Favorite scene in All The President’s Men: Woodward & Bernstein attend White House Correspondents Dinner, hobnob with Nixon Administration officials, have such a swell time that they back off Watergate investigation so they don’t lose their access.

Is that .001 dollars or .001 cents?

The very basic problem is you still think you have anything worth communicating.

At this point, continuing to go back to that hypothetical is not useful anymore. You have very basic misunderstandings of statistics to clear up before anything that he said in that hypo resonates with you at all.

I have never met people more confidently wrong than anarchists.

Except you still seem to believe you remember a shred of statistics from college and you don't. The fact that you still think you have anything worth saying here is what is fascinating to me. Again, listen to someone who knows more than you here and it will help you out in the future.

To but in, there really is no "each other" here. This is very much a you thing. The reason I said this has been so fascinating is because I rarely get to see dunning-krueger so explicitly laid out from start to finish. This is almost textbook. I would suggest less talking and more listening.

That's odd

In a weird way, I did mean that as a compliment I know that came off snarky. It's just not typical that I get to see this kind of exchange

This is one of the most fascinating exchanges I've ever witnessed

Warsh hearing so far has been kind of frustrating. No one has asked the questions that seem most relevant to me:
1) is Trump's criminal investigation into Powell appropriate?
2) what would you do if Trump threatened retribution against you if he didn't like your actions/Fed policy decisions?

The most common moral value in our society, which about 95% of people de facto treat as the base rule of society, is “no matter what we do or do not owe to other individuals in society, no one owes anything to their own children and you can do whatever you want to your own kids”

I just want to say that I am in a much more fucked financial position than the vast majority of people speaking on this and when I missed my flight last month it sucked but I handled it.

The more useful question is "So what determines the size of n?" and I'm sure Matt would be happy to go into it

So saying: "*That* sample to represent the whole US population??" doesn't make much sense

There is, but that inadequacy is not a function of population size

Can’t wait for you to go “I’m super high and was trolling anyway LOL” like anarchists always do when yall misunderstand basic math.

This is the most important thing you will read today – and probably the whole year, honestly.

We cannot let the AMOC collapse. For one thing it will make Iceland uninhabitable, and I would really like my children and grandchildren not to become refugees. But the effects will be almost everywhere.

i can only assume @quantian.bsky.social is too much of a coward to post this here on bsky so i will do it for him

bsky.app/profile/ayou...

Loser mindset

Put differently: every discipline is computer science now, but computer science is actually sociology.

It's in the "He got pegged" kinda way

"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair..."

Ossoff: I don’t know who placed those trades, but I’ll tell you this: the SEC better find out. And if they won’t, when you elect this new majority in Congress and you give us gavels and subpoenas, we will.

You might actually be the dumbest person on this website

Oh I love this

Americans need to start looking at the Court in a fundamentally new way. Instead of pretending as though Justices and the Court will be apolitical, we need to accept the reality that an apolitical Court full of apolitical Justices is impossible and work to balance the politics.

"neutral on its face" is such an insulting thing to see after reading this article

It seems like it also had to do with the fact that Roberts felt personally offended by the EPA "sidestepping" (following) the Court's ruling in a way he didn't like.

There's a *lot* going on here, but I'm struck by the irony of Roberts taking umbrage at EPA officials' public statements.

Just 2 years later, in upholding Trump's Muslim travel ban in Trump v Hawaii, Roberts wrote that Trump's bigoted public statements weren't relevant to the rule's validity.