New York City

#7,401
#7,401
OrangeTsar said:
What is McCarthyistic about wishing people get what they asked for? Isn’t that the „democracy“ you folks are always „defending“? 😂

Ps Joseph McCarthy was right, he was just a few decades ahead of the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Yeah those witch hunts really helped the country and they were so in line with our ideals.
 
#7,402
#7,402
Vol8188 said:
I can never tell if you’re really dumb or a troll.

Yes, the fare free went down more than the regular. But both went down.

If thing x improves under Trump more than it did Biden, you realize that’s only a sign of correlation. When assessing for causation, one thing you need is a mechanism. For example did Trump sign legislation that impacted x. If there’s no proposed mechanism, the likely answer is “statistical variance”.

So help me understand. What possible mechanism could have lead to this?

If you have none, the answer is it wasn’t this policy that improved the data
Click to expand...
It's not that complicated. If you don't have to collect a fare, there's less likely to be a struggle over collecting fare, and assaults go down as a result. It's funny to attempt to be condescending when you're wrong, does that make you really dumb or a troll?
 
#7,403
#7,403
Vol8188 said:
I can never tell if you’re really dumb or a troll.

Yes, the fare free went down more than the regular. But both went down.

If thing x improves under Trump more than it did Biden, you realize that’s only a sign of correlation. When assessing for causation, one thing you need is a mechanism. For example did Trump sign legislation that impacted x. If there’s no proposed mechanism, the likely answer is “statistical variance”.
Click to expand...
This is also not how correlation works, if thing x improves under Trump after worsening under Biden it would still only be a sign of correlation; the fact that "both went down" isn't relevant to that at all. Tell me more about how smart you are
 
#7,404
#7,404
NashVol11 said:
This is also not how correlation works, if thing x improves under Trump after worsening under Biden it would still only be a sign of correlation; the fact that "both went down" isn't relevant to that at all. Tell me more about how smart you are
Click to expand...

You should reread that. I very clearly said “that’s only a sign of correlation”. You have one limited study and a flawed mechanism. Yet you’re falsely pretending to have shown causation.

Increasing the number of schizophrenics and drug addicts, doesn’t make buses safer
 
#7,405
#7,405
Majors said:
Nice bumper sticker word salad. Like freedom to gassing their own people and tossing them off buildings.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your reading comprehension. Nobody said Sadam or the Assads were nice or good. But we and our buds sure laid waste to a whole lot more of those countries than they did.
 
#7,406
#7,406
NashVol11 said:
It's not that complicated. If you don't have to collect a fare, there's less likely to be a struggle over collecting fare, and assaults go down as a result. It's funny to attempt to be condescending when you're wrong, does that make you really dumb or a troll?
Click to expand...
I have to admit this is such a strange standard for me. To illustrate what I mean,
many assaults can be eliminated if people got stuff for free. Banks could prevent robbery if they handed cash out to all who requested it. Stores could prevent shoplifting if they didn't charge for merchandise.

Adults who think free services are the answer seem delusional to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN, CABVOL, UT_Dutchman and 9 others
#7,407
#7,407
EasternVol said:
The Brits have an expression 'taking the piss'. This is obviously an example.
Click to expand...
As I have said, it’s very hard to tell with the amount of informed voters I’ve seen this week and previously on other issues where they contradict themselves .
 
#7,408
#7,408
Vol8188 said:
You should reread that. I very clearly said “that’s only a sign of correlation”.
Click to expand...
I'm aware. I'm saying "both went down" is completely irrelevant to the question of correlation vs. causation, as you made it a separate paragraph as if it's meaningful
 
#7,409
#7,409
n_huffhines said:
You understand that the problem isn't Muslims, it's that the UK doesn't protect freedom like we do. Living in a free country comes at a price, and one of those is, dear God, can we face it?....you might have a Muslim neighbor. Or a Muslim mayor. Or a Muslim representative in congress. How will the US ever survive religious diversity?
Click to expand...

@OrangeTsar see?

 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#7,410
#7,410
I am amazed that 60% of New York are below the FPL or face severe financial hardship. The median income was like 43K in 2023, and add in the high COL, taxes, etc.
 
