BuckeyeSundae's recent activity

  1. Comment on Why six hours of sleep is as bad as none at all in ~health

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    Reminds me of this post on sleep from a while back. It was a blog post thoroughly reviewing a book that was attempting to overview studies like the one referenced in the article here.

    Reminds me of this post on sleep from a while back. It was a blog post thoroughly reviewing a book that was attempting to overview studies like the one referenced in the article here.

  2. Comment on Discord is not an acceptable choice for free software projects in ~comp

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    There's really not much getting around the fact that what Discord offers is a flexible means to have the old IRC community feel with modern VOIP and video chats (if that's your thing), for free to...

    There's really not much getting around the fact that what Discord offers is a flexible means to have the old IRC community feel with modern VOIP and video chats (if that's your thing), for free to all but those who opt into a subscription service. So long as we're all about the free and see any subscription-only service as too high a barrier to entry to stomach, it's highly unlikely anyone else can get the venture capital/infrastructure capital required to set up a reasonable alternative to Discord.

    Why is it that discord has kind of scummy personal data practices? Because it's how they pay the bills. It's the same with Facebook. Unless and until you find a way to pay the bills that people are willing to opt into, you're gonna struggle.

    7 votes
  3. Comment on Andrew Yang drops out of presidential race in ~news

  4. Comment on Andrew Yang drops out of presidential race in ~news

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    I think much of the importance placed on the first few moments that voters get to have a say is because just about everyone is terrified of a "contested primary" result because, well, it would be...

    I think much of the importance placed on the first few moments that voters get to have a say is because just about everyone is terrified of a "contested primary" result because, well, it would be awful for Dems and likely divisive in its result.

    The trouble in my view seems to be much more that Dems, nor republicans, have figured out a way to make a primary system allow for multiple participants and not lead inexorably to factional candidates vying for different constituent groups among the whole, who then potentially struggle to earn the legitimacy of the whole due to their having achieved success through largely factional means. More simply, the more candidates you have, the harder it is to arrive at the end goal of a primary system: the candidate with the most overall support from its party membership. So a lot of this funneling is even desired by the party because, like the voters, they fear a contested primary for its potentially permanently divisive result.

    6 votes
  5. Comment on Joe Biden's campaign has released an ad attacking Pete Buttigieg's record and experience in ~misc

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    Yeah, and the tonal difference between the music choices between each segment was also a little much for me. It's also worth noting that not all of the "accomplishments" being said of Pete were...

    Yeah, and the tonal difference between the music choices between each segment was also a little much for me. It's also worth noting that not all of the "accomplishments" being said of Pete were all that great. The last two "accomplishments" in particular are notable reasons why people of color may be a bit reluctant to hop on Team Buttigieg, rather than things that Pete himself has claimed pride in doing. So even on that front, I don't see these as true comparisons. These are a list of Biden's proudest accomplishments, as well as two things a generic small city mayor could be proud of and a couple things they may not be so proud of.

    4 votes
  6. Comment on Joe Biden's campaign has released an ad attacking Pete Buttigieg's record and experience in ~misc

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    And, just as importantly, Biden is campaigning on his own record too.

    And, just as importantly, Biden is campaigning on his own record too.

    1 vote
  7. Comment on Joe Biden's campaign has released an ad attacking Pete Buttigieg's record and experience in ~misc

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    Yep, and even Obama had more track record than Buttigeig, with 7 years in the state legislature and then another 4 in the US Senate.

    Yep, and even Obama had more track record than Buttigeig, with 7 years in the state legislature and then another 4 in the US Senate.

    2 votes
  8. Comment on Joe Biden's campaign has released an ad attacking Pete Buttigieg's record and experience in ~misc

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    I think the idea is something along the lines that Buttigeig doesn't have much of a record at all, not just on national policy but in total. If all you can point to are successes while being mayor...

    I think the idea is something along the lines that Buttigeig doesn't have much of a record at all, not just on national policy but in total. If all you can point to are successes while being mayor of a small* city for eight years (there's only 100k or so inside the city, and only 310k in the metro area; you're really stretching things to say he's in charge of a city of 700k people, which would be the entire statistical area that includes a lot of land he isn't mayor of--Mishawaka in particular) ...

    I think it's a perfectly valid point to say that eight years of being major of a small city might not be enough to prepare you for the scale of what's involved at the national level. Maybe it isn't the most important thing for everyone's vote (we're all bad at scale), but surely it's important to enough people to be worth commenting on.

    12 votes
  9. Comment on Recruiting for a panel for an LGBT-focused Q&A session on Tildes in ~lgbt

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    I would say it's also awkward to get name dropped if you're not expecting it. In my experience, a lot of people assume they won't be so remarkable as to be remembered--even when they are. I don't...

