War Room Lounge v72: Nope

[My Spot]

MY BED FRAME SHIPS ON OCTOBER 1st!

No more looking like I'm living on the set of The Wire with a bed just on the floor of my room.

Now if only my fucking holster could get done so it and the new barrel ship...

I got a silver version of this off Amazon.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So those aren't odds then. Like the "+4" for Trump means that he's the favorite, and then all the other polls for +number mean Biden was the lead on those polls? I'm so used to sports that when I see +7 Biden I think of it meaning that he's the underdog lol.

EDIT: Wait a minute, so if that is the case, then the last two polls are significantly different than the others. With Biden +1 on Emerson and then Trump +4 on Rasmussen. Biden was +double digits in a few of those older polls from August and earlier September. So would that mean that this "impeachment" stuff is actually helping Trump?? Since it's his highest momentum on any of those dates.

Those are the polling margins. So Smith +4 = Smith wins by 400 bps among people polled.

Bovada has the Democratic candidate at -125 and the Republican candidate at -105. Warren is now even odds, while Trump is +125.

 

[Gregolian]

I got a silver version of this off Amazon.

Got an easy to put together wooden one. No tools needed and can hold like 1500lbs so my fat ass won't break it.

 

[My Spot]

Got an easy to put together wooden one. No tools needed and can hold like 1500lbs so my fat ass won't break it.

 

[MMAisGod]

Those are the polling margins. So Smith +4 = Smith wins by 400 bps among people polled.

Bovada has the Democratic candidate at -125 and the Republican candidate at -105. Warren is now even odds, while Trump is +125.

Ahhhh I see now. Tempted to throw down a few bucks on those betting odds for Warren or Biden then. I'm pretty convinced one of those two is coming out the end of the tunnel in this thing.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't think it's a different argument.

The function of a news organization in a capitalist society is to make money.

In order to do that they need to report on stories of relevant interest. You may not like what other people find interesting, but it doesn't mean they're doing a bad job by reporting what people want to read or listen to.

The criticism was of @Jack V Savage 's labeling of the Washington Post as "excellent". Consistent coverage of stories of consequence instead of stories of no consequence would seem to be a key part of whatever makes an outlet "excellent".

Mr. Jack has himself criticized other outlets for what he saw as over-reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal during the 2016 campaign. According to your reasoning, such over-reporting can't lower the Washington Post's quality as an outlet as long as the reporting on the Clinton e-mails was accurate. I'm saying that's ridiculous, since outlets have limited resources and limited space for features. Editorial decisions must be made, and some stories are more important than others.

What's the point? That capitalism is detrimental to a well informed population?

See the above, Mr. Hig.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The criticism was of @Jack V Savage 's labeling of the Washington Post as "excellent". Consistent coverage of stories of consequence instead of stories of no consequence would seem to be a key part of whatever makes an outlet "excellent".

Mr. Jack has himself criticized other outlets for what he saw as over-reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal during the 2016 campaign. According to your reasoning, such over-reporting can't lower the Washington Post's quality as an outlet as long as the reporting on the Clinton e-mails was accurate. I'm saying that's ridiculous, since outlets have limited resources and limited space for features. Editorial decisions must be made, and some stories are more important than others.

The WaPo is one of the top 5 papers in the country, in the running for the top spot. I don't think anyone would seriously argue with that, though I also don't think anyone would defend every single editorial decision they've ever made. IMO, you're being ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Even still, 5 light-years might as well be 2 million. I think they're both distances we won't be traversing any time soon if ever.

Actually, they are currently working on probes to reach the nearest star that would be capable of send back actual data. Granted, it would be about 45+ years to reach it, then 5 years or more for the data to get back, but still. In theory, we could see a probe in a completely different star system towards the end of our lifetimes.

 

[waiguoren]

The WaPo is one of the top 5 papers in the country, in the running for the top spot. I don't think anyone would seriously argue with that, though I also don't think anyone would defend every single editorial decision they've ever made. IMO, you're being ridiculous.

How is your ranking determined?

It looks like your "excellent" comment meant "excellent relative to the competition" instead of "excellent on an absolute scale".

Note also that the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times do not run clickbait trash on their front pages.

 

[Rational Poster]

Actually, they are currently working on probes to reach the nearest star that would be capable of send back actual data. Granted, it would be about 45+ years to reach it, then 5 years or more for the data to get back, but still. In theory, we could see a probe in a completely different star system towards the end of our lifetimes.