#7,411
#7,411
NashVol11 said:
I'm aware. I'm saying "both went down" is completely irrelevant to the question of correlation vs. causation, as you made it a separate paragraph as if it's meaningful
Click to expand...

Not at all. Both going down seems to imply something other than a new program was involved. Heightening the odds that the change seen was a result of random statistical variance instead of the policy change itself
 
#7,412
#7,412
McDad said:
I have to admit this is such a strange standard for me. To illustrate what I mean,
many assaults can be eliminated if people got stuff for free. Banks could prevent robbery if they handed cash out to all who requested it. Stores could prevent shoplifting if they didn't charge for merchandise.

Adults who think free services are the answer seem delusional to me.
Click to expand...
Person 1: the buses are about to become full of homeless people and drug addicts and will be horribly unsafe for poor young women
Me: the evidence suggests the exact opposite, the free buses were also safer when tested
Person 3: well if the goal is safety, try this other thing!!

Every time. It's an exhausting strawman. Safety isn't the sole or primary purpose of free buses, and I would also say giving away cash and "giving away" space on a bus, which does not hurt the bus or the driver, are pretty different things
 
#7,413
#7,413
Vol8188 said:
Not at all. Both going down seems to imply something other than a new program was involved. Heightening the odds that the change seen was a result of random statistical variance instead of the policy change itself
Click to expand...
Lot of words to say you don't understand how correlation or causation work after trying to be condescending about them 😭

"Seems to imply" and "heightening the odds" don't change whether something is either causation or just correlation lol, it is completely irrelevant to that question like I said
 
#7,415
#7,415
NashVol11 said:
Person 1: the buses are about to become full of homeless people and drug addicts and will be horribly unsafe for poor young women
Me: the evidence suggests the exact opposite, the free buses were also safer when tested
Person 3: well if the goal is safety, try this other thing!!

Every time. It's an exhausting strawman. Safety isn't the sole or primary purpose of free buses, and I would also say giving away cash and "giving away" space on a bus, which does not hurt the bus or the driver, are pretty different things
Click to expand...
I don't know how or why your first paragraph is relevant to me. I never mentioned any of those factors.

That's a poorly thought refutation. Giving away cash doesn't harm neither the bank building nor the front line teller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeslice13, Vol since 77 and 2 others
#7,416
#7,416
NashVol11 said:
Lot of words to say you don't understand how correlation or causation work after trying to be condescending about them 😭

"Seems to imply" and "heightening the odds" don't change whether something is either causation or just correlation lol
Click to expand...

I have a much better grasp on the topic than yourself. Once again you’ve acted like your small limited study seemed to prove something.

My phrasing is intentional. “Seems to imply” and “heightening the odds” rather than the more definitive language you use, because the data is so limited.

But here’s a simple way of knowing that both went down is relevant. Because if they didn’t, it would have been the first thing you said. “Assaults went up everywhere else!” Would have been your leading talking point. But because it’s not the case, now that data point doesn’t matter?

This level of disingenuous trolling is the reason I rarely engage with you. You have no attachment or concern for the truth. But rather will simply argue on behalf of your insane “values”, regardless of reality.
 
#7,417
#7,417
Vol8188 said:
I have a much better grasp on the topic than yourself. Once again you’ve acted like your small limited study seemed to prove something.

My phrasing is intentional. “Seems to imply” and “heightening the odds” rather than the more definitive language you use, because the data is so limited.

But here’s a simple way of knowing that both went down is relevant. Because if they didn’t, it would have been the first thing you said. “Assaults went up everywhere else!” Would have been your leading talking point. But because it’s not the case, now that data point doesn’t matter?