    I would say it's also awkward to get name dropped if you're not expecting it. In my experience, a lot of people assume they won't be so remarkable as to be remembered--even when they are.

    I don't think I saw the exchange being referenced here, but I thought I would speak up sympathy for you're feeling a bit put out. I'm a gay man too, and one reason I don't say it as often as I might is because I'm not looking for the conversation that often comes from admitting as much. That isn't to say you're a bad person for being among friends who would ask me questions, it's just that I don't always have the energy for that and so I choose when it's best for me to talk about that stuff. If you choose the same moments I choose, then we're golden. It's only when you choose other moments that I might react poorly, which (again) is not your fault! Just a mismatch of emotional energy to your good natured interest.

    6 votes
  10. Comment on Too Many of America’s Smartest Waste Their Talents in ~finance

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    I think it's a heuristic that many people associate going to Harvard and Yale (or Standford) with smarts. Intelligence is not the same as dedication or family connections. I know from experience...

    I think it's a heuristic that many people associate going to Harvard and Yale (or Standford) with smarts. Intelligence is not the same as dedication or family connections. I know from experience that the smartest students are not always the most driven, but the most driven are always among the disproportionately likely to apply for top tier schools.

    And doesn't that cast the problem in a different light? If you assume what I said just now is true, isn't it a different problem that the most driven students generally (or at least disproportionately) see Finance as the best avenue for personal success? And doesn't it force you to have to wrestle for better metrics to determine what the "smartest" students are doing?

    5 votes
  11. Comment on Dark Energy may be an illusion: Gravitons themselves may have mass in ~space

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    I want every journalist who covers any scientific anything to pay into science education funds for every instance of the phrase "just a theory" that comes up in their writing. I don't care how...

    I want every journalist who covers any scientific anything to pay into science education funds for every instance of the phrase "just a theory" that comes up in their writing. I don't care how much they pay. I just care that they pay.

    11 votes
  12. Comment on There is such a thing as too much technology in ~tech

  13. Comment on There is such a thing as too much technology in ~tech

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    I am not sure I was clear. The question I am asking is specifically why you think the former conclusion is more adequate when it doesn't seem at all the case to me. It's a conclusion that is both...

    What's the point of making logical gymnastics to make this into sometimes, a particular technology is inadequate or inefficient, requiring new interactions or the adoption of different technologies, when the former conclusion is more adequate to the case at hand?

    I am not sure I was clear. The question I am asking is specifically why you think the former conclusion is more adequate when it doesn't seem at all the case to me. It's a conclusion that is both broader (and necessarily also harder to defend) and also much more hostile to integrating with counterpoints (and therefore harder to defend).

    In a lot of domains, not just technology, there's a general emphasis on intellectual restraint, or the idea that you don't need to kill the cow to get some calories from it. When given two statements, one more narrow and the other more broad, and there is otherwise nothing meaningfully different between them, it's more responsible to prefer the more narrow statement.

    Another way of thinking about it is that old saying of Carl Sagan's: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now I don't think this is a particularly out there claim, but the point Sagan was making was more about the appropriate proportion that claims require for a given conclusion. The bigger the conclusion, the better the argument should be to support it. Most people don't have the time to gather that much evidence though, so the more narrow conclusions fall into the more reasonable to spend time on defending.

    So I know I can seem like I'm focusing on minutiae, and you wouldn't be the first to become irritated with my comfort in precision, but my emphasis here is all about the proportionality of the arguments in play. Like you, I don't really see much of a difference between the broader conclusion you're preferring over the more narrow one I've suggested. The only difference worth noting that I can tell is this argument about proportion.

    2 votes
  14. Comment on There is such a thing as too much technology in ~tech

    BuckeyeSundae
    (edited )
    Link
    I'm curious to know why you're framing this problem as too much technology, rather than what seems to me the more obvious problem of technology that does not serve the purpose it was created for....

    I'm curious to know why you're framing this problem as too much technology, rather than what seems to me the more obvious problem of technology that does not serve the purpose it was created for. That gate seems intended to help the store better track customers and product, so that they can earn more money by both reducing lost product and by giving customers a feeling of safety. But if the technology doesn't work and employees have to hand out manual tickets, that slows the shopping process down and gives the store the image of being difficult to shop at, which reduces customers' desire to shop there. That has the opposite impact in the immediate term of what the technology was intended to achieve (i.e., more profits).

    The better question with this example is not whether we have too much technology in general, but whether a certain technology serves the purpose it was created for better than alternatives. If going without the technology serves better than using it, go without. If the technology actually helps you in the way it was designed to help, and the opportunity cost for getting access to it and using it are worth the benefit it offers, then use it. This doesn't have to be a grand statement about the holistic amount of technology in our lives so long as the process we use to decide whether to use a technology is maintained and reviewed.

