Live data from Hacker News

‘Tipping point’ makes partisan polarization irreversible in research model

news.cornell.edu

81–82 of 82 posts

Re: ‘Tipping point’ makes partisan polarization irreversible in research model

#81
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you open access! But did I find a typo? "Nevertheless, we make no claims about the model’s predictive accuracy. The model is highly abstract and remains to be empirically calibrated and tested. Nor can we assume that tipping points would obtain in radically different applications, such as affective polarization, voter polarization, or media polarization."

Do you mean in the word "affective"? It's a perfectly cromulent word. It's the adjectival form of the word "affect" in its noun sense, meaning "mood" or "feeling". This form is pronounced differently: A-fect (emphasis on the first syllable, with the vowel like in "rat"). "Affective polarization" is "people being polarized in how they feel about each other", i.e. animosity towards people in the other party. It's a tec…

Sorry i should have trimmed it. "Nor can we assume that tipping points would obtain in radically different applications"

Re: ‘Tipping point’ makes partisan polarization irreversible in research model

#82
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right. But there is still a finite radio broadcast spectrum we don't apply this to, and a finite number of cable channels, a finite number of social media platforms, search engines or browsers with a million users, etc. I am not saying something like that is a good idea. I am saying that to throw your hands up and say nothing can be done is not accurate. A lot of times people say you can't regulate a thing be…

There is no limit on the number of cable channels, social media platforms, search engines, or browsers. Anyone can create more. Unlike with RF spectrum there are no fundamental physical limits.

Sure, go start a browser or a cable channel and tell me how that goes.
Post reply on HN