Brexit, for once some facts.

[Barry Shittpeas]

I hadn’t realised that the head of the government’s vaccine task force has absolutely no experience of vaccines. I should have realised. Like The Jockey, Kate Bingham is another government minister’s wife. Also, like The Jockey, she appears to be massively incompetent by disclosing sensitive government commercial vaccine information to a £200 / head venture capitalist seminar. I mean WTF is going on? Who here would keep their job after pulling a stunt like that?

The Metro is calling it Cronyvirus. Pretty accurate that one.

 

[oyster]

Fat-Arse Patel is orderin’ the police to break up groups protestin’ if there is more that two people. Whilst I agree with the reasons, I can’t see this tactic ending well. It might have been better not to go there.

Given stretched police resources, widespread breaking up of minor protests would not be responsible use of what is available.

Fairly typical to avoid the issues of responsibility.

 

[oyster]

I hadn’t realised that the head of the government’s vaccine task force has absolutely no experience of vaccines. I should have realised. Like The Jockey, Kate Bingham is another government minister’s wife. Also, like The Jockey, she appears to be massively incompetent by disclosing sensitive government commercial vaccine information to a £200 / head venture capitalist seminar. I mean WTF is going on? Who here would keep their job after pulling a stunt like that?

The Metro are calling it Cronyvirus. Pretty accurate that one.

I'd like to see significant action against such appointments.

Just to look at it very simplistically, what are the chances that one of the few dozen ministers' spouses is the best person in the country for any particular role? Against the millions who are not such spouses

Just once every so often, a specific instance might arise where such a spouse could at least be argued to be the best person. In which case, argue it in public. In front of a crony checking body of some sort which has teeth.

 

[Nev]

This is a question and answer piece with Nate Silver the founder of FiveThirtyEight polling site. It covers some of the things they have put in place to try and be more accurate this time around, I wonder if it will work, they give Trump only a 12% chance of success.
https://www.vox.com/2153...-biden-election-podcast

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

I'd like to see significant action against such appointments.

Just to look at it very simplistically, what are the chances that one of the few dozen ministers' spouses is the best person in the country for any particular role? Against the millions who are not such spouses

Just once every so often, a specific instance might arise where such a spouse could at least be argued to be the best person. In which case, argue it in public. In front of a crony checking body of some sort which has teeth.

Agreed, the chances of that pair being the best candidates for such important roles are impossibly small. That’s proven by what has happened, both making huge blunders which would have seen any other employee sacked and quite possibly prosecuted.

All of these things, The Jockey, Kate Bingham, Cummings Eyesight Test, the Scottish MP getting on a train in full knowledge of having Coronavirus, the Jenrick / Desmond property deal, Corbyn’s Jew hatred. They all chip away at public confidence and give people a motive to excuse themselves from Coronavirus measures. Add in the fact that people are generally stupid and weak in the U.K. and there is absolutely no hope of escaping Coronavirus without a massive death toll and massive economic damage.

 

[oyster]

Agreed, the chances of that pair being the best candidates for such important roles are impossibly small. That’s proven by what has happened, both making huge blunders which would have seen any other employee sacked and quite possibly prosecuted.

All of these things, The Jockey, Kate Bingham, Cummings Eyesight Test, the Scottish MP getting on a train in full knowledge of having Coronavirus, the Jenrick / Desmond property deal, Corbyn’s Jew hatred. They all chip away at public confidence and give people a motive to excuse themselves from Coronavirus measures. Add in the fact that people are generally stupid and weak in the U.K. and there is absolutely no hope of escaping Coronavirus without a massive death toll and massive economic damage.

Dealing with failure by one of your closest colleague's spouse is not an easy situation to handle - unless you put the interests of the country first.

I have zero intention of doing anything irresponsible, that is, that I see as irresponsible, but am extremely unwilling to kowtow to every petty diktat.

Day before yesterday, we drove further than we could really justify, if challenged. Stopped at a beach, had a breath of fresh air in the near-gale, and came home. Nowhere were we nearer than about twenty metres from the couple of dog walkers also there. Acres of empty car park and more acres of empty beach.

 

[Nev]

Can the way we calculate coin toss probability be applied to the US election? So lets say we want to work out the chance of tossing two heads in a row with a fair coin. We multiply the chance of tossing heads once (0.5) by the chance of tossing heads in the next toss (0.5). So we have 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 or a 25% chance of tossing two heads in a row.

I have read that in 2016 Trump had around a 10% chance of winning the election and this year I have read he has a 12% chance so can we apply the above logic to what his chances are of winning two elections in a row.

0.1 x 0.12 = 0.12 or 1.2% chance of winning two elections in a row. This does not seem right to me I think its because you can't apply this type of thing to elections but if that's the case does anyone know why not?

 

[oyster]

Can the way we calculate coin toss probability be applied to the US election? So lets say we want to work out the chance of tossing two heads in a row with a fair coin. We multiply the chance of tossing heads once (0.5) by the chance of tossing heads in the next toss (0.5). So we have 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 or a 25% chance of tossing two heads in a row.

I have read that in 2016 Trump had around a 10% chance of winning the election and this year I have read he has a 12% chance so can we apply the above logic to what his chances are of winning two elections in a row.