    8 votes
  15. Comment on Seventh Democratic Debate Live Stream (Starts at 9pm ET) in ~news

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged....

    I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged. And a fair number of Biden supporters that I have met and talked to are the type that would prefer another candidate but value beating Trump more (and believe that a more moderate candidate that appears to that large chunk of whites without a college degree that went so hard for Trump this last cycle is the way to get to 50%+1 electoral votes).

    The two (2!) Gabbard supporters I've talked to weren't impolite, but made no secret about their hatred of the Democratic party generally, and their deep distrust in everyone else's foreign policy views.

    4 votes
  16. Comment on Seventh Democratic Debate Live Stream (Starts at 9pm ET) in ~news

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle...

    I have met and campaigned/canvassed with people involved in both Warren and Sanders campaign. They are good, honest people who share common goals.

    Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle than in 2016. I don't think there are no rabid supporters--the nature of politics more generally at this point seems to lift up extreme voices regardless of how many actually share the view--but I think many of the more anti-establishment Democratic-leaning voters that supported Sanders against Hillary in 2016 are currently lining up behind Gabbard. And Gabbard's supporters do tend, in my experience, to be a little bit more hard edged about their support, and a lot less likely to say they'll support a democratic candidate.

    I'm not a huge fan of Sanders. But I don't see anything disproportionately annoying about his supporters.

    8 votes
  17. Comment on The Other Swing Voter in ~misc

    BuckeyeSundae
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    That's IF the polling error is exactly zero (remember this is coming from exit polls). Unfortunately, most exit polls typically have a 2-3% margin of error. Hence why I said that the drop was...

    13% to 12% of the electoral total is a seven percent drop in blacks voting according to the Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement.

    That's IF the polling error is exactly zero (remember this is coming from exit polls). Unfortunately, most exit polls typically have a 2-3% margin of error. Hence why I said that the drop was within the margin of error. Your next point was much better.

    While true, the first survey is backed up by the Pew Survey.

    The evidence you're citing isn't actually Pew's survey. It's the Census Bureau's addition to its Current Population Survey that it adds in every two years. So, really, it's even better than if you were just citing a Pew poll in that it's a poll conducted every two years by the Census bureau. I couldn't find the margin of error for that report, but I know that in general they typically get enough response rate to push that error rate down to the 1-2% range (which is very good).

    So with that in perspective, let's look at what the Voter and Registration addition to the CPS actually says. It says that a population of black voters that roughly matched non-Obama era high participation rates was seen. Why do I say it that way? Because if you ignore 2008 and 2012, participation rates among black voters in 2016 was within one percentage point of both the spikes of 2004 and 1992, 59.6% in 2016 versus 60.3% in 2004 and 59.3% in 1992. In other words, even for CPS' more reliable survey than the typical poll, this rate was within the margin of error of non-Obama era high participation rates.

    Trump won the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by a margin of 1%, and won Arizona, North Carolina & Georgia by 5%, which gave him the required 72 electoral college votes. According to WP's analysis of Catalyst data.

    Here's the problem I have with arguments that go down this road: there are tons of different factors that can influence close elections. Pointing to any single one of them as THE factor that made the difference is disingenuous, and a misrepresentation of fact. Reality is complicated, and no single factor would have made the difference.

    The question that makes the most sense when thinking about this topic is not "what could have made the difference" but more along the lines "what were the largest factors?" It could also make sense to talk about the median voter, as compared to national average, in this circumstance, but that comes with its own struggles in this context.

    What's worse, at least as far as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are concerned, the black population is disproportionately lower in those states than in other states. Meaning, compared to the nation as a whole, black mobilization in those two states has less of a direct impact on the state's overall outcome compared to other states (like, say, Georgia). To make the claim that this demographic turnout was the difference in these states, you must establish the proportion of voters that would have voted for the Democratic candidate in those states. A national argument alone is hand waiving and insubstantial, especially when compared to MUCH bigger shifts in demographics.

    I mean, would you really argue that 6% of the total national vote is larger than 7% of 13%? Even if we assume--against Kendi's explicit argument--that literally 100% of black voters would have voted for hillary, the change in White voters without a college degree is STILL six times larger than the drop in voter turnout among black voters for her. There is absolutely NO reason to lay the blame for that shift on black voters. And it is NOT a justification for racial profiling in activism (which is some of why the margins were so notable among less engaged populations in teh first place; Clinton camps played to their partisans, so, too, did the Trump camps).

    8 votes
  18. Comment on The Other Swing Voter in ~misc

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    Evidenceless claims about voter behavior irritate me. The most problematic point that Kendi makes is that black voters stayed home in disproportionate numbers, and therefore swayed the election....

    Evidenceless claims about voter behavior irritate me. The most problematic point that Kendi makes is that black voters stayed home in disproportionate numbers, and therefore swayed the election. There are several reasons that argument is almost certainly not true.

