HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Silent3 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

Silent3

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: New Hampshire
Home country: USA
Member since: Sun Oct 3, 2004, 03:16 PM
Number of posts: 10,092

Journal Archives

Automatic Gain Control -- What I expect regarding Trump vs Biden in the media

Automatic Gain Control (AGC) is a pretty old concept in electronics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_gain_control

The basic idea is that you boost a weak signal, or attenuate a strong signal, to produce a relatively constant output level. This is why an AM radio station doesn't blare loudly when you drive by a radio station's antenna, or fade to a whisper many miles away. It's also why you can use your cell phone's speaker phone, or talk on a Zoom call, without big changes in how loud you sound to other people just because (within limits) your head moves closer or further from the mic.

As far as media coverage has been concerned, Trump has been putting out an enormously powerful signal. It has been beyond the limit of the media's AGC to fully attenuate, so Trump's signal has pushed passed normal limits by crowding out many other stories we might have been hearing. But the media still has an output limit, it can only get so "loud", and that's where the fatigue factor kicks in, the ridiculous normalization of Trump and his acolytes, and the media's inability to stick with stories that should be big stories before moving on to the latest bombshell.

Soon, however, we'll have Biden in office. The Trump drama won't abruptly stop on January 20th, of course. Trump will be making media noise for some time to come. Eventually, however, more and more focus will be on Biden.

But Biden won't generate scandal after scandal, outrage upon outrage. He'll do normal presidential things, many of those things quietly and behind the scenes, for the good of the country. That's great news for the country, but a "weak signal" for the news media.

I expect an automatic signal boost.

A 30 year-old DUI charge discovered for an obscure member of the Biden administration will receive all the attention (or more) of a 3 year-old domestic violence charge in Trump's inner circle. One badly handled immigration case will be scrutinized at the same level as hundreds of children in cages. One bit of slightly insensitive wording on Biden's part (almost certainly followed by a swift apology) will be held up as the equal of Trump's "very fine people".

Our "main stream" media isn't the crazy "fake news" cabal the right wing claims it to be. The basic info provided (especially after a little time passes) comes close to factual truth. The media's problems are sensationalism, over-simplification, both-siderism, the stories that aren't covered that deserve more attention -- and also what I'm calling the "automatic gain control".

Bask in the relief for a bit, but be prepared for a lot of hard work to prevent the next Trump

Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism—without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent—is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president. He will not be so clumsy or vulnerable. He will get into office less by luck than by skill.


At the moment, the Democratic Party risks celebrating Trump’s loss and moving on—an acute danger, especially because many of its constituencies, the ones that drove Trump’s loss, are understandably tired. A political nap for a few years probably looks appealing to many who opposed Trump, but the real message of this election is not that Trump lost and Democrats triumphed. It’s that a weak and untalented politician lost, while the rest of his party has completely entrenched its power over every other branch of government: the perfect setup for a talented right-wing populist to sweep into office in 2024. And make no mistake: They’re all thinking about it.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trump-proved-authoritarians-can-get-elected-america/617023/

Size of Biden's Electoral Vote tally, after all the dust has settled

I'm not gonna even bother with a choice below 270!

Understanding margins of error

I was listening to Lawrence O'Donnell earlier this week discussing some polls, and talking about what the polls said when you take into account their margins of error.

What he said was roughly correct, in a non-mathy sort of way, but also off enough to be a bit misleading.

First of all, margins of errors don't say anything about how good a polling model is, so it's not an expression of faith in the model. What the margin of error tells you is, if the model is good, how much would random variation in the particular people who get sampled typically throw off how well the model reflects reality.

Also, if a poll says, say, Biden is likely to get 52% of the vote, with a margin of error of ±3%, that does NOT mean Biden is just as likely to get 49% as he is to get 52% -- it's a "bell shaped curve" -- and values near the middle are favored over values near the edges of the given range.



Margins of error are typically stated for a 95% confidence interval. So this example 52±3% will be in the range 49-55 95% of the time. 5% of the time the real result could even be higher or lower than that ±3%. Only 2.5% of the time would Biden be at 49% or lower, Only 2.5% of the time would Biden be at 55% or higher. Typical results will cluster more towards the middle of the range.

Say that Trump is polling at 48% in the same poll. As O'Donnell explained it, he correctly pointed out that you have to apply the margin of error to both numbers, so even though 48% and 52% are 4% apart, the results overlap, with Trump possibly going as high as 51%, and Biden possibly going as low as 49%.

