bluegatty

Nuclear power is not too expensive, it's expense is artificial. Also - renewables can't provide base load energy to replace mos of carbon stuff. You need a powerful base load to support most renewables in the mix

now the german greens.

ha ha .. that sounds like an Onion article. To be fair - if they did a narrow refactor to focus on fixing only obvious and known issues, they probably might be able to pull it off because a ton of that code is hairballs.

Picard has become a moral example, I don't think anyone but Patrick Stewart could have been the embodiement of a character we could nary live up to.

You are asking a reddit style question.

The entire world works around the legitimacy of authority.

Yes - the quality varies, and pollsters don't have a high degree of institutional authority.

But some do.

If you want to learn about 'institutional legitimacy' - go visilt Pew.

Pew is an extremely well regarded institution. They are extremely good at polling. Go look at their methods.

They are a long running institution with serious professionals, big budgets, people who really know waht they are talkinga bout.

It's the difference between getting diagnosis from 'a neighbour' vs a 'doctor' but in this case there is no specific qualification.

Some 'respected pollsters' are basically insiders who have been doing it for a long time, with relationships and credibility - others, more institutional.

Check out Pew, they are probably he closest thing to institutional professional as possible.

Political polling is inherently hard - they will be the first to admit.

this has to go to the supreme court right away

TIME magazine is a tabloid-ish reader publication. It's popular editorial, not 'highly objective news'. Who TIME puts on their cover has nothing to do with the quality of the polls they might cite.

They do a variety of things based on professionalism, budget, ability to gauge that.

My point is --> this problem is the most basic and fundamental problem that is the focus of every pollsters existence <--

Asking questions is extremely easy.

Getting a 'truly random sample' is extremely hard.

Trying to factor in those things is 100% of the work, that's what they do, it's their job.

Some are better, some are lazier, some have better data, some are individuals, some are teams so it varies hugely.

When the conditions are controlled they'll have a better idea than otherwise.

Their job is not 'asking questions' it's 'figuring out how to get random samples'.

The hours we work is 100% social convention (and balance of power) it has nothing to do with tech.

The very nature of the term 'viral' obviously would be disqualifying or hint that something is very awry.

The entire objective of a polls is to get a probabilistic sample. That's the whole thing. Anything that deviates that ... creates problematic outcome.

"because the decision to respond to the poll is itself a major portion of the signa"

Yes - they are aware of that.

These are all problematic statements.

- CNN doesn't do polling, they have firms do that

- All reputable firms try get valid results, they have professionals, they know who they are talking to and the limits. What we see in the last 2-3 weeks of the elections are the polls they want to release however, those that err in one direction or another.

- They definitely accommodate for misrepresentation samples - if more of their respondents indicate 'registered republicans' than in the general public they will adjust.

- It's very hard to measure 1) the people that are hard to reach and statistically more likely to not trust pollsters and 2) likelihood of actual voting aka enthusiasm.

- there are plenty of centrist institutions and pollsters

- It's fair to call out Elon because he's making the policies

Twitter is just a bad way to measure anything except for the Zeitgeist of Twitter readers.

"that those super farms became a practically inconsequential part of the overall economy. " - not really.

The super farms are as important as ever.

Because farms are hyper competitive, it means that the surplus and efficiency gains are not kept by the farmers.

And it's not just 'super farms' - its' transportation that enabled 'regular labour farms' in low cost areas.

So the benefits go to distributors, packaged food makers, grocers and consumers.

In this case, mostly to consumers.

You can see the charts for the kinds of work people used to do vs, now aka we used to all live on farms, now we do all sorts of things.

This is why we're seeing an pushback on globalization, economic optimization doesn't always balance out with strategic considerations aka food supply security etc. and those are hard to put on the books because they feel like a 'non-market force'.

A 'subsidy' feels like welfare, it's really and adjust of the balance of power.

The answer implies a misunderstandng the dynamics of this system.

There is very little chance that Meta is doing algorithmic political adjustments at the behest of Zuck.

It's conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence.

As much as Zuck is a maligned actor, that's not how these things work thee.

X - yes, that could happen there, Meta and Google are different kinds of organizations.

Meta is feeding you click bait without bother.

YouTube is feeding you clickbait wit some concern, especially for advertisers.

X is almost entirely feeding you clickbait, and very aggressively amplifying clickbait voices, and heavily promoting those voices Elon wants promoted.

None of them are making up and promoting magical weird memes.

Edit: I should add, the political interference will directly happen but in a censorial way. If they can do something under the cover of 'upsets advertisers' - they will do that

YouTube wouldn't take ads for the film attacking Elon. I this is one of those Type B kinds of influences, not amplifying or making clickbait but a form of narrative censorship. But - they will do it within the limits and constraints of their own system. They are not sneaking into the lab and magically adjusting the algo. They are finding corporate/legal justification and doing it within that framework. If investors push hard enough and there's any thread of concern, lawyers can make a case. Elon might have threatened to sue, or do all sorts of things, and YT comes up with an excuse for whatever.

Finally - there is state intervention. State actors will ask them to do stuff. Sometimes through process aka FBI requests, sometimes through influence 'for state interests'. Again more on the Type B side.

You may see this kind of activity in trying to stop AfD etc later. German State might make the case that ABC actors are known to promote Nazi propaganda, this is illegal in Germany, you will be fined and banned unless you remove x y and z accounts etc etc.. That could happen for sure, even with dubious legal considerations all the way around.

This is anecdotal, it's not evidence. The whole point of this discussion is figuring out the difference.

AfD is controversial - it's click bait - the algorithm is feeding 'action' - that's the problem.