a COMPONENT of their determination, but they’re free to aggregate against whatever else they see as relevant, things like history. Or to weigh which states polling is most effective. Or how which day of the week affects voter turnout on a per district level. Or how projected road closures could affect transit and therefore turnout rates.

    Anyways, I think the entire point of my initial comment was lost:

    If you’re excited about the polling, awesome… BUT DON’T GET COMPLACENT AND STILL GO VOTE. Why? Because the people who actually get paid to project outcomes think it’ll be a Hillary re-run, and if you don’t want that, you can NOT get complacent. You can’t let your friends get complacent. Be the reason the oddsmakers lose money in November.


  • *That’s what people who’s entire profession is establishing likelihood of outcomes think.

    Oddsmakers are often wrong, but over the long term, they’re more often right, it’s the entire basis of how they make money.

    Polls are just polls. Oddsmakers literally are putting thier money where their mouth is. If you’re confident they’re wrong, take the bet. They WANT you to.

    Edit: after reading the great responses, I think I’m sorely underestimating the volume of bets and how keeping both sides betting against eachother in this case is the strongest factor in the current odds.








  • Windex007@lemmy.worldtoSkeptic@lemmy.worldIs Trump's oversized bandage a coverup?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said that a skeptical viewpoint must be rooted in evidence.

    I think people are skeptical of pretty much anything that Trump does or says because he’s a proven serial liar. That still isn’t evidence that any individual claim is false, though.

    Is this a domain specific definition, something outside of conversational usage? Or am I just totally out to lunch?