Exodus Strength

Philbert wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:19 pmThe thirteenth amendment specifically excludes slavery as punishment for a crime from the prohibition of slavery. As you suggested, there likely are Federal or state laws prohibiting the practice.

Makes sense. Chain gangs were once common practice long after 1865.

aurelius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:35 pm

Philbert wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:19 pmThe thirteenth amendment specifically excludes slavery as punishment for a crime from the prohibition of slavery. As you suggested, there likely are Federal or state laws prohibiting the practice.

Makes sense. Chain gangs were once common practice long after 1865.

We had them here until very recently.

aurelius wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:48 pm I think what we are seeing is people that do the production work undervalue 'soft' skills and non-production work.

This is sort of what I was getting at. And to be fair, a lot of desk jockeys undervalue what is involved in doing the 'production work' too.

Don't you hate when you're reading an assortment of top secret documents about the country your son works for, and you spill coffee on the envelope they go in, and the only other envelope you have is one marked "Personal", and so you put them in the envelope and you get your pen and you start to cross out "Personal" and write in "Top Secret Files" and right then the phone rings, and then you totally forget what you were doing and later you stuff the envelope in a box in your closet? Don't you hate that?

https://natesilver.substack.com/p/polli ... -political

Basically, Nate Silver (no longer at 538) bemoans 538 turning into just another DNC operative firm (some editorializing by me). I thought it was interesting and should be cited for reference here as 2024 gears up.

5hout wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 8:33 am https://natesilver.substack.com/p/polli ... -political

Basically, Nate Silver (no longer at 538) bemoans 538 turning into just another DNC operative firm (some editorializing by me). I thought it was interesting and should be cited for reference here as 2024 gears up.

I don't read 538 often but I remember something interesting in this regard.

On the eve of the 2016 election 538 put Trump at something like 35% to win, which was far higher than was widely assumed by Democrats and generally "educated people".

I read their analysis with interest because I know Silver is for lack of a better term a legitimate analyst, and 35% was way higher than I would have guessed.

Anyway the comment section savaged him, claiming he had inflated the number as clickbait.

So of course the next day Trump has won and I go back to the comment section. The commenters, rather than praising Silver for being more accurate than any other well known analyst were again criticizing him, this time for... I can't quite remember, giving them a false sense of confidence? Not predicting the Trump win?

Anyway you can see how a hackier analyst would just have desk-drawered that 35% prediction and come up with a new method that favored Clinton.

5hout wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 8:33 am https://natesilver.substack.com/p/polli ... -political

Basically, Nate Silver (no longer at 538) bemoans 538 turning into just another DNC operative firm (some editorializing by me). I thought it was interesting and should be cited for reference here as 2024 gears up.

This was a good read.

Started off strong:

I’m now a free agent! Yesterday was the last day of my contract with Disney, which is in the midst of a series of layoffs including most of the FiveThirtyEight staff. Having worked for the company for nearly 10 years, I wish them well and thank them for the opportunity.

This came across as a “good luck with your training” implying “gfys” in some ways.

I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

mgil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:32 am I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

By the 2020 election, he had about had it with people’s shit. By last year’s midterms, he was downright hostile, and justifiably so.

DCR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:05 am

mgil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:32 am I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

By the 2020 election, he had about had it with people’s shit. By last year’s midterms, he was downright hostile, and justifiably so.

I can sympathize.

DCR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:05 am

mgil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:32 am I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

By the 2020 election, he had about had it with people’s shit. By last year’s midterms, he was downright hostile, and justifiably so.

Silver was very dishonest about the midterms IMO. He very much pushed the narrative that republicans were for sure going to have landslide wins despite his own model showing tossups. Then when so many democrats outran their poll numbers in competitive elections, he comes out and focuses on how the national polls overestimated dems by a very small margin.

SSJBartSimpson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:11 am

DCR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:05 am

mgil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:32 am I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

By the 2020 election, he had about had it with people’s shit. By last year’s midterms, he was downright hostile, and justifiably so.

Silver was very dishonest about the midterms IMO. He very much pushed the narrative that republicans were for sure going to have landslide wins despite his own model showing tossups. Then when so many democrats outran their poll numbers in competitive elections, he comes out and focuses on how the national polls overestimated dems by a very small margin.

Did he?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fi ... -forecast/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ion-night/

SSJBartSimpson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:11 am

DCR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:05 am

mgil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:32 am I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

By the 2020 election, he had about had it with people’s shit. By last year’s midterms, he was downright hostile, and justifiably so.

Silver was very dishonest about the midterms IMO. He very much pushed the narrative that republicans were for sure going to have landslide wins despite his own model showing tossups. Then when so many democrats outran their poll numbers in competitive elections, he comes out and focuses on how the national polls overestimated dems by a very small margin.

Why would he push that narrative?

