|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 15, 2020 21:56:22 GMT
Today, Gov. Inslee gave new orders locking us down in WA. The most polite response I can muster is an exaggerated Italian salute accompanied by a razzberry. I have no intention of even trying to comply.
3 weeks ago, my little nephew passed away from causes completely unrelated to covid. I lost my last chance to see him by complying with covid restrictions. We already have our family plans set, and they involve seeing my brother and SIL for the first time since their son passed away, seeing all of my grandkids at once for the first time in over a year, a wedding, and an announcement of another grandkid on the way. My family has all heard and read the new restrictions, and all decided to press on with what we had planned, and, as one of my brothers said of Gov Inslee "He can P*** off."
There is still life happening out here, and I don't intend to miss out on any more of it. Other people can just know that about me and decide whether or not they want to be around me.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 12, 2020 15:16:15 GMT
Then, if it does turn to a Trump election victory, brace yourself for the riots and unrest ... which may happen either way, I suppose. We had riots on election day. And on at least several days since. Not on the scale I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 11, 2020 22:15:22 GMT
While interesting, I read the thoughts of Trump being able to win much like the fans of a football team who is down by 16 points with 2 minutes to play in the 4th quarter. It's not official, and the game can be won. All that needs to happen is a quick touchdown, 2 point conversion, convert an onside kick, score another touchdown, and get another 2 point conversion. At that point, the game can go into overtime and if we score again, we'll win.
Is it possible? I suppose - hypothetically at least. Is it likely? Not at all. Have I ever seen it happen? no.
Too many things would have to go just so in order for that to happen. I have many things I question about the election. I think Trump SHOULD have the chance to prove allegations of fraud, but he has to prove it. It just doesn't seem likely that every single one of those can be won, and that's what would have to happen for this to turn to a Trump election victory. Then, if it does turn to a Trump election victory, brace yourself for the riots and unrest ... which may happen either way, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 2, 2020 15:21:21 GMT
I'm almost 3 weeks after knee replacement surgery, so not sleeping through the night, yet. I've been watching football during the weekend, and to not be a "battleground state," Washington certainly is getting a LOT of political ads.
So I took the strong pain med at bedtime last night. The first time I woke up, the dream that was bouncing around in my head was Joe Biden saying,"If I can wake up from a medicated dream to go to the bathroom, you can wake up to go vote!"
MaybeI got some wires crossed? I had to make a note of it so I wouldn't forget it before going to the bathroom and putting fresh ice on my knee ... lol.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 25, 2020 19:13:47 GMT
Just a thought here - what do you think?
Early on, it was easy to make people fearful, and so we had stories of people dying alone and memes about someone who knew someone else who had the virus, and it was all just this mysterious dark fog that people generally feared.
Of course, I don't think fear motivates people long term. But what I think I now see:
Trump and Melania were the most prominent and visible examples who were diagnosed with CoViD, but now we have football players, coaches, and even people who were screened prior to a medical procedures. This last week, stories were more about coaches bein excited they tested out of the covid protocol in time to attend the game and coach their teams, and of course, "false positive" was brought up several times.
It seems to me that the typical high achievers are encountering coronavirus, and doing what high achievers always do in focusing on getting back to winning, and that example is not being lost on people. You didn't see them cowering nor regretting, but rather anxious to overcome and get back into the game, and in fact, that is what they did.
It seems to me it's becoming less of a dark cloud of fear, and as such, its political usefulness is greatly diminished. In general, I see less and less fear when people talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 5, 2020 21:21:13 GMT
Honestly, almost everything you hear about Vegas is a myth. The biggest myth there is how its odds are closer to reality. You want the proof that those things are a myth: Look at Vegas. It's not built up like that by paying out more than it takes in. Smart people don't go there to make a fortune. The odds are set to encourage betting with a payout of about 75% on some games, or maybe 85% on slots. The payout rate is heavily regulated, and it is set because it keeps people interested so they will bet more. If it is lower, they quickly become discouraged, but with the payout set at those levels, people play longer and end up spending more. However; the smart money in Vegas is the odds makers setting the lines so that people will bet both sides. They're looking at statistics and doing modeling based on the behaviors of gamblers. Although the game, and what is happening in the game may factor into what they think people will bet, their aim is not to predict the outcome of the contest itself. their game is to play the players, and even there, it is set to get as close to the same dollars on each side as possible - not the same number of gamblers. There is no separation we have of who is betting on what - just a line that says people will bet both sides of it.
I've worked on short engagements in Vegas several times. My wife plays penny slots when we go, and I sit beside her to get beer from the cocktail waitresses, and I may push the button on the slot sometimes just so my wife feels like I'm having fun with her. There is no "smart money" being put down on contests in Vegas. The "smart money" goes to buy beer, or maybe see a show.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 5, 2020 21:03:06 GMT
The predictive modeling is on what people will bet, not what they will vote. That's my point. The favorite wins about 72-74% of the time whether it is a ball game or a presidential election.
To make the argument that "The betting odds reflect more closely the outcome," then you have to be able to tell us what those people are looking at that drives them to bet. (You also have to have actual comparisons.) None of them are diviners, so what are they seeing? I'm not buying off on the "they just know because they're risking their hard earned money" argument. They have to be evaluating something if they are sophisticated and picking good bets. So what is it?
As for the odds makers, the people they want to bet in the presidential election are not even the same as "likely voters." For example, you do not need to be a US citizen to place a bet in Vegas. So some are betting that will not be eligible to vote. It's also unlikely Vegas is targeting the membership of conservative churches, but they will have a direct play in the outcome of the election. It's not even close to being the same as a poll, and the "science" behind it is around where people will bet, and NOT what the actual outcome of the contest is. They are wrong about the outcome of the contest about 1/4 of the time. That works when you're playing the odds in a repeated process like Vegas does, but it is not exactly a skilled process to pick the outcome of any particular contest.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 5, 2020 3:55:34 GMT
I hear the argument about Vegas vs. Other predictors quute a bit, but underdogs win more often than one might think. For example: www.oddsshark.com/sports-betting/which-sport-do-betting-underdogs-win-most-oftenI had an interesting conversation with the Mrs. This evening. We had not had a discussion like my last post. She is an immigrant from Korea. When we came across a few young people holding Biden and Inslee signs, she declared quite conclusively, "I don't like Biden. He's not strong enough for the job. I like Trump because he doesn't care that people always attack him, he focuses on upgrading the US. The US has upgraded with him." She'll vote, and that's her attitude on it. I think it's a mistake to project one's take on something like a debate onto the majority of others. What I'm seeing with non-European immigrants doesn't line up with what we're always told. What I think might be a bigger concern for Trump might be if he really has to quarantine because if his rallies stop, his ground game stops, or at least it stops in the form it has been. It seems Trump is registering many new voters at these events. There are huge differences in betting on underdogs in sports and on events in what they call the Predictions Market. In the last 20 years the predictions market has an accuracy much higher than polling. The following quote is from the link below. "We compare market predictions to 964 polls over the five Presidential elections since 1988. The market is closer to the eventual outcome 74% of the time. Further, the market significantly outperforms the polls in every election when forecasting more than 100 days in advance." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169207008000320That's interesting metadata, but if what you say holds true, then the percentage of the favorite matching the outcome is actually pretty close to the favorite in sports matching the outcome, is it not? However; the metadata on that doesn't tell the story I would be looking for. Let's start with what they have in common: In neither case is the oddsmaker a diviner nor a seer in any form. You may also remember the lyrics of "If I were a Rich Man" from the musical "Fiddler on the roof" where he says "When you're rich they think you really know?" I think we need to be careful of that here, and examine WHAT they know, and WHAT they are actually trying to predict. The oddsmakers are not pulling numbers out of their hats. This is the outcome of a predictive model. But what is the data set that is being featurized and used in the model run? I'm not sure exactly what that is since it will be proprietary, but I imagine polls are a big part of the data set that is used. But what are they trying to predict? It's simple: They're trying to predict what people will bet on - not what the actual outcome will be. Their objective is to make money off of what people think - not the actual outcome. What are they using to define what people think. If I take your original quote: Then betting either direction is a losing bet unless you happen to be the house. In this case, I have trouble seeing ANY "smart" money in the bet other than the house. So why does anybody even place a bet in this? (I'm thinking of those numbers like a slot machine, which must be the wrong way to think of it.) What is in the model input that the handicappers are looking at that makes them think people will vote one side vs. the other? But since we're looking at indicators, let's look at another interesting one: thevirginiastar.com/2020/10/02/gallup-majority-of-americans-think-trump-will-win-election/ (purposely selected an article from a non-pro-Trump source). From that, we can get this meta-data: That was taken prior to the COVID news, but it is interesting in that it would be much more difficult to see a scenario where Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote than the other way around. This has only