lets_get_off_lemmy

joined 1 year ago
[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Long, boring, hard to pay attention to. I read philosophy and theory sometimes but it's few and far between for those reasons. I really have to be in a special mood to sit down and read something that dense.

Depression for me.

No. I wish I could stay awake forever sometimes.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lol you don't get to be rude if you apologize first.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 34 points 3 months ago

That we're able to dodge the incoming wave of fascism and peacefully skim board into progressive politics.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 19 points 4 months ago

There are others that don't get the coverage, but yeah, pretty fuckin lame anyway. If only for the fact that they don't get the coverage.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 15 points 4 months ago

This is such a drunk, stupid tech bro idea.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Focus groups aren't meant to be used for gaining an understanding of a broad swath of the population. Focus groups are used for exploratory research, concept testing, and understanding the "why" behind opinions and behaviors.

If you want to generalize trends towards large populations, you're going to need a large sample size. It's statistics that suggests that many respondents will leave you with extremely low confidence in the outcome.

For example, if you are trying to judge the voting preferences of a population of 100,000 people, you'll need 383 randomly sampled people in a survey to reach a 95% confidence interval. 13 is nowhere near the amount of people required to cover those that considered themselves "independents" before the debate.

That's not to say this tells us nothing, but it's by no means a predictive study.

*edit: I actually would say it's harmful because I think that it portrays the narrative as if it is predictive, when it's not.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not surprised. Alito is straight up huffing Newsmax like it's paint but trying to hide it, Clarence Thomas is outwardly corrupt and unabashedly fascist, and the other conservatives are, weirdly, not as extreme and still attempt to maintain this air of professionalism and integrity in their profession. Don't get me wrong, they don't actually and in them we have a religious nut, an idiot frat boy, an egoist, and at the head, a conniving political operator. All of which are driving us closer to fascism in their own style.

But I get the feeling like John Roberts is embarrassed by Clarence Thomas and his clinically insane QAnon conspiracy wife or Alito and his "election was stolen" flag antics. So they're going to see things differently.

Depends who you are. If you're a person of interest to the Russians for any reason, I wouldn't trust it.

[–] lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)
view more: next ›