New York City

#7,426
#7,426
Vol8188 said:
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
Click to expand...
"Listen up, you can tell it would change the answer of correlation vs. causation because of this fake scenario I made up that also doesn't change the answer of correlation vs. causation" lmao ok. If assaults were down on the free lines and up on the others, that would still just be correlation absent actual causation and we both know that. If I would argue otherwise in that scenario then I would be doing it right now
 
#7,427
#7,427
EasternVol said:
Are you getting an electric car whether you want one or not under Trump? Is government still pushing the trans craze? Was Biden blowing random folks out of the water in South America or threatening Nigeria with military action because he's too dumb to know what's going on there?
The parties agree on a lot of the big issues, sometimes because they're paid to, but they have their differences. I agree though that we can't say that one's clearly better than the other. They both have huge downsides.
Click to expand...
I can't afford an electric car, don't have the infrastructure at home, nor does the city, state and country in which I live have the infrastructure to support it in any meaningful way. It's another case of putting the cart before the horse and blowing a lot of tax money doing it.

Since the last election The left has backed off it's over the top support for all things rainbow because it was loser at the polls but somehow still seem to mostly support men in women's sports and spaces. To me it almost seems like feminism has gone so far to the rediculous it's imploded on itself.

No blowing random folks out the water but let's be real, policy toward central and south America was poor. And anyone paying attention can see it's about sending a clear message to those arming them that we see and know what you're doing and why. I'm not saying the policy is a good one but I can understand the moves even if I don't condone them.

I'm not sure I completely follow what you are saying about Nigeria. I do know right now there are wars and large amounts of Christians and other groups being slaughtered by Muslim armies mainly funded by rich families of Gulf State oil tycoons.

At the end of the day money is the driver, our government is no different. It's time we start asking ourselves how those who represent us amass tens and hundreds of millions of dollars sometimes in just a year or two on a $175,000 salary. It's time we stop letting them police themselves. The status quo no longer functions in the people's interest.
 
#7,428
#7,428
NashVol11 said:
"Listen up, you can tell it would change the answer of correlation vs. causation because of this fake scenario I made up that also doesn't change the answer of correlation vs. causation" lmao ok. If assaults were down on the free lines and up on the others, that would still just be correlation absent actual causation and we both know that. If I would argue otherwise in that scenario then I would be doing it right now
Click to expand...

You seem to genuinely have no clue what you’re talking about. Anything that changes the P value (sample size, outcomes) will change the likelihood of causation vs correlation.

So yes, if the outcomes were dramatically different (increase in assaults in one group and decrease in the other), it would obviously change likelihood of the relationship being causal rather than correlation.

All you’re doing here is reaffirming that you have 0 understanding of the topic, while awkwardly criticizing my understanding of a literal topic that I taught for a decade.
 
#7,429
#7,429
EasternVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spin it baby! Don’t be mad because the two countries you listed gassed their own people but hate our freedoms.
 
Last edited:
#7,430
#7,430
Vol8188 said:
You seem to genuinely have no clue what you’re talking about. Anything that changes the P value (sample size, outcomes) will change the likelihood of causation vs correlation.

So yes, if the outcomes were dramatically different (increase in assaults in one group and decrease in the other), it would obviously change likelihood of the relationship being causal rather than correlation.

All you’re doing here is reaffirming that you have 0 understanding of the topic, while awkwardly criticizing my understanding of a literal topic that I taught for a decade.
Click to expand...
Changing the "likelihood" wouldn't make it causal on its face. If assaults were up systemwide would you then say it's causation and that free buses cause a drop in assaults, or would you still be here arguing all day and moving the goalposts? Everyone here knows the answer, might as well be honest for once
 
#7,431
#7,431
NashVol11 said:
Changing the "likelihood" wouldn't make it causal on its face. If assaults were up systemwide would you then say it's causation and that free buses cause a drop in assaults, or would you still be here arguing all day and moving the goalposts? Everyone here knows the answer, might as well be honest for once
Click to expand...

At no point have I moved any goalposts. Your study had a weak P value. Indicating it’s likely from statistical variance instead of any real effect.

Yet you’re trying to use that as proof of concept. It’s a joke.
 
#7,432
#7,432
Vol8188 said:
At no point have I moved any goalposts.
Click to expand...
LMFAO. You went from "mobile homeless shelters unsafe for young women" to "assaults actually went down? Show your work" to "well they may have gone down and suggest my weird crime fantasy is BS but they don't prove causation," all while your fantasy is backed up by zero evidence other than fearmongering
Vol8188 said:
Your study had a weak P value. Indicating it’s likely from statistical variance instead of any real effect.

Yet you’re trying to use that as proof of concept. It’s a joke.
Click to expand...
What a strawman, it is also not a "study" but simply MTA data that says the opposite of your weird fantasy. There shouldn't be anything left to argue about but I'm confident you'll do it anyway
 
#7,433
#7,433
NashVol11 said:
LMFAO. You went from "mobile homeless shelters unsafe for young women" to "assaults actually went down? Show your work" to "well they may have gone down and suggest my weird crime fantasy is BS but they don't prove causation"

What a strawman, it is also not a "study" but simply MTA data that says the opposite of your weird fantasy
Click to expand...