been around since 1996, but has been right every time so far. So why would people answer one way vs. the other to the question, especially since the results of the question of who they intend to vote for was not the same? In this case, my guess is that people have built their perception by what they know about their immediate sphere of 16 or so people. When they look at their immediate sphere, are they in a majority, or a minority? My guess is that their perception of who will win is derived from this group more than any other. We shall see. I don't think gamblers nor gambling handicappers are going to be a good indicator of the outcome of the election, to be honest, and I don't think handicappers are even trying to predict that, to be honest. I think there may be something to perceptions of people regardless of who they plan to vote for, but I don't know how strong of an indicator that really is, especially since, according to my understanding, especially by the time the polls finish adjusting the percentages of democrats vs. republicans vs. independents. Interestingly, I actually got a call from a pollster two days ago. they were honest in telling me what they were polling for. I didn't do what I've heard some say they would do, and I don't even know if they are being honest when they say they'd tell the pollster what they thought he/she wanted to hear. In my case, I just told the pollster I wasn't interested in participating. The pollster was polite and ended the conversation cordially there by wishing me a good rest of the evening. That's the only time I've been contacted by anybody on a political survey since I've returned to the US.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 2, 2020 4:30:48 GMT
I hear the argument about Vegas vs. Other predictors quute a bit, but underdogs win more often than one might think. For example: www.oddsshark.com/sports-betting/which-sport-do-betting-underdogs-win-most-oftenI had an interesting conversation with the Mrs. This evening. We had not had a discussion like my last post. She is an immigrant from Korea. When we came across a few young people holding Biden and Inslee signs, she declared quite conclusively, "I don't like Biden. He's not strong enough for the job. I like Trump because he doesn't care that people always attack him, he focuses on upgrading the US. The US has upgraded with him." She'll vote, and that's her attitude on it. I think it's a mistake to project one's take on something like a debate onto the majority of others. What I'm seeing with non-European immigrants doesn't line up with what we're always told. What I think might be a bigger concern for Trump might be if he really has to quarantine because if his rallies stop, his ground game stops, or at least it stops in the form it has been. It seems Trump is registering many new voters at these events.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 30, 2020 21:19:01 GMT
I didn't watch last night. I was planning a night out with the wife hoping the Aurora would get far enough south that we could see it in WA. As I followed that, it looks like Sig and the folks in Eastern Montana might have been able to see it, but the halo didn't extend out where we could see it this far west. However; in previous debates I have watched, I have been frustrated because it always seemed that candidates like Al Gore got a complete free pass to not follow the rules, talk over his opponent, then have the media fawn over his masterful approach. They're not debates like a debate team would engage in at all, and previously, I think Republicans in general have just wanted a candidate that would do more than just stand there and take it. From what I've heard (still haven't watched, and don't intend to), they may have gotten exactly that. So who won? Honestly, I don't think there are a half dozen people in the entire US who care about who won on style or on following the rules. I think they tend to complain when they think the other side isn't following the rules. Some more toward the center may have thought the person they leaned toward may have gone overboard, but win or lose would be defined as "did anybody make a decision on who to vote for based on that?" Again, I generally think you could count on one hand the number of people who factor anything from a debate into their decision of who to vote for, so my cynical view is that the debates are theater, and the media reactions could have been written before any debate questions were asked. Were there any surprises? Well, I found this to be a bit surprising: newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/jorge-bonilla/2020/09/30/shock-69-telemundo-viewers-say-trump-won-debate It seems that reaction wasn't expected. Maybe, in that demographic, they were really looking for someone who would get down, not back down, and fight it out. If so, then from what I've heard of it, maybe they saw that in Trump, and maybe they liked that, although the reaction doesn't really state whether or not they liked what they saw. Whatever it was, they seemed to overwhelmingly think Trump won the brawl. Trump voters are going to vote for Trump no matter what happened last night. Biden voters are going to vote for Biden no matter what happened last night. What did the people think who really were not intending to vote at all? I think that's the ones we would have to look at to see whether it made any difference at all. Were they just looking for a brawler who would stand up for them and not back down? Maybe that's what Telemundo viewers saw. Maybe others saw the same. I'm still not going to watch it, but what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 21, 2020 18:50:47 GMT
Get well soon, Ratty!
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 18, 2020 19:40:34 GMT
No, that's a blind speculation. People often use them to hold onto a viewpoint, though.