This level of disingenuous trolling is the reason I rarely engage with you. You have no attachment or concern for the truth. But rather will simply argue on behalf of your insane “values”, regardless of reality.
Click to expand...
You made s*** up about how the buses are going to be homeless shelters full of drug addicts. I pointed out this has been tried in NYC and that didn't happen, which is a fact.
You said "show your work." Shown. You said "well they went down systemwide too," which is a pivot and also deeply dishonest, after you saw -15% vs -32% and apparently assumed I didn't.
And now you're showing that you have no idea how correlation or causation work in order to continue moving the goalposts and arguing about nothing. Spare me the moralizing, it's as dishonest as everything else you say
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#7,420
#7,420
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeslice13 and hog88
#7,421
#7,421
NashVol11 said:
You made s*** up about how the buses are going to be homeless shelters full of drug addicts.
Click to expand...

That’s not made up. That’s called reality. The people who couldn’t afford the small fare are going to be overwhelmingly drug addicts and homeless.

NashVol11 said:
I pointed out this has been tried in NYC and that didn't happen, which is a fact.
You said "show your work." Shown.
Click to expand...

You referenced a data point without providing the data. Yes, I asked for the data. Even then you only showed a screenshot. Likely because you realized how poor the data was.

NashVol11 said:
You said "well they went down systemwide too," which is a pivot and also deeply dishonest, after you saw -15% vs -32% and apparently assumed I didn't.
Click to expand...

Not a pivot at all. A very important aspect of the study in general. I didn’t assume you did not notice that. I assumed you intentionally left that out. So I made sure to point that out.

NashVol11 said:
And now you're showing that you have no idea how correlation or causation work in order to continue moving the goalposts and arguing about nothing. Spare me the moralizing, it's as dishonest as everything else you say
Click to expand...

And now you falsely pretend the guy who literally taught correlation and causation has no idea how it works. Whatever makes you feel better.

This is coming from the same guy who says the socialist who claimed the goal of socialism is to seize the means of production no longer believes that. You have no evidence he doesn’t believe that. But hey, who needs honesty, right?
 
#7,422
#7,422
Vol8188 said:
That’s not made up. That’s called reality. The people who couldn’t afford the small fare are going to be overwhelmingly drug addicts and homeless.



You referenced a data point without providing the data. Yes, I asked for the data. Even then you only showed a screenshot. Likely because you realized how poor the data was.



Not a pivot at all. A very important aspect of the study in general. I didn’t assume you did not notice that. I assumed you intentionally left that out. So I made sure to point that out.



And now you falsely pretend the guy who literally taught correlation and causation has no idea how it works. Whatever makes you feel better.

This is coming from the same guy who says the socialist who claimed the goal of socialism is to seize the means of production no longer believes that. You have no evidence he doesn’t believe that. But hey, who needs honesty, right?
Click to expand...
If you teach correlation vs. causation, then you should either learn what those words mean or stop playing dumb, because "both went down" vs "one went up and one went down" wouldn't change the result of that inquiry at all without a causal link and you should know that as well as I do
 
#7,423
#7,423
NashVol11 said:
If you teach correlation vs. causation, then you should either learn what those words mean or stop playing dumb, because "both went down" vs "one went up and one went down" wouldn't change the result of that inquiry at all without a causal link and you should know that as well as I do
Click to expand...
Not my fight, but I am amused at the superiority expressed here when you recently posted a high-horse “They knew” about a tweet that included such phrases as “they believed,” “likely amounted,” “pointed to doubts,” “potentially,” and the like.

Just an observation. Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77
#7,424
#7,424
NashVol11 said:
If you teach correlation vs. causation, then you should either learn what those words mean or stop playing dumb, because "both went down" vs "one went up and one went down" wouldn't change the result of that inquiry at all without a causal link and you should know that as well as I do
Click to expand...

Taught, past tense.

It would. The most obvious way to know it would change things is that you would’ve pointed it out because it would have strengthened your claim for causation.

If assaults were up 50% on the other lines and down 50% on free bus lines, the P value would have been significantly stronger. Increasing the likely that this is causation rather than just variance
 
#7,425
#7,425
Ritzwatch said:
Not my fight, but I am amused at the superiority expressed here when you recently posted a high-horse “They knew” about a tweet that included such phrases as “they believed,” “likely amounted,” “pointed to doubts,” “potentially,” and the like.

Just an observation. Carry on.
Click to expand...
"I am amused at the superiority expressed here and I am also blind to the superiority you are responding to"
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top