0 strawman here. Basic logic tells us they will become less safe. You tried to smuggle in a data point to support your claim without any link. The data has a high likelihood of being random chance rather than in anyway a result of the proposed policy. You proved you had zero understanding of basic statistics. And now you’re just basic to your basic troll nonsense.

Back to ignore.
 
#7,434
#7,434
Vol8188 said:
0 strawman here. Basic logic tells us they will become less safe. You tried to smuggle in a data point to support your claim without any link. The data has a high likelihood of being random chance rather than in anyway a result of the proposed policy. You proved you had zero understanding of basic statistics. And now you’re just basic to your basic troll nonsense.

Back to ignore.
Click to expand...
"I made up a weird fantasy about crime, saw data that suggested the exact opposite and have nothing to support my position so I'm citing to 'basic logic' and crashing out"

Not surprised that is the best 8188 can do at admitting he's wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#7,435
#7,435
Riding the subway in NYC is safer, by a lot, than driving in other cities. The bus is less safe than the subway because the subway doesn't have to deal with other drivers, but pretty sure it's the same story there. The idea that they are terrifyingly dangerous is not based in reality, people should put less faith in tabloids like the New York Post
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#7,436
#7,436
As a landlord, were i in NYC I would be repulsed at Z's shots at landlords. I think NYC already has some stringent rent controls in place. I assume there are rent subsidy programs also available to tenants.
I don't know if his shot was directed at the industry or at DJT though. He put those close together in his victory speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#7,437
#7,437
Vol8188 said:
0 strawman here. Basic logic tells us they will become less safe. You tried to smuggle in a data point to support your claim without any link. The data has a high likelihood of being random chance rather than in anyway a result of the proposed policy. You proved you had zero understanding of basic statistics. And now you’re just basic to your basic troll nonsense.
Click to expand...
Also, my guy, you were saying the policy would make the buses LESS SAFE. Even if it were "random chance" that it differed from the overall system, that would suggest the free line was in line with the overall system and not less safe, and you would still be wrong. What a dumb and dishonest conversation
 
#7,440
#7,440
There was also slightly reduced service levels (i.e. slower buses, in service buses etc.) for the pilot routes as well.

What happens when you expand that out from 2% of routes to 15% or 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#7,443
#7,443
BigOrangeMojo said:
There was also slightly reduced service levels (i.e. slower buses, in service buses etc.) for the pilot routes as well.

What happens when you expand that out from 2% of routes to 15% or 100%.
Click to expand...

Is there data on crime other than driver related? Tried to find it, but couldn’t. Its not the drivers, but rather the passengers I feel are put at risk
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp1
#7,444
#7,444
Orangeslice13 said:
He posted straight up propaganda in the Israeli thread.
It’s all good to him if you hate the Jews.
Click to expand...
Love that he’s playing the victim card here but forgets his post there. Still haven’t seen him publicly state he condemns Hamas and doesn’t support them.
 
#7,445
#7,445
BigOrangeMojo said:
There was also slightly reduced service levels (i.e. slower buses, in service buses etc.) for the pilot routes as well.

What happens when you expand that out from 2% of routes to 15% or 100%.
Click to expand...
What is Z's proposal for reduced service and slower busses? Is he thinking there will be a reduction?
 
#7,446
#7,446
McDad said:
What is Z's proposal for reduced service and slower busses? Is he thinking there will be a reduction?
Click to expand...

Seen from time here in Memphis (And to be fair, MATA is a corrupt group) that free trollies and buses lead to slower times and more out of service....

MATA here in Memphis is corrupt. I wouldn’t extrapolate to rest of country. But the same thing for slight reduction in service happened here with our pilots and grew exponentially as it was rolled out more...
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#7,447
#7,447
BigOrangeMojo said:
Seen from time here in Memphis (And to be fair, MATA is a corrupt group) that free trollies and buses lead to slower times and more out of service....

MATA here in Memphis is corrupt. I wouldn’t extrapolate to rest of country. But the same thing for slight reduction in service happened here with our pilots and grew exponentially as it was rolled out more...
Click to expand...
Subsidy doesn't always mean reduced service availability.
I wonder if his campaign is factoring in a reduction or if they think it can be maintained by moving budgets around?
 
#7,448
#7,448
McDad said:
Subsidy doesn't always mean reduced service availability.
I wonder if his campaign is factoring in a reduction or if they think it can be maintained by moving budgets around?
Click to expand...

If you have more on buses, then in theory, you'd have less on subways. I would suspect there's some bond covenants there that might be an issue since there are revenue bonds on MTA projects...

Just think its a half baked idea
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#7,450
#7,450
Right now, a business in NYC pays 8.84% city corporate tax, 7.25% state corporate tax, and a 30% MTA surcharge on the state tax.

To pay for this, this surcharge would likely need to be bumped up to over 40%....
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top