Coronavirus and Credibility • Hacker News Board

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#691

Post by tlrobinson » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

jfrankamp wrote: post #574

cortesoft wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what should we do?

The United States military could best be used to fight this by destroying (with warning) global fossil fuel infrastructure that wasn't voluntarily closed, bit by bit with a decade long schedule. The announcement alone would prompt a massive shift in energy production, use, investment etc. Our own legacy infrastructure would also have to be on the list. Call it a Paris accord with teeth. It will never happen, because…

That sounds like a good way to start World War III. The top oil producing countries after the US are:

Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, China, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Iran, Kuwait

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#692

Post by maps7 » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #677

maps7 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't disagree with that. Here's the relevant parts: "An event like this is thus a uniquely powerful way of taking people's measure." and "Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have. I hope."

Sorry, but no. There have been thousands if not tens of thousands of such testable events over the last couple of years and in not even a single case has this led to repercussions against those that lied. Nobody's measure has been taken in a way that they cared about. We can record this one and likely it won't make any difference either. It's just whose team you are on now, not about whether there is anything truthfu…

What are you apologizing for? You could list some of the testable events if you want. When you have them listed reread the article and compare against it. Let me know how you get on.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#693

Post by corpMaverick » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

In case you didn't click. The video is unsurprisingly Fox News. A disinformation machine. It just got very real. They aren't protecting anyone's interests at this point and they can get many people killed, including the same oligarchs that benefit by it.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#694

Post by jmckib » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:04 PM UTC

_wwz4 wrote: post #548

Do people appreciate that denial of the severity of this virus came from all political quarters? Here's one showing the mistakes of left-leaning media I found in 2 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=wVDPVBZF2Xg It's just as easy to find supercuts of Pelosi, DeBlasio, and other prominent Democrats telling people that they didn't need to start social distancing or that the virus wasn't airborne c…

You can cherry-pick different opinions from all over the spectrum. For example, Tucker Carlson took the virus pretty seriously early on, but he was one of the only voices on Fox News to do so. Views on the left have been more mixed.

At least that's been my observation, but I don't watch TV news; I just read about what's on it. I've been getting my news from WaPo and WSJ, both of which took the virus seriously from the beginning.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#695

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

"this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have"

I doubt it. Getting one random prediction right doesn't confer credibility. Getting several right becomes more interesting.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#696

Post by unexaminedlife » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

That's not even enough. We need their own words, coming from their own mouths, to be available online forever (compiled and meticulously categorized). If I tell someone that a news anchor has a terrible history of stating falsehoods, why should they believe me? I need to have a URL where I can go to obtain ALL of an individual's public statements about things, and rigorous details as to why the things they said were false.

Ideally it would be available via a decentralized source.

AND ideally a crowd-sourced platform so anyone can contribute.

Also we need the government to define different TYPES of news. Opinion-based and fact-based. Fact-based obviously will be held to extremely high standards, but the hope would be they would be rewarded for it in the market.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#697

Post by btilly » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

bo1024 wrote: post #544

btilly wrote: post #378

There is nothing about what has happened that should surprise anyone who has read the book Superforecasting . It explains that we naturally trust people who sound smart, well-informed, and CONFIDENT. We don't want to hear uncertainty, probabilities, or the other signs of someone who thinks in a careful quantitative way. We want to accept a cognitively simple answer, then move on. This is what we find comfortable. How…

There is some really interesting interplay here between forecasting and decisionmaking. (Taleb would have a lot to say here, along the lines of "forecasters are poor.") Maybe it makes sense that forecasts should be measured, but decisions should be, well, decisive. A good Bayesian should be able to make confident decisions based on information available at the moment, while acknowledging that lack of information is l…

A good Bayesian should be able to make confident decisions based on information available at the moment...

No.

A good Bayesian should be able to come to decisions like, "I am 70% confident that Osama bin Laden is in that compound." While the Bayesian next says, "I am only 50% confident that Osama bin Laden is in that compound." With both knowing that there is a difference of opinion, but no disagreement on basic facts or reasoning method.

It is very rare for a good Bayesian to be absolutely confident of any prediction. And if you are often so confident, you're probably not thinking very well. I mean that quite literally - the process of analyzing probabilities well requires being able to make the case both for what you think will happen, and what you think won't. Because only then can you start putting probabilities on the key assumptions.

For example, a leader can be absolutely confident that shelter-in-place is the best decision based on the available information, while acknowledging that there is missing information that would drastically change this assessment.

Really?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22750790 is a discussion that I was in recently about whether on a cost benefit analysis it is better to crash the economy by shutting things down, or to keep things open and let lots of people die.

The decision wasn't nearly as clear in the end as I would have expected it to be. (That all options are horrible was clear. But we knew that.)

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#698

Post by crusso » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #637

crusso wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be all for holding politicians in charge accountable, but that's where everyone gets squishy depending upon who they support? One guy's being wrong becomes another guy's "not that big of a deal". By what metric will you measure "being wrong" for this COVID-19 pandemic? A super cut of video clips showing a reluctance to believe uncertain information coming out of China? Death rate compared to other OECD countries?…

When you are not in charge you can say whatever you want, it won't kill people. So that's why it matters. It's not about who you support. "The Buck Stops Here".

People will die of this in every country on earth. Are all in charge responsible for every death in the country over which they preside?

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#699

Post by Mountain_Skies » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

tlrobinson wrote: post #691

jfrankamp wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States military could best be used to fight this by destroying (with warning) global fossil fuel infrastructure that wasn't voluntarily closed, bit by bit with a decade long schedule. The announcement alone would prompt a massive shift in energy production, use, investment etc. Our own legacy infrastructure would also have to be on the list. Call it a Paris accord with teeth. It will never happen, because…

That sounds like a good way to start World War III. The top oil producing countries after the US are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, China, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Iran, Kuwait https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

Nuclear winter would solve global warming though it still would count as climate change, so maybe it's a wash.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#700

Post by linuxhansl » Mon, Apr 06, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

+1000

> Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have.

I have very little hope here. Collective memory does not seem to last more than a year. The cynic in me believes that once toilet paper is available in pre-corona quantities again, we'll forget about the harmful mis-predictions.

And if recent history is an accurate indicator, then I'm afraid folks are still going to get away with lies and false predictions (not to even speak of harmful actions.)