2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
[QUOTE=Luciom;58795855]
I never said you can't disagree with them. I am saying the reason why you agree with them overall is why you would correct someone on what the Gaussian means when you obviously have not taken math beyond high school.
I am not sure why you think I "agree with them overall", because I pretty clearly don't on so many things.
Ofc I am not a democrat so if they happen to agree with me on something even for the wrong reasons I am not angry at them.
The game of politics has to be won with legions of low IQ, low info people on your side, or the other side gets them and genocides you.
I have a degree in economics with econometrics as an added course specialization (doesn't work like american majors but to give the idea).
Magna cum laude, top100 university in the world at the time for the economic department (Bologna university).
I am the kind of person that makes jokes about Students T vs students' Tea.
I am not sure why you think I "agree with them overall", because I pretty clearly don't on so many things.
Ofc I am not a democrat so if they happen to agree with me on something even for the wrong reasons I am not angry at them.
The game of politics has to be won with legions of low IQ, low info people on your side, or the other side gets them and genocides you.
You agree Trump > Dems. My only point you can dispute, which you haven't, is if that has anything to do with your math errors. If you want to argue it doesn't, you can.
Yes, that's as much of an ad hominem as me saying you are innumerate for saying multiple innumerate things. Making a correct argument, then calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominem, not that I even did that. It's when you simply attack the person for being an idiot and not addressing the actual claim, which I have not done.
I never said you can't disagree with them. I am saying the reason why you agree with them overall is why you would correct someone on what the Gaussian means when yo
My understanding of his point is he expects non-STEM to skew dem, in which case I guess STEM skewing Trump or breaking even makes sense if his 56-44 overall number is correct. I have now idea if non-STEM skews dem or if the 56-44 number is correct.
If people who are smart enough to get a STEM degree are out there voting Trump in droves, I might have to re-think my view of the world.
You agree Trump > Dems. My only point you can dispute, which you haven't, is if that has anything to do with your math errors. If you want to argue it doesn't, you can.
No I don't for everything agree that Trump > Dems.
First of all Harris is incredibly worse than the average Dem, like in the bottom 1% perhaps (and american voters agree, having voted congressional Dems almost everywhere more than her).
But even with that, with her being clearly a DEI pick incredibly worse than so many other names in the democratic party, she is not pareto inferior to Trump.
For Ukraine for example, or for broad based tariffs.
My point about the purported math "errors" is that you didn't read the exchange correctly which is why the person I talked with (D2) actually ended up understanding that I might had a point.
Txt is terrible to write math in general and ambiguity is common.
Not that it mattered: you made a terrible, indefensible estimate of how STEM degree holders vote because you like the idea they agree with you, and when o pointed that out you went with "eh I think you are innumerate" without addressing my logical objections.
Which you still didn't.
If degree holder skew X POINTS PRO HARRIS, do Yoh admit that NECESSARILY STEM degree holders skew less than X pro Harris, because a lot of degree holders in trash subjects objectively skew left insanely?
My point about the purported math "errors" is that you didn't read the exchange correctly which is why the person I talked with (D2) actually ended up understanding that I might had a point.
I agree that "-5^2" is ambiguous as written. I think it was obviously clear when I wrote e^(-x^2) that I meant the Gaussian. I originally put the brackets in to disambiguate from (e^-x)^2, not for the negative sign.
My understanding of his point is he expects non-STEM to skew dem, in which case I guess STEM skewing Trump or breaking even makes sense if his 56-44 overall number is correct. I have now idea if non-STEM skews dem or if the 56-44 number is correct.
If people who are smart enough to get a STEM degree are out there voting Trump in droves, I might have to re-think my view of the world.
They might skew dem, or not, which is why originally I was curious when/if we ever get the data
What's absolutely certain is that STEM degree holders would skew Harris LESS than all other degree holders.
56-44 overall for people with a degree iis from recent exit polls. They could be wrong and we'll know better in the next months.
Keep in mind that white men with a college degree skew Trump in exit polls already.
Just as an aside, my libertarian Trump ambivalent sometimes supporting coworker thinks some of Trump’s picks are laughably bad. I think he’s getting a bit too greedy with some of the choices.
Just my anecdotal experience.
Not trump obviously but if someone a bit more savvy is organising things then the laughably bad are there to make it a triumph when we only get stuck with the very bad
If degree holder skew X POINTS PRO HARRIS, do Yoh admit that NECESSARILY STEM degree holders skew less than X pro Harris, because a lot of degree holders in trash subjects objectively skew left insanely?
No, of course not. I don't know what you consider trash degrees and % of trash degrees vs stem, and presumably there are degrees that are not trash or STEM.
Not trump obviously but if someone a bit more savvy is organising things then the laughably bad are there to make it a triumph when we only get stuck with the very bad
Or to kick them out with plausible deniability, claiming it was congressional republicans who opposed them, while Trump still loves the voters who liked them.
Both parties in the USA have a problem with absurd extremists on their fringes.
Trump is trying to assuage those beasts by tricking them
No, of course not. I don't know what you consider trash degrees and % of trash degrees vs stem, and presumably there are degrees that are not trash or STEM.
There are degrees that aren't either trash or STEM (like law, economics, and some others).
But when sociology and psychology and social sciences and gender studies and so on majors break 70-30 or more for the democratic party, you need other majors to break relatively toward Trump necessarily.
Lol at still arguing about the Gaussian. It's fine if you've never seen it, but people who write or use it everyday like physicists, statisticians don't waste time adding parentheses and would be flabbergasted it's being argued.
Lol at still arguing about the Gaussian. It's fine if you've never seen it, but people who write or use it everyday like physicists, statisticians don't waste time adding parentheses and would be flabbergasted it's being argued.
Which is why I didn't understand D2 given he did put a ton of parentheses, hello?
Lol at still arguing about the Gaussian. It's fine if you've never seen it, but people who write or use it everyday like physicists, statisticians don't waste time adding parentheses and would be flabbergasted it's being argued.
Technically you don't need the brackets, right? 5^2^3 is 5^8, not 25^3, right? And 5^-2^3 would be 5^-8?
Yo, just one set. The whole sentence was in brackets so there was an extra closing bracket for the sentence.
Funnily enough, as I was writing it, I thought, "this all looks a bit stilted with all these brackets," then thought "meh, **** it". I had no idea it would end up causing pages worth of controversy, lol.
There are degrees that aren't either trash or STEM (like law, economics, and some others).
But when sociology and psychology and social sciences and gender studies and so on majors break 70-30 or more for the democratic party, you need other majors to break relatively toward Trump necessarily.
You've introduced so many other tings now, it's almost impossible to tell. Nobody has a degree in gender studies and social sciences or econ are probably not going to skew as extreme as you want them to. Overall STEM degree holder are only about 1/5 of degree holders and they skew younger as STEM is getting more popular every year and massively so compared to boomers. I'd definitely want to see what percentage of STEM holders come from top 50 schools. These are schools that conservatives constantly whine about how no conservatives go there. Even if they are lying, like they always do, they almost certainly skew anti Trump compared to just college grads.
You've introduced so many other tings now, it's almost impossible to tell. Nobody has a degree in gender studies and social sciences or econ are probably not going to skew as extreme as you want them to. Overall STEM degree holder are only about 1/5 of degree holders and they skew younger as STEM is getting more popular every year and massively so compared to boomers. I'd definitely want to see what percentage of STEM holders come from top 50 schools. These are schools that conservatives c
Yeah that's a fair point. Luciom, as an extreme example, if there is 1 STEM degree holder in your whole data set, and he/she voted Harris, then 100% of STEM degree holders voted Harris and didn't affect your 56-44 split materially. A lot depends on what % STEM degrees represent of total degrees.
Technically you don't need the brackets, right? 5^2^3 is 5^8, not 25^3, right? And 5^-2^3 would be 5^-8?
The main point is if you want to write e^x2 you would just do so without inexplicably writing a superfluous negative that happens to make it indistinguishable from one of the most famous functions in math.
The main point is if you want to write e^x2 you would just do so without inexplicably writing a superfluous negative that happens to make it indistinguishable from one of the most famous functions in math.
There is also that, lol. Hey, maybe I just wanted to get tricky and check that they knew how the even integer powers worked...
Yeah that's a fair point. Luciom, as an extreme example, if there is 1 STEM degree holder in your whole data set, and he/she voted Harris, then 100% of STEM degree holders voted Harris and didn't affect your 56-44 split materially. A lot depends on what % STEM degrees represent of total degrees.
It's actually the opposite.
If STEM degree holders are a small portion of total degree holders, given we know trash humanities and social degree holders will overwhelmingly vote for Harris, the few stem degrees will skew dramatically for trump.
The smaller the STEM portion the more likely they skewed trump, and decisively so
It's actually the opposite.
If STEM degree holders are a small portion of total degree holders, given we know trash humanities and social degree holders will overwhelmingly vote for Harris, the few stem degrees will skew dramatically for trump.
The smaller the STEM portion the more likely they skewed trump, and decisively so
Wat? Explain pls.
It's actually the opposite.
If STEM degree holders are a small portion of total degree holders, given we know trash humanities and social degree holders will overwhelmingly vote for Harris, the few stem degrees will skew dramatically for trump.
The smaller the STEM portion the more likely they skewed trump, and decisively so
lol No. See my previous example of Quantum Field Theorists.