What O'Donnell got wrong, however, is speaking about this situation as if, "Hey, this essentially is a tie", since the margins of error overlap. Nope! This would still be a poll that looks much better for Biden than it does for Trump.

Without getting into the exact math, for Trump to actually be ahead in a poll like that requires that Trump pushes well into the more unlikely upper end of his range at the same time Biden happens to fall into the more unlikely lower end of his range. The sampling errors aren't very likely, however, to line up in just that way very often.

I had this thought of Trump viewing other people the way most of us view vending machines

This is just a bit of very amateur psychological speculation, so take it for what it's worth.

It's a given that Trump is a narcissist, and almost certainly a psychopath too. He's completely transactional in his behaviors, and people only have value to Trump insofar as they provide for Trump's needs.

So I'm imagining people to Trump as vending machines, and the words he says -- be they true or false -- are the coins he drops into these vending machines, and the buttons he pushes.

Particular coins and particular buttons are supposed to result in particular items being dispensed. "Truth" isn't a consideration, nor is consistency. If something doesn't work, try something else.

Saying "I will protect Social Security, and Biden will destroy it" is the input that's supposed to produce senior votes for Trump as an output. "I'm the least racist person in the room, and Biden backed that terrible crime bill" is the input that is supposed to produce more black votes, or at least more white votes from white people who want to believe they aren't racists.

And just like you or I might get annoyed or angry when a machine eats our coins, but doesn't drop the candy bar we wanted, or the bag of chips gets stuck behind the glass, or the cup lands upside down and our drink pours around it and down the drain, Trump is genuinely angry when his words and gestures don't produce the results he wants.

It's not our job to worry or care about the truth or consistency of what Trump says. As far as he sees it, he's saying what he's supposed to say for us to do what we're supposed to do for him. If we don't respond correctly, he'll get angry, he'll shake us, he'll pound on us, he'll kick us, and he'll wonder out loud what's the matter with us.

If we don't "work", we're useless junk.

"People are not fat. They HAVE fat."

I get the idea of not shaming people for their weight.

I get the idea of valuing people for who they are, what they do, not what they look like.

Absurd language games offend me, however. "Fat" is both an adjective and a noun. It is perfectly valid English to use the word both to denote the substance that is fat and the condition of bearing excess fat.

I hadn't heard the phrase "People are not fat. They HAVE fat." until I saw a Facebook posting of an Upworthy video featuring obese people dancing, showing they weren't ashamed of their bodies. The phrase appeared several times in the comments, making me wonder if this was some new trend I'd somehow missed.

All the more power to the dancers in the video, and anyone else content with their body as it is, so long as they're healthy. Hell, more power to them even if they've made a conscious decision that losing weight, whether necessary for their health or not, isn't their most pressing concern. That's their right.

But they are fat. They both have fat and are fat. This Newspeak attempt to deny the adjectival use of the word "fat" doesn't strike me as a useful consciousness raising tool, but as something more likely to produce an eye-rolling reaction to the absurd denial built into the phrase.

For what it's worth, I've been overweight most of my adult life. I lost weight for one span of about 7-8 years, fell out of my fitness regime for over a decade, and I've been fit and trim again for the past two years now.

I was fat. I actually wish more people had described me as fat because I had too easily convinced myself "I'm just a little overweight" until I'd gained so much that it seemed like a very daunting challenge to do anything about it.

I have to disagree with Bill Maher about boycotts and free speech

I consider myself a very strong advocate of free speech and free expression in general, in that I don't want government interference in free expression. Beyond the usual exceptions against "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", libel, slander, and very clear and direct incitement to violence, there's little or nothing in the category of personal expression for which I accept restrictions or penalties enforced via the power of the state.

For the most part, in fact, I think I'd generally be more likely to piss people off for what I wouldn't want banned by government authority (like "hate speech" than for stifling free expression.

Further, I certainly don't accept private citizen's interfering with free expression through violence or intimidation.

But what about boycotts or other economic pressure against what is perceived as offensive, stupid or hateful free expression, protest by purely lawful and non-violent decisions not buy products, watch TV shows, participate in events, etc.?

Bill Maher's example was boycotts against Rush Limbaugh and his sponsors. He equated participating in such boycotts as being a poor defender of free expression.

Bullshit, I say.

The way I see it Rush Limbaugh's right to free expression, or my right or your right, doesn't include the right to large audience, it doesn't include a right to having other people facilitate, economically or otherwise, the dissemination of anyone else's message.