0.1 x 0.12 = 0.12 or 1.2% chance of winning two elections in a row. This does not seem right to me I think its because you can't apply this type of thing to elections but if that's the case does anyone know why not?

The absolute fundamental of coin flipping is independence. Each flip has no dependence whatsoever on history and does not influence future events.

Even if you came up with a technical reason that coin flips might not be independent, the theoretical basis assumes perfect independence.

An election is a million miles away from being an independent event.

 

[Woosh]

it's 12% but I think his chance of winning this time is practically nil.

 

[Nev]

I follow a few USA anarchists in dark places on the internet. Every one of them is planning a post election riot. Not one has mentioned maybe a celebration party if Biden wins. Are they all sure that Trump will win or are they going to riot whoever wins?

Media outlets in the US are putting in place plans to counter act Trump declaring victory before many of the postal votes have been counted.

‘It’s not up to him’: how media outlets plan to sidestep any Trump ‘victory’ news

With reports that the president intends to make a premature speech, newsrooms across the US are bracing for misinformation

www.theguardian.com

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

it's 12% but I think his chance of winning this time is practically nil.

I shall remind you of this later in the week when he declares a magnificent victory.

 

[Woosh]

I shall remind you of this later in the week when he declares a magnificent victory.

Out of the swing states, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona are must win states for Trump, they are about the first to declare with near certainty around 4AM.
They are all likely to go for Biden. If they do, I can't see how Trump can declare victory.

 

[sjpt]

This is a question and answer piece with Nate Silver the founder of FiveThirtyEight polling site. It covers some of the things they have put in place to try and be more accurate this time around, I wonder if it will work, they give Trump only a 12% chance of success.
https://www.vox.com/2153...-biden-election-podcast

Worrying to see how much the polls have moved over the last few days in Trump's favour: differences of well over 10 have become differences of not much more than 5. The polls must be at least a day or so behind, many several days, so the shift is presumably actually further advanced. At least the high level of early voting will somewhat counter that shift.

 

[sjpt]

Out of the swing states, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona are must win states for Trump, they are about the first to declare with near certainty around 4AM.
They are all likely to go for Biden. If they do, I can't see how Trump can declare victory.

I hope you are right. I agree with your last sentence, but would say 'If they do, and its a big IF, ...'

 

[Woosh]

big IF

we'll know roughly if the polls are accurate by 1AM when results and exit polls from small states start to come in (especially Georgia).
I have faith in polls...

 

[Danidl]

The absolute fundamental of coin flipping is independence. Each flip has no dependence whatsoever on history and does not influence future events.

Even if you came up with a technical reason that coin flips might not be independent, the theoretical basis assumes perfect independence.

An election is a million miles away from being an independent event.

Of course. But the question contains a fallacy. If the probability is 1/10 of event one and of 1/10 of event 2 then the probability of both events is 1/100. IF Predicted in advance of either event. Now if event 1 has occurred, it is now a certainty, so the probability of event 2 is 1/10. . And finally if predicted before any event, the probability of Either .. is 2/10.

 

[oyster]

Media outlets in the US are putting in place plans to counter act Trump declaring victory before many of the postal votes have been counted.

‘It’s not up to him’: how media outlets plan to sidestep any Trump ‘victory’ news

With reports that the president intends to make a premature speech, newsrooms across the US are bracing for misinformation

www.theguardian.com

Just read that.

And we thought some previous presidents were bloomin' awful...

 

[OxygenJames]

DT is a xenophobic populist that parasites on division, hatred - JC was the victim of a tory party/boris that did and does that, with brexit and after.

OK. That's a very common (dare I say popularist) view of DT. My question as ever for people who take that stance is this: How do you explain why pretty much 50% of the US population thinks the guy is OK? Without resorting to saying they're all stupid or brainwashed etc.

I am reminded of Hitchen's classic:

"You give me the awful impression of somebody who has never studied the arguments against your position"

What is it that people like about him? Because on the face of it - sure - he's a total baffoon.

Very few people have given me any decent answers to this question btw.

 

[oyster]

Of course. But the question contains a fallacy. If the probability is 1/10 of event one and of 1/10 of event 2 then the probability of both events is 1/100. IF Predicted in advance of either event. Now if event 1 has occurred, it is now a certainty, so the probability of event 2 is 1/10. . And finally if predicted before any event, the probability of Either .. is 2/10.

This forces consideration of time.

Imagine the events are occurring far, far away - such that there is a decent time gap between the event happening and the observer seeing the event.

So the events, either or both, have already actually occurred but the observer hasn't yet seen either of them. As far as the observer their prediction is concerned, the events have not yet occurred, so the probability is perceievd to be 1/100. As far as the physical world is concerned, one or both has already occurred, so the first event is a certainty, possibly the second too.

What does that do to probability?

 

[Woosh]

How do you explain why pretty much 50% of the US population thinks the guy is OK?

Those 50% believe that Washington is full of corrupt politicians and Trump is not a politician so can't be one of them.
Also, because he says so many things contrary to political norms, so he must be more truthful than politicians.
You could say that's naive but...
DT delivered $2,000 tax cut a head, created 6.7 million jobs and built something like 400 miles of new wall.
It's less than he's promised but his excuse is Congress is against him and he had to spend a lot of time on his impeachment.