Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#321

Post by DasIch » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:13 AM UTC

s_kilk wrote: post #311

blhack wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump isn't nearly as far behind as you may think: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ Yes, this poll is an outlier because their methodology is very different than most other polls. Yes, Nate Silver has a very different outlook on the election, but Nate Silver was also not very reliable during the primary season (although that is, by his admission, because primaries don't have very good poll…

> I don't think this race is nearly as over as most people seem to believe This feels a lot like the atmosphere over here (in Britain) just before the Brexit vote. Many people thought it was a guaranteed Remain vote, and woke up to a terrible fright on that Friday morning.

The polls showed Brexit winning.

Re: undefined

#322

Post by makomk » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:14 AM UTC

code_sardaukar wrote: post #153

easyd wrote: post #144

Everyone seems to think it's about maximizing his ROI or, less cynical, about economics. But here's a quote from Thiel's speech at the republican convention: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald…

Clinton's plan for Syria is scary. Ironically it displays the kind of toughness that Trump claims to represent. Personally I think it is a bad move, and Russia has already been reasonable, e.g. backing the Iran deal. You don't even need to be a libertarian or an isolationist to believe that the neoconservative approach is wrong.

This is what worries me, especially given the state of both the mainstream press and feminism right now. Here in the UK, we've already seen the leader of the opposition accused of supporting harassment and violence against women for opposing bombing Syria merely because some of pro-bombing MPs that had anti-war protests outside their offices were female. Imagine what will happen once the President of the US is a hawkish, well-connected Democrat woman who can defend a man accused of brutally raping a 12 year old girl, leaving her with massive internal injuries, by convincing the court to put the girl through a forced psychiatric examination so nasty she refused to testify afterwards using an expert witness who argued that little girls fantasise and lie about sex with older men all the time - and have the press spin this a feminist act that only right-wing propagandists could object to. We're doomed.

Re: undefined

#323

Post by ordu » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:14 AM UTC

duncanawoods wrote: post #279

rconti wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've cherry-picked the one outlier. It's, of course, very possible that "this time it's different" as they say every time. He is certainly an unconventional candidate. However, I'll throw my lot in every time with the MANY polls who are trying to account for this, and the MANY poll aggregators who are trying to make sense out of this madness. I think 538 was actually quite reliable during the primary season. Pretty…

There was a good documentary on polling on BBC Radio 4 in light of their very weak performance in IndyRef and the UK General Election. One pollster said that he actually has a high regard for outliers which statistical aggregations do not capture. In cases where the majority of pollsters got it horribly wrong, there have been outliers at some significant distance from the herd that have been on the money but ridicule…

I think problem is deeper. If one predicts heads as result of coin toss and other predicts tails, than one of them will be right. It says nothing about their abilities to predict. We always can find some outlier who predicts results different from majority of pollsters. The keyword is 'always': if such a possibility always exists (probability of existence P=1), then we can't extract any information from it (-log_2 P == 0).

To extract information we need to carefully revise methodology behind outlier predictions, and such an activity is a complex task for skilled data analyst.

Re: undefined

#324

Post by nhaehnle » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:17 AM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #116

rorykoehler wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is not freedom without power to exercise said freedom.

Freedom in the Libertarianism context (and in most contexts) means lack of coercion or constraint imposed by government or other institutions. It doesn't refer to freedom from natural or physical constraints. That wouldn't make any sense to advocate for. Does this clear it up for you?

It is simultaneously amusing and frustrating how completely wrong this is. Coercion and constraint imposed by government (or similar institutions) is absolutely central to libertarianism! The whole point of property rights is to constrain people from doing things. E.g., you own a beachfront property? You get to constrain other people from swimming there, and the government is there to help if necessary. And so on.

Saying that libertarianism isn't about coercion and constraint is like saying that the GPL or copyleft in general isn't about copyright. Both are equally wrong: the GPL absolutely requires copyright law in order for it to work, and similarly libertarianism absolutely requires coercion and constraint.

It's just that there's this sleight of hand where for some reason, most people are so used to property right that they don't even notice it anymore. Talk about successful framing!