I support the right to this form of protest by private citizens even when it goes after free expression that I support. If people refuse, say, to go to Disney World or watch a Disney movie because Disney promotes gay rights, so be it. I consider such people to be flaming assholes, but flaming assholes acting well within their rights, not enemies of free expression unless, in addition to their boycott, they champion laws that would forbid Disney from expressing a pro-gay rights position.

The right of free expression certainly doesn't come with a right to a warm, friendly reception for your message — something frequently forgotten on the internet, including by many who post on DU.

Other people are not infringing upon your right of free expression by using their own right of free expression to vigorously and loudly disagree with what you say. While it might be a violation in some cases of posting guidelines or other forum-specific rules of conduct, it is not a violation of the principle of freedom of expression for one person to disagree with another in a very disagreeable way, including saying things intended to make a person feel stupid or ashamed for what they've said.

That's why no one ever heard the story of The Lord of the Rings!

Because J.R.R Tolkien only imagined the story, and because it wasn't revelation, he had to keep it to himself!

You really want to make a big deal about whether someone keeps something to themselves or they spread it around as some sort of key difference between imagination, fantasy, and revelation?

Revelation comes from outside the individual. And historically has spread quite rapidly from that individual. Why do you think this is? Mass delusion?

Maybe by definition "Revelation comes from outside the individual", but by definition invisible pink unicorns are pink. Claiming revelation comes from outside the individual doesn't make actual revelation exist. Reality is not obligated to provide us with real incidents of all of the imagined phenomena we can define.

It takes no more than misplaced trust and a desire to believe, not mass delusion, for something one person imagines (or lies about) to be spread around as fact. Fox News works like that. The reason bullshit can spread is the same in both cases -- it spreads because the target audience wants to believe what is being said is true.

As for making anything out of the speed at which information spreads, to quote Churchill, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

What you call an appeal to authority is instead a recounting of religious experiences. They have no inherent authority to appeal to.

When one person takes someone else's "recounting" as real information about an external influence like a god, and doesn't take it as merely the other's vivid imagination, that person is treating the other as an authoritative source of information. In fact, I can't think of a more pure form of appeal to authority -- the supposed authority doesn't need to document a reproducible methodology, doesn't need to provide references, doesn't need to provide credentials, etc.

As to appeal to consequences, well that's just silly.

When you earlier said "And the basic message is not bad. Quite the contrary." that hinted at the idea that people should be more generous in their criticism of religion because a supposedly good message comes along for the ride. I'd call that an appeal to consequences, if I read the intent correctly. It's a minor point I'm willing to conceded if I missed the mark.

Which brings us back to the starting point. Your measure of God is the scientific method.

Very well. Design the experiment.

Which brings you back to trying to foist the burden of proof on others to whom it does not belong.

Besides, I take that challenge, though not formed as a question, in much the same way I would take a rhetorical question. You only offer the challenge because you've ruled experiment impossible. You would only counter each offered experiment with reasons why that experiment was inadequate or misdirected. You expect others to treat it as a crowning feature, not a flaw, not a reason for doubt, that God and other religious concepts are founded on vague, fluid definitions and slippery accountability.

I realize that high infant mortality played a part...

...in those shorter average lifespans, but even those who lived to adulthood still often died young by modern standards.

From https://www.sciencenews.org/article/living-longer-comes-easier:

Despite what the fashion magazines tell you, 40 isn’t the new 30. Seventy is.

A new study finds that humans are living so much longer today compared with the rest of human history that the probability of dying at 72 is similar to the death odds our ancestors likely faced at 30.


A few people in our "all natural" past did indeed live into their sixties, seventies, occasionally beyond, but even from a standard of mortality as measured during adulthood (rather than from birth) this was a far more rare thing.

And yes, the better sanitation that comes along with understanding the germ theory of disease, and other medical advances, are a big part of where we get our current lifespans. Further, also as you mention, there's the modern availability of food that makes starvation and large calorie deficits (at least in wealthier countries) much less common.

Yet still, even given all of that, how large an advantage could an "all natural" diet be, and how truly terrible could today's processed food and preservatives and artificial flavors be, if such great increases in lifespan came along at the same time those things came along?

Is there solid evidence that we'd be living on average into our late nineties if we ate like a well-supplied non-starving cave man ate? Is there any evidence that if cavemen ate at McDonald's they'd have had average lifespans only in the teens instead of the twenties?

Don't get me wrong. I think there's a lot to be gained by being more careful about what we eat, not just in longevity but in quality of life. All I object to is taking far too seriously grand oversimplifications like "Natural GOOD! Artificial BAD!". A long, healthy life as a commonplace phenomenin is itself one of the most unnatural things there can be, and I'm all for it.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »