Friday, November 18, 2016 :::
Some guy is collecting ideas for preventing people from believing fake news.
The one overarching point I would make is that what sources can be trusted has to be user-configurable, which could (should) include some mechanism for allowing trusted sources to vouch for other sources. I see some ideas on that list that seem worthwhile -- articles that are shared by diverse groups of people are more likely to be reliable; "a Dem flagging a site that is typically visited by more Dems gets more weight" -- but imply a single arbiter of truth. Not that those ideas are worthless -- if you are going to design a system that allows for each user to select an arbiter (or a combination of arbiters), it's certainly worth designing at least one to start with. But expecting right-wing nuts and left-wing nuts and everyone else to accept the same arbiter seems more naive to me than allowing people to sign up with arbiters from their "team" and expecting that the junkiest junk will be flagged by left-wing arbiters and right-wing arbiters alike.
We can learn something from the fact-check genre of journalism here. Most fact-checking stories seem to me to consist of articles generally adding context to the "fact" being checked, with a verdict in the headline. The articles are generally full of indisputable (or nearly so) facts, but the verdict is often very disputable or even clearly wrong. When the verdict is correct, the article generally provides crucial context; when the verdict is wrong, the article goes off on a tangent with what the author seems to think is relevant context but which seems to me to be interesting color at best. I advise people to ignore the verdicts but read the articles.
An example that particularly sticks with me is when Politifact responded to National Review's Kevin Williamson's point that some dubious forms of medicine, such as gay-conversion therapy, are prohibited by states, while other dubious forms of medicine are subsidized by the Affordable Care Act. The Politifact writer rated his statement "half true," dwelling on the fact that the amount of money spent on the dubious therapies cited by Williamson is not terribly large in the grand scheme of things. It struck me that if Williamson had written a column about homeopathy saying, "here's a great way to cut the federal budget deficit," a verdict of "half true" would have been, if anything, generous, but given that his point was that fringe medicine can be either prohibited or subsidized by the state for purely political reasons, his assertion was the 100% unadulterated truth.
Sometimes, complete falsehoods float around, either as unrecognized satire or as deliberate deceit, and those do seem to be getting more common. But political and commercial advertisers are more likely to bend the truth than to break it. I think fact-checking organizations should recognize this by using non-linear scales for their verdicts - they shouldn't just say how true or false something is, they ought to be able to say, "literally true, but misleading" or "literally false, but substantially true" or "true, if you understand the following context." I'm not sure a Facebook feature can do better than show or ignore a website; a browser plug-in might reasonably signal a little bit more. But improving the information environment of the Internet depends mostly on filtering out the completely fabricated, and the only way to get a partisan to believe that something is completely fabricated is to get someone on their team to declare it unreliable.
Labels: fact checking, Kevin Williamson, media distortion, Politifact
::: posted by Steven at 12:55 AM
Sunday, November 13, 2016 :::
I'm inclined to think that protesting the results of an election is tacky. A protest is, in my mind, a means of getting attention for a cause that you think needs more attention or, if the issue has attention, at least making it clear that your position is not unpopular. When the populace has just been polled -- not a sample, mind you, but anyone* with the wherewithal to register and vote -- taking the streets to say, "yes, our opinions have all been weighed, but you guys don't understand that mine is really important" seems particularly narcissistic. I want to emphasize that I used the word "tacky" rather than, say, "reprehensible" or "unconscionable" or "should be illegal" or "basically the same as rioting over the results of an election." I'm not saying that the people protesting (without destroying things or blocking traffic) are anywhere near as bad as Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I have trouble interpreting their purpose as anything other than "my opinion is more important than that of other voters." Perhaps some of them have demands other than "you don't understand; I really, really vote for Clinton," but if they do, it has been lost on me.
If you pay attention to my twitter feed (or the penultimate sentence of the previous paragraph), you know that I didn't care for either major party candidate. Through the election, I considered myself part of team NeverTrump, and I voted for Evan McMullin because I expected that vote to be interpreted to mean that I would have voted for pretty much any Republican other than the one on the ballot. I regard Trump as garbage wrapped in unusually thin skin.
That said, Trump won the election -- no recount will be necessary. I have switched from team NeverTrump to team Trump Gets His Chance. I don't expect to ever regard him as a decent human being, but I think he ought to have a chance to put a team together and demonstrate what he is actually going to do in office. If people want to protest specific policies at that point, I will fully understand.
*Children, felons, and immigrants-not-yet-citizens excepted, of course, but I don't think those have dominated the protests.
::: posted by Steven at 12:49 AM
Friday, July 08, 2016 :::
Last summer, if I remember it correctly, the boyfriend of a friend of my wife's died in a Florida swamp; it appears he didn't bring enough water, and didn't stay on the path, and he got lost and died of sunstroke or something similar. I spent a few months in 2008 hiking, and what kept going through my head last August was that he died because he made a couple of mistakes — and I had probably made mistakes that were, at least by some measure, just as bad. (There was in fact a day in which I got lost wandering off the trail and ran out of water; fortunately it was in a more forgiving environment.)
In 2004, when I first heard a no-down-payment, interest-only mortgage loan advertised, I termed it "the foreclosure loan". There were a lot of mortgage loans made in that era that were affordable if the borrower never got sick or lost a job or had a car break down and got regular raises; that is to say, they were not affordable. If something really big and really surprising makes your financial set-up unsustainable, you can blame that, but if your financial set-up can't tolerate any relatively normal bumps in the road, the problem isn't the bump. "Human error" in general only makes sense as a target for blame when it's somewhat beyond the normal, run-of-the-mill human error; if a system produces a disaster because of normal human error, it's a bad system.
I'm not sure I've ever done anything as dumb, in some sense, as resisting arrest, though I've done things that should be more likely, in the natural run of things, to be fatal. I don't know how often people resist arrest, so I have no particularly good estimate of what fraction of the time that is fatal. When someone gets killed resisting arrest, there are people who note that you shouldn't resist arrest, and (often other) people who note that doing so should not typically be fatal, and these people are, in fact, correct. We aren't going to have a perfect system, but if we make things such that it is less likely that people's mistakes turn unnecessarily fatal, that would be, you know, super.
What's more troubling, though, is when the person who dies is not even someone who made a mistake. Even if I don't think resisting arrest for selling bootleg CDs or cigarettes should be fatal, it's more troubling when someone in a car that is pulled over for a minor equipment violation is killed because he was reaching for his ID in response to having been told by a police officer to reach for his ID. People die in car accidents in which they aren't at fault, and otherwise for other people's mistakes, and we're never going to get rid of all of that, but it's still very frightening when it happens.
As I noted along the way, there is some extent to which the world can never be fully tamed, and we should keep statistics in mind when assessing the scale of the problem when there are particularly salient episodes, and it's even worth keeping in mind the possibility that the best response might actually be to do nothing, but at least investigating and looking around for something better to do is surely worth the trouble.
::: posted by dWj at 12:54 PM
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 :::
It's dangerous to change public policy in response to a single event, especially shortly after the event, when its importance is especially inflated. This is partially because any rushed policy change is likely to be poorly thought out, but also because the stuff of life doesn't grab headlines.
If we let media coverage drive policy, attempts to reduce murders even more than they have already fallen in the last several decades will focus too much on mass killings that dominate news cycles nationally and too little on other murders which are more frequent but which get less attention. Gun rights activists like to say that, when the bad guys have guns, we are better off when good guys have guns and are trained to use them. This story is plausible, but it seems strongest in the case of a mass shooting - if a shooter has one victim in mind, he may be done by the time anyone knows he's a threat, but in a mass shooter situation, it's the good guy with the gun who has the element of surprise. So we might be tempted to respond to a mass shooting by making concealed carry easier, reducing the likelihood and magnitude of a large-scale event, but whether that would increase or reduce the overall murder rate is an open question.
My understanding is that the empirical results of well-done studies are mixed (the poorly done studies all seem to find a positive correlation between gun ownership and gun crime or gun deaths and infer that guns cause crime), and that the best conclusion is that any effect of gun ownership on crime is small, whatever its sign. Unless something useful can be said about subsets of guns or gun owners or crime, gun policy should probably be made based on other considerations.
