• 0 Posts
  • 148 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
Cake day: May 1st, 2024
  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•True Story
    419·
    2 days ago

    They didn’t lead to the apathy - they pointed out the existing apathy would cost Dems the election. It’s like saying the person who said you need to wear a seatbelt caused the wreck.

    You’re exactly right about people being excited for Trump and lukewarm on Harris, but that’s entirely on the Democrats for picking the platform and strategy that lost to Trump in 2016.

    Harris had a notable and surprising lead when they announced Biden was out - then they changed nothing else. People didn’t just not like the candidate, they didn’t like the policies. They only changed the candidate and thought Trump was a big enough cudgel to bully people into voting even though that demonstrably doesn’t work.

  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•The blue line is getting thinner
    151·
    3 days ago

    You’re definitely on the right track.

    The only actual job of the police is to file crime reports.

    They do not prevent crime. Protect innocents. Make people show up for court etc. They have no obligation to stop a crime in progress or protect someone being hurt, even if they’re standing right there and could stop it.

    Anything in the justice system that you value is either done by someone else, or actually isn’t done at all.

  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.world•A step too far
    5·
    4 days ago

    Also Brown definitely wouldn’t have been the first to enforce faux tradition.

    That shit has existed forever and the more meaningless, the more militant.

    Ketchup on hotdogs. Folded pizza. Seafood with red wine.

    All said with more authority yet far less evidence than anything Alton Brown ever said.

  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.world•This alone.
    21·
    3 days ago

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc means “after this therefore because of this”. The name of the fallacy is the claim the arguer is making, that because one event happened soon after another event, it was caused by the earlier event. A common example is that deciduous trees lose their leaves after it gets cold, so they lose their leaves because it gets cold. The actual reason is complex and has little to do with temperature. It’s partly that day lengths get shorter and the leaves no longer can absorb enough energy to match their costs.

    It is similar to correlation doesn’t equal causation, but is more specific that it has to do with two events that happen at similar times, which is specifically called out in the tweet.

    That the argument is heuristic and not logical is that logic has a pretty limited use - where you can reasonably agree on premises to make a specific type of argument that relies on how that argument is constructed. Heuristics rely on probability, what’s the most likely outcome given a set of preceding causes, or what are the most likely causes given a following event. For example most problems in my line of work are from loose connections, so it’s the first thing I look for when something is going wrong. You can’t say “because I see this event it is logically this cause” but you can say “When I’ve seen this event before 80% of the time it was cause A, 15% of the time it was cause B, and 5% of the time it was cause C. So I’ll check them in order of likelihood”

    So the tweet isn’t making a logical claim. They’re saying it’s unlikely that Trump talked to Putin about informants, requested the list of informants, had a list of informants in an unsecured place, but somehow wasn’t related to those informants being compromised.

    EDIT: Also Wikipedia has a better explanation of pheph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•dear introverts, what can I answer to a needy and clingy coworker who believes not talking means something's wrong (with me), so he leaves me alone?
    4·
    9 days ago

    Something like “I don’t like to chat at work”.

    The other suggestions seem far too inviting for follow-up or could be perceived as sidelong attacks.

    That phrasing is hard to follow-up on, though not impossible, and focuses only on you. I suspect you also don’t chat with others, so they probably can’t say something like “But you chat with Johnny?”

    Talking about what they’re doing that annoys you opens a conversation about them feeling attacked or maybe trying to find alternate ways to talk to you etc. You don’t need to explain why you don’t want to chat because that will open other conversations. They probably will try to follow up or redirect, but calmly insisting that you prefer not to chat may work.

    HR is generally a bad place for employees to take issues since their stated job is to protect the company from liability their employees might incur. If you have a union or some other third party resource go to them first, then go to HR if they advise it. Since HR is interested in protecting the company from liability created by employees you may be able to aim them at the other employee, but you need to be sure that’s what they’ll do before going to them, otherwise they may view you as the liability.

    EDIT: And you don’t need to wait for them to ask if you’re OK. If your issue is that they’re talking about non-work and that’s not why you’re there, just bring that up immediately.

    And also be clear they can still talk to you as long as it’s work related, and that you’re not refusing to work with them. Otherwise you become an HR problem.

  • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•AI-powered weapons scanners used in NYC subway found zero guns in one month testEnglish
    2·
    14 days ago

    Harris chose to do something immoral because “it was the law”, or it benefited her, or whatever - and you can expect her to continue doing that.

    You still have to vote for her, but you also have to be realistic about who you’re actually voting for.

    Republicans are the party who holds their candidates up without criticism - and Dems put up Kamala now exactly because Democrats were criticizing Biden - and even though she’s one of the worst candidates they’ve put up in years, she’s still far more electable than Biden.

    So yes. You need to both vote for and criticize Harris. It’s the least immoral choice.