Well again.. I was talking specifically about manned light speed travel.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think @waiguoren is part of a kind of vulgar revolution going on in the culture. No individuals or institutions are without blemishes, and we now have the means to put a spotlight on all blemishes. The appropriate response to that, of course, is to both respect knowledge and expertise and to place boundaries on that respect. But the response of the vulgar and stupid is dismiss all sources of knowledge that don't cater to their biases, which in turn, cuts them off from any real learning (note the weird connection between right-wing commentary and snake-oil sellers).

 

[Jack V Savage]

It looks like your "excellent" comment meant "excellent relative to the competition" instead of "excellent on an absolute scale".

The notion of an "absolute scale" here is absurd. Surely you recognize that. You don't say that Khabib is the best grappler in MMA but he makes some mistakes so he sucks on some "absolute scale."

 

[Rational Poster]

The criticism was of @Jack V Savage 's labeling of the Washington Post as "excellent". Consistent coverage of stories of consequence instead of stories of no consequence would seem to be a key part of whatever makes an outlet "excellent".

Mr. Jack has himself criticized other outlets for what he saw as over-reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal during the 2016 campaign. According to your reasoning, such over-reporting can't lower the Washington Post's quality as an outlet as long as the reporting on the Clinton e-mails was accurate. I'm saying that's ridiculous, since outlets have limited resources and limited space for features. Editorial decisions must be made, and some stories are more important than others.



See the above, Mr. Hig.

Well I think part of your problem with this framing is conflating WaPo website and the WaPo printed news, which I'm pretty sure you have never read in your life.

They're two different entities with different standards. The website has a lot more freedom to report on more varied stories and cater to consumer demand.

 

[Sketch]

I think @waiguoren is part of a kind of vulgar revolution going on in the culture. No individuals or institutions are without blemishes, and we now have the means to put a spotlight on all blemishes. The appropriate response to that, of course, is to both respect knowledge and expertise and to place boundaries on that respect. But the response of the vulgar and stupid is dismiss all sources of knowledge that don't cater to their biases, which in turn, cuts them off from any real learning (note the weird connection between right-wing commentary and snake-oil sellers).

Vulgar and stupid? That doesn’t seem very nice

How is Fraser?

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Well again.. I was talking specifically about manned light speed travel.

Manned lightspeed travel will never happen, as we would have little to no use for it assuming it even is possible. I sincerely doubt mankind ever crosses into the interstellar void except for an extreme emergency, as there is no need. There are enough resources within the star system already that if we pulled our heads out of our asses we would want for nothing for a few million years.

 

[Rational Poster]

Manned lightspeed travel will never happen, as we would have little to no use for it assuming it even is possible. I sincerely doubt mankind ever crosses into the interstellar void except for an extreme emergency, as there is no need. There are enough resources within the star system already that if we pulled our heads out of our asses we would want for nothing for a few million years.

But still conversely on the question of UFOs, they have the same problems we would face going there getting here.

 

[Higus]

The criticism was of @Jack V Savage 's labeling of the Washington Post as "excellent". Consistent coverage of stories of consequence instead of stories of no consequence would seem to be a key part of whatever makes an outlet "excellent".

Mr. Jack has himself criticized other outlets for what he saw as over-reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal during the 2016 campaign. According to your reasoning, such over-reporting can't lower the Washington Post's quality as an outlet as long as the reporting on the Clinton e-mails was accurate. I'm saying that's ridiculous, since outlets have limited resources and limited space for features. Editorial decisions must be made, and some stories are more important than others.



See the above, Mr. Hig.

Do you take this cherry picked instance as an accurate representation of WaPo as a whole, or are you trying to oversell it as such?

Help us out here: can you name some outlets that you rate as having consistent higher quality than WaPo?

 

[JDragon]

Help us out here: can you name some outlets that you rate as having consistent higher quality than WaPo?

This is gonna be good.

 

[Deleted member 484047]

But still conversely on the question of UFOs, they have the same problems we would face going there getting here.

Pretty much, although I would assume they would have a found a much more efficient system of engines by then, as chemical fueled rockets are an awful method for deep space travel. NASA is currently working on ION drives, which are nothing new but becoming more fuel efficient and faster with each new design. And there is always the fun put-put engines that were designed in the 50s but would be better served for massive ships since you are literally using nuclear bombs to propel the ship (major downside, no brakes).

In the end, natural human curiosity may want us to travel the stars, the feasibility of it is just plain outside of our current level of scientific knowledge and it may remain that way for several more centuries. So an alien species that has a few hundred thousand years on us would presumably have much faster, more effective ways to travel in deep space. But that still brings us back to the initial question of: Why? Does deep space travel and exploration really HAVE a worthwhile purpose for living beings when a simple probe can do the same thing with less resources and 0 risk?

 

[Fawlty]

Help us out here: can you name some outlets that you rate as having consistent higher quality than WaPo?

Hilariously evasive response incoming.