::: posted by Steven at 9:36 AM
Friday, May 20, 2016 :::
The census recently released estimates of populations of cities over 50,000 residents, and I've seen (a few different places) lists of the ten cities over 50,000 or over 100,000 with the largest year-over-year growth. They all use percent growth, and the leaders are naturally all close to the inclusion threshold; conversely, if you use absolute growth, your leaders are NYC, Houston, and Los Angeles, which are also the three largest cities that showed positive growth. Below is a list of the top 25 cities ranked by absolute change divided by latest population to the power of 5/8, a number whose selection was based on my own aesthetic sense that it gave a good mix of cities at different ends of the population range.
One of the reasons I've seen this pop up is that the town in which my brother and I lived from 6–12 grade is near the top of the percentage lists; it shows up as 11th here.
|San Antonio, Texas||1469845||1440309||29536||4.13|
|New Braunfels, Texas||70543||66204||4339||4.05|
|Fort Worth, Texas||833319||813425||19894||3.96|
|South Jordan, Utah||66648||62851||3797||3.67|
|Charlotte, North Carolina||827097||809402||17695||3.54|
|Raleigh, North Carolina||451066||440399||10667||3.12|
|Mount Pleasant, South Carolina||81317||77667||3650||3.11|
 1/2 seems natural, but still seemed to have too many large cities at the top. At that point a power of 5/8 pretty well fit the distribution of the top cities, i.e. their absolute changes tended to go as city size to the 5/8. So it was driven by my own aesthetic sense, but justified after the fact by Science.
::: posted by dWj at 11:34 AM
Wednesday, April 20, 2016 :::
Bernie Sanders seems at this point to have sewn up second place in the Democratic race, but let's ponder the least implausible path for him to still win the nomination. He would have to win the remaining primaries by close to 20 percent of the vote to catch up with her total of elected delegates, and a big chunk of those remaining delegates are elected next week, when he'll have "momentum" (insofar as that's a thing) working against him.
It seems to me one of his least unlikely paths to the nomination hinges on a dramatic development in May, perhaps related to deepening legal troubles or demonstrations of Clinton's casual assumption that she's above the law, followed by a large shift toward Sanders that lets him win California (where he currently looks likely to lose by about 20 percent of the vote) by a sizeable margin, and lets him narrow Clinton's lead in bound delegates to perhaps under 100.
At that point, the pitch to the superdelegates is obvious: I may be senile and out of touch with reality, but I'm the current choice of the Democratic voters, and you owe it to them to outvote the delegates they elected — some of them when they were misinformed — and let me bear their standard in the general election.
It's quite possible I underestimate how much the superdelegates fear or respect the Clintons or fear or, you know, really fear Sanders, but it seems at least arguable that, as of today, the presence of unbound superdelegates marginally improves his chances from what they would otherwise be.
"But"? Let's go with "but".
Labels: Bernie Sanders, psephology
::: posted by dWj at 8:35 AM
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 :::
Bernie Sanders has released his tax returns, which show him taking deductions that he wants to eliminate and Jim Geraghty is calling him a hypocrite. For the reasons I laid out four months ago, I disagree. As I noted on Facebook:
I don't see hypocrisy here, or when libertarian politicians accept money from programs they would scale back, or when the Koch brothers decry corporate subsidies yet fail to calculate how much they benefit and send it back to the feds. It would be more troubling if he were calling for higher taxes on income above an amount that just happens to approximate his own income, or the elimination of all tax deductions except those that benefit him. He says that rich people should pay more; his tax returns indicate that he doesn't mean to exempt himself. Good for him.
Note that if Sanders has criticized his fellow rich people for taking the deductions - if he has said that, until the law is changed to eliminate the deductions, taking them is morally wrong - the hypocrisy charge sticks. The assertion you are making when you charge someone with hypocrisy is that their actions suggest that their purported beliefs are insincere, or at least that they don't believe they should be held to those same standards, and there is no reason to believe that someone who supports higher taxes to pay for more government programs but doesn't pay higher taxes than required is either insincere or looking for a loophole for himself.
Labels: Bernie Sanders, hypocrisy
::: posted by Steven at 11:41 PM