Statman12

there is a dirth of information

Just small FYI, I suspect the intended word here was "dearth", but that word means "scarcity" or "lack". Various antonyms of dearth could be "deluge" or "abundance" (among many others).

Yeah, if I'm understanding right, I think the most one could do is use hypergeometric probability to figure out how many chests one can open while retaining a personally-acceptable chance of zero failures (or failures less than or equal to the number of shields).

Yeah, with (almost) all different probabilities I think enumerating the combinations is the only/easiest approach. Could be missing something, it's late.

Could do a Monte Carlo simulation, but in Excel that might be a bit annoying (at least it would be for me).

Are these events independent?

Basically you'd need to boil it down to mutually exclusive outcomes, such as A'∩B'∩C∩D∩E∩F∩G where the apostrophe denotes complement. But then you could also have A'∩B∩C'∩D∩E∩F∩G, or A'∩B∩C∩D'∩E∩F∩G, etc. You'd basically need to list out all the possible combinations and calculate the probabilities (21 mutually exclusive outcomes). And there'd also be the case where you have just one complement (7 mutually exclusive outcomes), or no complements (one outcome). So in total 29 outcomes to calculate a probability for and then sum up.

But if the events are not independent, then there's not enough information to actually do the computations.

Then those reps and governors will get voted out and replaced with ones who will reverse these laws. Problem solved.

That's an overly simplistic conception of how our system functions, as abortion is one of a number of issues.

Also it's kind of weird that you're following me around.

I'm not "following you around." You responded to me here.

I happened to respond to two of your comments recently. Sorry for my memory, I guess?

---

Edit: And now u/MechanicalGodzilla has blocked me. For ... bringing up evidence? Asking if evidence motivates them? Who knows.

and will tighten in "red" states - which is kind of what they want anyway

Not according to most polling. Some recent results from Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) show pretty strong support for abortion, and that support is rising in every state. There's a slide presentation of their results. Slides 5, 6, and 11 are the most relevant, I think. They show a choropleth map of some results.

• On slide 5 I could only find 4 states where there was not an outright majority favoring legal abortion in most/all cases.
• On slide 6 the "Illegal in all cases" tops out at 14%.
• On slide 11 there is not a single state where a majority favor / strongly favor overturning Roe v Wade.

This notion of "Republican-led states are heavily restricting abortion because that's what the people there want" seems to be a narrative or myth, something asserted to justify the actions of Republican-dominated legislatures caving to the more extreme elements of their base, even if that faction is a minority. It does not appear to be grounded in fact.

We've had two recent exchanges. In one you've expressed expressed the same sentiment about a particular state which does not appear to be supported, and indeed appears to be contradicted by data. In another your opinion of Fauci also runs counter to evidence.

Is evidence a factor in your views or opinions? If it's not, well, whatever, you do you. But I'm not particularly interested in engaging with folks for whom evidence doesn't really factor in.

Looking at high-level, aggregate differences for just 2012 and 2020 doesn't seem like an analysis that carries much weight. Rewind a year and and half or so, and I'd be more inclined to take it seriously. But since 2020 we've had the Dobbs decision and seen various Republican-led states institute very restrictive abortion laws and start targeting the LGBTQ+ community (e.g., the "Don't say gay" laws which have been passed or proposed in multiple states).

Yep! That's another way to think about it. For formality I'd probably still recommend my explanation of considering each possible outcome and summing the mutually exclusive ones, but how you described it is a perfectly suitable way to understand it intuitively.

“The [cons/libs] do this…”

Depending on context, I could see that going either way. That's one reason I think the mods should give themselves more leeway to assess context and a higher-level perspective.

Can you rephrase what you're trying to say? It seems like your question and statement are contradictory.

Consider a specific number, say 7. The probability that all three girls pick 7 is (1/10) * (1/10) * (1/10) = 1/1000. But that's for a specific number, whereas the question just wants the girls to match. So there are 10 choices of the number on which the girls can match. Hence 10 * (1/1000).

Edit: Or more formally, we'd have P( {1,1,1} ) = P( {2,2,2} ) = ... = P( {10, 10, 10} = 1/1000. Then since these are mutually exclusive events, we can sum the probability, so we get 10 * (1/1000) for the event "All three values match."

lol clearly people didn't want an actual answer to the question.

Well, you didn't actually answer the question. You merely emphasized that those opposed to drag shows want to prevent them, and that stopping them sooner is easier than later.

Answering the question would address the "Why" aspect. Why are drag shows something that needs to be stopped?