    1. Not that many black voters stayed home, even proportionally to Obama-election-years. The crux of the argument about the importance of the black vote hinges on the incorrect idea that black voters hated Hillary. They didn't. In 2008, 13% of the electorate was black. That fell to 12% in 2016 exit polls--or in other words, very much within the margin of error for exit polls. Functionally an identical number of people polled in 2016 were black compared to 2008. That said, voter participation among black voters has always been a struggle, but remember: we're comparing to Obama in 2008. This is, according to Kendi's argument, a high-water mark of participation for Democratic black voters.

    2. Voter participation generally was not wildly different between 2012 and 2016. In fact, if you were to compare 2012 and 2016, voter participation is slightly higher in 2016 compared to 2012. But wait! Non-voters are expressing their discontent with democrats! Of course, and that's always been true. Voter participation in American elections hasn't broke 60% since the modern primary system was put in place for democrats in 1972. There simply is no coherent reason to blame the democrats of 2016 for something that has been true for decades.

    3. Shifts in non-college educated whites mattered a lot more than even Kendi gives it credit. Go back to that exit poll data from teh New York Times. "White without a college degree" constituted 39% of the electorate and went about 40%-58% for Obama and McCain respectively. Fast forward to 2016, that same demographic shrank to 34%, but they voted 28%-67% for Clinton and Trump respectively. Let's translate that to total votes in each year. 15.6%-22.6% in 2008 changed to 9.52%-22.8% in 2016. Notice how one of those numbers shrank by about 6% and the other didn't move at all? That's huge. This was not at all offset by changes to voting behavior among whites with a college degree. That remained mostly unchanged between voting years (though 2016 was a modest recovery from 2012 among whites with a college degree).

    Another way to refashion the stats I'm pointing out is to say that people came out and voted in their best interests despite efforts to suppress the vote by Republicans (and, let's be real, gerrymandering is a big component of this too, and that's much less partisan when you have political dominance in one party--looking at you, Maryland). It may be an uncomfortable reality that most of the people who didn't vote saw no difference between the candidates worth caring about. Maybe some of them have changed their minds, and that'd be great. But the nature of the less politically engaged is to also be less politically informed. Those traits go hand in hand. And the goal of every political activist is to get people involved, especially if they're demographically likely to support the activist's policies. Racial profiling in political activism of the sort Kendi is advocating is alive and well, and was almost overt in 2016. It's hard to see what change could be made to make it more a thing this go around.

    10 votes
  19. Comment on The Results of the 2019 Census in ~tildes

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link Parent
    TBH, for myself, I just didn't see it. I had unsubscribed to ~tildes general ages ago back when it was all feature requests all day. Nothing you could have done would've made me see it. I only...

    TBH, for myself, I just didn't see it. I had unsubscribed to ~tildes general ages ago back when it was all feature requests all day. Nothing you could have done would've made me see it. I only eventually found this because of another thread that referenced it.

    2 votes
  20. Comment on Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left in ~news

    BuckeyeSundae
    Link
    I don't know. I'm irritated by all this attempt to use political identity as a bludgeon to silence people who feel slightly differently about this or that political topic. I tire of these "this is...

    I don't know. I'm irritated by all this attempt to use political identity as a bludgeon to silence people who feel slightly differently about this or that political topic.

    I tire of these "this is why Young people hate this" or "this is why young people love that" articles. We're not a monolith. Don't lump us all together as if we're uniformly Shaun King or something.

    Call what is happening for what it is. People who would prefer a more left leaning candidate than they believe Buttigieg to be care more about ideology than identity, and they don't see a lot of record to ease their suspicion of another pretty face that seems to lean much further right than they want to support (even if, at the end of the day, it's still left of the American center).

    There's blood in the water. Everyone knows Trump is going to be a weak incumbent. Liberal activists are pretty obviously using this moment to get the best bang for their buck in the primary, and they're hoping that they can trade some of Trump's weakness with moderates for a candidate that is closer to their ideal. This political calculation is why the left wing of the party isn't particularly willing to fold in behind a perceived moderate, more than anything else. I don't see anything gained by framing this argument as a statement from "the young left" as though we're some coherent political group. We're not. Pretending that we are is irresponsible narrative crafting that verges on propaganda.

    On the merits, this hatred is convenient and oversold. The people who hate the most are the sort that most would prefer someone more provably liberal. There isn't a lot of trust in empty platitudes and blue eyed white men from the left these days--I feel that distrust viscerally. Some identities matter more to the left than others. And despite our tendency to offend our elders by drinking pumpkin spice lattes in October, I don't think many of us care that much about seeing another pumpkin spice latte drinker rise to the top of our political hierarchy out of nowhere.

    Anyway, I bet he drinks his coffee black. He's got enough cream.

    4 votes