Re: undefined

#325

Post by mattmanser » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:18 AM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #266

HSO wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I generally share your sentiment, I also think it's a stretch to hold up Gawker as an example of the freedom of the press. Outing someone or publishing a "sex tape" of someone against their will clearly breaches boundaries. I doubt that the public interest, by any definition, was served by this. Neither Thiel nor Bollea were running for public office. Trump, on the other hand, is a real danger. I would not lump…

sadly I find his opponent to be more dangerous as the press and Congress will likely never call her out regardless of what she chooses to do. already a proven welfare warfare queen we can expect simply more of the same. At least with Trump we know the press will nip his heels everyday and misstep and Congress will not be friendly. we haven't had an adversarial press in eight years and only one adversarial party in th…

As a foreigner, I really don't get this attitude.

Hillary's a hawk, so let's support the obviously erratic, racist, bigoted, tax-dodging, incompetent, incoherent, sexually assaulting idiot who looks very much like a new Hitler and thinks if you win an election you get to lock up your opponents like a crazy third world state.

Boggles my mind that 'Murica' 'Freedom' can bring out such a petty, childish and obviously self destructive urge to vote for Trump.

What am I missing? Like with brexit, what the rest of the world seems to miss is the EU is a corrupt beuracracy with a privileged and out of touch political elite marching toward federalisation while deliberately ignoring it's citizens explicit wishes (I voted remain). Foreigners don't seem to report that, they portray the single market as somehow free, without a heavy cost and the British as inherently self destructive.

So what is it about Trump that's so compelling that is not reported to us? As the rest of the world is so horrified by this vile person, this demagogue. Why, America, why? How did he almost win? How did he even get 5% of voters?

Re: undefined

#326

Post by mathetic » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:19 AM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #285

I agree with Thiel about Trump. On the surface, individually, I think that Trump probably looks like a worse person than Hillary, but if you look at each candidate as the sum of their social connections - I think Hillary turns out to be much, much worse. Hillary Clinton is heavily influenced by big finance. That's where the bulk of her friends and her connections come from. Even her son in law is an investment banker…

It always amuses me how short political memory is.

> At least Trump built houses and apartments for people. He didn't build his wealth by leveraging political power.

All he said during the primary was that he was leveraging political power by donations in the past and his selling point was being self-funded.

On top of that he didn't build his wealth. He inherited it while declaring bankruptcy several times along the way. He doesn't release his tax returns and has been involved in fraud multiple times eg. Trump university.

It escapes me how from your premises you conclude that the problem you identified, big finance, will be broken apart or regulated by Donald Trump.

Unbelievable.

Re: undefined

#327

Post by kristiandupont » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:19 AM UTC

AvenueIngres wrote: post #293

madaxe_again wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, he could from a family like mine - my Omi is Austrian, along with a slew of cousins. Dinner table conversation still turns to how things would have been better had herr Hitler won. My uncle has to leave the room he so vociferously objects to his mother and his children. So, that collective memory swings both ways. Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a…

Thiel has bachelor and JD degrees in Philosophy and Law from Stanford. I think it is a little bit preposterous to assume he holds his current views about Trump simply because he is too uneducated to think otherwise. >Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a core tenet of the trump campaign. And fascism. Maybe you are the one confusing narratives built around each can…

>Thiel understands that should Clinton win, there will be war

Sounds like something you "understand". Clever little rhetorical trick though, similar to "it turns out that..".

Re: undefined

#328

Post by dreta » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:20 AM UTC

Why is this news when the fact Clinton received donations from major corporations, banks, and foreign governments isn't. It's like the media wants to paint a target on anybody openly supporting Trump.

Re: undefined

#329

Post by dagss » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:22 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #103

rorykoehler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found the right-libertarian philosophy to be extremely confused. They want freedom to do whatever they want but they also want to base everything off of capitalism which by definition means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich. It just doesn't make any sense (unless of course you're already a billionaire in which case your world is already quite libertarian in reality).

Libertarianism isn't about doing whatever you want. It's about protecting your rights and the rights of others. This means you can do what you want, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. That last clause is often overlooked or misunderstood, but it is critical.

But but...that is what communism is about too, just with a different set of rights. Making "rights" some abstract thing means you end up saying nothing at all.

Re: undefined

#330

Post by sidcool » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 10:24 AM UTC

sumedh wrote: post #216

sidcool wrote: post #181

First mistake was allowing Trump to run. Second was to be Republican presidential candidate. Third and the final one would be to make him win

Who was going to stop Trump from running?

Let's c, Republicans, voters and many others.