Even if you were right and this were relevant, this would not be a statistical anomaly, it would be a methodology failure
Even if you were right and this were relevant, this would not be a statistical anomaly, it would be a methodology failure
Valid, but you’re not doing it very clearly. This whole thread is a mess tbh
“It’s not a feature, it’s a bug”
Dude how hard is it to get that this guy wasn’t directly commenting on the article
You’re acting like that’s the only policy point that exists. There are meaningful differences in other areas. I don’t have enough non-propagandized information to argue for sure that there are differences in the middle east war department, but the parties certainly aren’t the same on all war-related matters (see Ukraine/Russia as an example). Their rhetoric is different for the middle east but again I can’t speak for their actions. And obviously their non-war policies are drastically different.
Oh, it’s not partisan? That’s… fine, yeah
Any church that does this should not get to be tax-free under the religious exemptions, because they’re also a political organization
TIL the scope of a conversation can never include anything that wasn’t in the original post. I can’t imagine how boring your conversations must be irl.
Womp womp
I encourage you to keep studying and researching. Politics isn’t a football match where teams compete against each others and “left” and “right” are two buzzwords.
No offense but I think OP has a better grasp of this than you do
Thanks for sharing! I feel like this is representative of a small but important political group recently.
I refuse to upvote any post woth the word “slammed” in the title
Holy based alert
It’s as hopeless as me trying to explain why not voting is usually worse than voting for the better option
Supposedly yes police departments actually do hire people without higher ed
“Should”? Absolutely. At some point if both candidates are truly awful I suppose I’d have to vote third party.
Obviously, I’m voting for Harris. I’m just saying, on the relative scale, there’s a hierarchy.
I would take him over trump
I try :)
And I appreciate you as well! That was a long comment, it takes effort that you’re not sure you’ll get anything back from. Respect
Sorry, I think you need to brush up on statistics. The relevant measurement here would be the variance (Variation? Variability? Whatever the term is officially called) in the relevant statistic, not the size of the statistic itself. Using the variance and previous average of the deaths per capita statistic, you can calculate the likelihood of the current deaths per capita having this value compared to the past values. If that likelihood is sufficiently low (for most scientific fields, 5% or less), the result is declared significant, since it’s different than what we would expect it to be if nothing had changed, and we can say that with a high (>95%) confidence. To learn more about this “predict the chance of the result being within normal bounds and then go “whoa that’s weird” when it’s not” method, look up “null hypothesis”, or even better “statistical significance”.
To give a practical example: The number or deaths from car accidents is fairly low per capita, but since we have a very large amount of data available, it has a low variance and we can predict and calculate the ratio very accurately. If you look up a graph of car deaths per capita over time, each year will only have a ratio of like 0.001%, but the variance between years will not be very high, because we have so much data that the little bits of randomness all even out. We can then look at, for example, car deaths per capita for streets with crosswalks vs without crosswalks, and even though they’ll both be a fraction of a percent, because they’re both measured so accurately we can make confident assessments of that data.