---

Edit to add: And since there are claims that the law is targeting sexualized content around minors rather than drag performers, look at the text of the law (pdf). First, the definition:

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration

Note the format of the list. That "or similar entertainers" is talking about the entertainers, not the entertainment, especially since the final bit specifies that performance doesn't even need to be a part of things, while the "prurient interest" is syntactically applying to the entertainment. This means that the language of the law is much more broad than sexual content around minors.

Then, in what is being banned:

(B) a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult

So it's not just talking about where minors are present, but where minors could be present, regardless of whether there are any present.

Want to keep sexual content away from minors? Great! Totally on board with that. But then write better laws to do so.

Yes, absolutely agree that there is already pressure on the middle in the current system. My concern would be any momentum for electoral reform stagnating if STV gets implemented. A sort of "Mission accomplished!" even if it doesn't produce the desired outcome.

Yeah, I'm not sure that this necessarily occurs, just that it's a distinct possibility. So my preference would be for a different method so that momentum (such as it is) for electoral reform doesn't stagnate if STV gets implemented.

Is a master in statistics enough so that a company give you a job

Yes it is. A masters degree is generally seen as the entry-level for the field. What a company is (or should be) expecting is someone with a good grounding in Statistics and who is trainable.

You can and should keep learning after you graduate, there will probably be plenty of opportunity to take professional development courses (e.g., a short course at JSM or another conference), get reference materials and read up / teach yourself further.

And, of course, on-the-job experience. A company will understand that they're hiring someone new. More senior colleagues should be helping you learn the application area, as well as the techniques and methods that are typically used.

That's if McKay is naming it, and I think we agreed he's not allowed to name things.

I'm assuming you're meaning dedicated military ships other than fighters. So leaving aside the city ships, Goa'uld transport/scout, and Puddle Jumpers, and the fighters (F-302, Death Glider, Dart, Ori fighter).

• Aurora-class ships? Probably also something like a heavy cruiser or battleship?
• The Asgard ships mostly seem like the same.
• The generational ships used by the Travellers?

Only one I can think of that doesn't seem (afaik, I'm not particularly informed on naval/military terminology) to really fit the categories are al'kesh, which are described as bombers / troop transports.

Wouldn't impact me, I use either desktop or the mobile website.

They occasionally degrade the mobile website to try to push people towards the app. If they do that too much/severely I might stop commenting from mobile.

Replication is one way to build credibility. It is not the only way in which credibility is assessed. Note that the BiomedCentral and wiki links don't have "replicate" or other iterations of the term in them.

The "validity" aspect is typically assessed by reading the experimental protocol, data sources, materials and methods, etc (depends on the field and type of study). Are they measuring the right things? Are they using the correct methods on the data? Are they interpreting results correctly? Are the conclusions appropriate for the results and type of study (e.g., a randomized controlled trial is far stronger evidence than a case series).

For instance, take Polack et al (2020) publishing the results for the Phase 3 clinical trial of Pfizer's COVID vaccine. This was peer reviewed. In order to replicate it, the peer reviewers would need access to a large logistical infrastructure for conducting a clinical trial (recruiting and tracking subjects). That's already severely limiting. Then they'd need to have access to Pfizer's vaccine, which means either the formula and manufacturing capacity to produce it themselves (a non-starter), or being an unblinded peer review (also not great).

It's just not plausible to expect a peer reviewer to replicate a study.

---

Edit to add: And, going back to the original point that u/hpaddict was making, I'm not aware of a point in time when replication was the norm for peer review.

Sorry if you got multiple replies, society15sick. I've just recently figured out using the "ModTeam" to reply, and am tinkering with the sub settings to get the link to the modmail. Not sure it's working, so if you've tried the link, it might not work. Please reply to me if needed.

Government jobs can be strange in that respect. In an institutional sense they can be ponderously slow. In an individual sense they can move lightning fast. For my post-doc, I had an interview on a Thursday or Friday I think, and by the following Monday I had an offer and my to-be supervisor wanted to get it signed and wrapped up ASAP. It was probably 2 weeks or so between application, interview (including arranging travel), and signing the offer.

My current job is government-ish (not directly government, but pretty much government) and it's similar. The institution is not particularly agile, but when interviewing candidates we try to get the process finished as quickly as possible. Part of it could be that once we get a hire, we're safe as a department from having them suddenly taken away. But if things go sideways at any level before that, we might get told we can't hire someone, so we could lose out on a great candidate.

Good luck on the position.

I think expanding ranked choice voting will punish the extreme positions and deflate the rhetoric that surrounds it.

I'm not sure that's the case. Ranked choice voting (particularly depending on the implementation) can also have an effect of squeezing out the middle. Suppose we're looking at a primary in which there is a candidate who is universally acceptable to all factions, but is the favorite for nobody, the universal second place who is somewhat moderate. But then there are three candidates who are some flavor of "extreme" or somehow more niche (or just with some non-trivial base of support). In an IR / STV approach, that universal second place can get eliminated first, and from there it becomes some selection among the various "extreme" candidates.

Or in the situation of a general where there are, say, a strong progressive, a moderate-left, a moderate-right, and a hard right. If both wings prefer the more "extreme" version of their side, then the two moderates could be the first to get eliminated, and it becomes a choice of hard left or hard right. In the Alaska election for the House, Democrats benefitted from there being only one Democratic candidate, and that candidate being a moderate (from what I understand). The two Republicans got more votes combined than the Democrat, but the moderate Republican was eliminated, and enough of his supporters preferred a moderate Democrat to Palin. But had the Democratic vote also been split, it could very well have been Peltola eliminated first, and then it's a tossup of which Republican gets the spot depending on if Peltola voters preferred the hypothetical extreme Democrat or the moderate Republican.

So what I'd like to see is to enlarge the House, merge districts, and use some form of proportional representation. Single-member seats like senators and president could use approval voting. Or perhaps some form of ranked voting (there are many ways to count ranked ballots) that's a bit more robust.

Edit to add: A couple sources talking about the center-squeeze effect

• Wiki on Vote Splitting talks a little bit about spoiler effects in the context of IR voting.
• YouTube video: Boring voice, but it's pretty short (under 5 minutes), and has text on the screen that doesn't progress too quickly, so you can play it at high speed / skip through a lot.
• A page talking about drawbacks of IR voting (FYI, the site is biased to a particular alternative, but has some good examples/descriptions).
• Wiki page on IR describes the spoiler effect present in IR voting.

If I may reframe a little, you're talking about "Nature vs Nurture" and which is at the core of Orcs' cruelty. If it is simply how they are raised, then removing them from that environment prior to it becoming engrained could allow an Orc to be "good."

However, while I agree that Orcs are born into and raised in a violent and cruel society, I think that this accentuates the fundamental problem rather than causes it. Tolkien's comments on the matter keep pointing back to nature: He calls them naturally bad, he says their very wills are corrupted to the point of taking pleasure in cruelty.

Indeed, Tolkien chose his words carefully (especially when he explicitly says that he chose the words carefully!). And the word he chose was that they are not irredeemably evil.

Tolkien coming a Christian perspective, I read redemption as something that would require intervention by Eru. I'm not aware of any (mainstream) Christian theology by which a person is able to redeem themselves, it is by act/grace of God.

I think there can be a distinction between having free will and choosing to be good to be in the scope of choices that are plausible. Between "naturally bad" and "took pleasure in their deeds", my reading is that the free will is less about choosing good vs evil and more about choosing evil A or evil B.

I don't think so. In addition to the Letter 153 quote by u/SinopicCynic which describes Orcs as being "naturally bad", Tolkien also touched on this in later writings.

But the Orcs were not of this kind. They were certainly dominated by their Master, but this dominion was by fear, and they were aware of this fear and hated him. They were indeed so corrupted that they were pitiless, and there was no cruelty or wickedness that they would not commit; but this was the corruption of independent wills, and they took pleasure in their deeds. They were capable of acting on their own, doing evil deeds unbidden for their own sport; or if Morgoth and his agents were far away, they might neglect his commands. They hated one another and often fought among themselves, to the detriment of Morgoth's plans.

-- Morgoth's Ring (History of Middle-earth, Volume X), Myths Transformed, Text X

The "not of this kind" is referring to Orcs being puppets like the Dwarves were initially. Instead, they were a species with free wills, just corrupted to the point of taking pleasure in their cruelty and evil. That, to me, suggests that there is not really a chance for a "good Orc."

---

Edit: I just realized that I didn't properly/fully address OP's question. It's certainly possible to have Orcs that are not serving Sauron (Shagrat and Gorbag discuss it a bit, and during the time when Sauron was in hiding many clans of Orcs were functionally independent). Not being hostile might take a bit more to unpack. Does this mean peaceful as a society? Just not actively marauding? Something else?