Corporations are collections of people. Any time you get a large enough population of people together, you get all kinds. The "All kinds" makes it particularly difficult to run those corporations people talk about that sound like they're being run by Emperor Palpatine. We can't even keep a secret about product development or financial expectations without leaks. how many more leaks would there be if the kind of things people really want to believe about many of these corporations were what was really happening?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 18, 2020 18:48:02 GMT
I can believe the political hatred. I don't believe anything about the anthropomorphic "big pharma" and what "big pharma wants." That kind of thing is on the level of what police are accused of by the group of terrorists wreaking havoc in the streets in our area these days, and quite honestly, even if "big pharma" could actually want something, those kinds of commenters are about as likely to know what it is as they are to know what I want. (We've all had some commenters give us some entertaining "you just want ..." comments, have we not?) So toss out the "big pharma" bovine scatology, and I think we have all seen how politicized the drug has become, and that appears to be driven primarily by political hatred. There's no need for conspiracy by anthropomorphic entities like "big pharma." "Big Pharma" are no friends of the people. Any cheap, relatively wholesome alternative to their patented semi-poisonous pharmaceuticals is a threat to their investors cash flow. I think that suspicion of big pharma is completely reasonable, and ascribing suspected intentions is prudent. "Big pharma" is a myth. A conspiracy theory. Back porch swing talk where people are "Solving all the world's problems" that they've made up in their own minds so they will have something to discuss on the back porch. It's kinda like how I work in tech for one of the large, international tech corporations. You'd know the name if I said it. I always hear about what this company actually wants, or what it's like to work here. Those statements are made by people who obviously have no knowledge about the company, the people who work here, or about what's going on. It's simply stuff they made up because they decided they didn't like this company for some reason or other. There's not a shred of truth to any of it. I'm sure it makes good conversation on the back porch swing, though. My view on the comments and conspiracy theories about "big pharma" have some roots in what I've seen people do and say about the company I work for. The bottom line is, there is no "big tech" nor "big pharma" as it is discussed. These things are made up of people with individual goals and values, and they really do have a conscience. That's what is missing when people start talking about these big conspiracy theories. Now THAT is very different from observing people venting hate for a political figure, and deciding a medication is bad because they desperately don't want that particular political figure to get credit for it. Both the political hate, and the conspiracy theorizing are very deeply rooted in human nature, it would appear, and I think there's about as much credibility to be given to one as the other.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 18, 2020 13:58:21 GMT
Amongst the comments ... aed939 18 hours ago There is a confluence of politics and big pharma influence behind HCQ. It does work to block the ACE2 receptor on lung epithelial cells from invasion by the coronavirus although the patient must have zinc adequacy. This is part of the innate immune system layer. Big pharma does not want anything publicized that will effectively treat and prevent C-19 because it will dampen the demand for vaccines or theraputics like remdesivir--both of which operate in the adaptive immune system sandbox. Ironically, there's also a class of small molecules that are more effective than HCQ--the flavonoids--and are actually natural compounds found in some whole plant foods. The flavonoid molecule is the perfect shape for binding with the ACE2 receptor to block any would-be invaders from attacking the cell. HCQ works pretty well because it is similar in shape to the flavonoid molecule. Examples of flavonoids that are top rated to bind to the ACE2 receptors include leucodelphindin, myrecetin, fustin, gossypetin, leucopelargonidin, luteolin, and quercetin. To boost the innate immune system and join the legion of friends and coworkers who never get a cold or flu, including C-19, take a good quality multi, then add 5000IU/125mcg Vitamin D, 15mg zinc, and a flavonoid supplement like quercetin. After the COVID-19 scare is over, you can drop the flavonoid supplement as long as you eat lots of colorful whole plants rich in flavonoids. I can believe the political hatred. I don't believe anything about the anthropomorphic "big pharma" and what "big pharma wants." That kind of thing is on the level of what police are accused of by the group of terrorists wreaking havoc in the streets in our area these days, and quite honestly, even if "big pharma" could actually want something, those kinds of commenters are about as likely to know what it is as they are to know what I want. (We've all had some commenters give us some entertaining "you just want ..." comments, have we not?) So toss out the "big pharma" bovine scatology, and I think we have all seen how politicized the drug has become, and that appears to be driven primarily by political hatred. There's no need for conspiracy by anthropomorphic entities like "big pharma."
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 18, 2020 2:36:25 GMT
|
|