DCR wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 4:17 am

SSJBartSimpson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 12:11 am

DCR wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 8:05 am

mgil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 4:32 am I haven’t read Nate Silver’s work in a while, but I have read “Signal in the Noise” and will likely buy his next book. His narrative voice in his article is different than I remember. Basically, a bit less optimistic and a bit more curmudgeonly. I can appreciate that.

By the 2020 election, he had about had it with people’s shit. By last year’s midterms, he was downright hostile, and justifiably so.

Silver was very dishonest about the midterms IMO. He very much pushed the narrative that republicans were for sure going to have landslide wins despite his own model showing tossups. Then when so many democrats outran their poll numbers in competitive elections, he comes out and focuses on how the national polls overestimated dems by a very small margin.

Did he?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fi ... -forecast/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ion-night/

Yes, like I said his model showed a tossup environment. That Nathaniel Redd and Blue debates were just stupid.
On his podcast the week before he was talking about how the model was going to soon turn to showing a big advantage for the GOP, and he repeatably dismissed claims that GOP-biased pollsters may be saturating the polling averages. He said people who were taking good news away from early voting data wish-casting. He was all about the red wave, and never admitted that swing state polls uniformly underestimated the democrats. He just kept claiming they were just under the normal margin of error, which was not true in a lot of cases.

Exodus Brain Trust, how normal is it for Pres or VP to use pseudonyms in .gov emails? A quick google search returned one 2016 story on Obama doing this in comms to Clinton and also some references to Deep Throat.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/17/comer-dem ... le-vp/amp/

BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:17 am Exodus Brain Trust, how normal is it for Pres or VP to use pseudonyms in .gov emails? A quick google search returned one 2016 story on Obama doing this in comms to Clinton and also some references to Deep Throat.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/17/comer-dem ... le-vp/amp/

I don't know, but I look forward to seeing people explain how this is actually perfectly normal and nothing to see here and it we shouldn't find anything weird about it.

Remember when the laptop was Russian misinformation and 50+ people with security clearances signed on saying so and then it turned out that it was completely normal for former CIA operatives to run ops on the US media and we shouldn't care about this?

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175 ... 9f9b330000

Strong vibes of that here.

5hout wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 12:25 pm

BostonRugger wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:17 am Exodus Brain Trust, how normal is it for Pres or VP to use pseudonyms in .gov emails? A quick google search returned one 2016 story on Obama doing this in comms to Clinton and also some references to Deep Throat.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/17/comer-dem ... le-vp/amp/

I don't know, but I look forward to seeing people explain how this is actually perfectly normal and nothing to see here and it we shouldn't find anything weird about it.

Remember when the laptop was Russian misinformation and 50+ people with security clearances signed on saying so and then it turned out that it was completely normal for former CIA operatives to run ops on the US media and we shouldn't care about this?

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175 ... 9f9b330000

Strong vibes of that here.

I don’t know if it’s normal.
But an alias seems like one of a number of reasonable precautions to take if you know foreign states are going to try to intercept your email.

hector wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 2:32 pm I don’t know if it’s normal.
But an alias seems like one of a number of reasonable precautions to take if you know foreign states are going to try to intercept your email.

Maybe. Email transmission is encrypted and if he followed any sort of precautions, the email itself would be encrypted too.

If a foreign adversary intercepted a transmission from Air Force 2, managed to wrangle enough super computers, running for however many lifetimes of the universe it takes to break modern encryption, I don't think they'll be stymied much by an email alias. "Oops! Turns out this email is just from oj.idenbay@mailgay.com. dang!"

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-maui ... ry-1821486

"I don't want to compare difficulties but we have a little sense, Jill and I, of what it's like to lose a home," he said. "Years ago now, 15 years ago, I was in Washington doing Meet the Press. It was a sunny Sunday," he continued.

"Lightning struck at home, on a little lake that's outside of our home—not a lake, a big pond,—and hit a wire that came up underneath our home into the heating ducts and air conditioning ducts," he added.

"To make a long story short, I almost lost my wife, my '67 Corvette, and my cat."

Posted for 4 reasons. First, it's depressingly hilarious. Second, standard "if an R had said this would be wall-to-wall news for weeks". Third, this is the confused rambling of someone that should be sitting in a rocking chair with a coffee (dash of scotch added after 5pm). Fourth, this kind of stuff seems to be getting more traction in mainstream media now. Is the tide going out on Pres. Malarkey?

Not trying to take a dig at you, but, oblig:

BostonRugger wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:07 am Not trying to take a dig at you, but, oblig:

Image Removed

It's a classic #Heart

Related but I'd love to see an insane app that does the following:

When you read a news story it asks ChatGPT (or similar) to roll a dice and (say) 25% of the time reverse the politically coded words. So when you're reading stuff on the web you're fact checking your biases by sometimes reading stuff from one side that actually has been flipped. Tech isn't there yet to do this, but one day...

Lord knows what us vaguely libertarians would need though. Maybe it just flips everything to be a Ron Paul/John Rawls quote.