csee

Sure but that would lead to a low confidence estimate given the war has just started, it's not clear whether the ports will be captured, it's not clear whether the sowing season will be disrupted, and it's not clear whether Russia will engage in protectionism of wheat. A shortage of more than 3% is possible. The tweet should have highlighted that uncertainty instead of presenting the 0.9% figure as a near fact. They smuggled in the word "estimate" somewhere but they obscured the uncertainty.

I quickly googled what the annual wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia are and got a much bigger number than the tweet suggests.

Is this going to work on a Tweet with 1 million likes?

People have very finite bandwidth. You already suppress voices by consciously deciding not to follow them. This tool just improves curation effectiveness.

Strict curation is the key to Twitter usage. Otherwise it's just an avalanche of crap.

The % of value that you create which you keep as COMP decreases as your value creation increases.

This is more discriminatory though. How can a poor kid express their "passion" to University admissions offices? SATs are the best leveller we have not to mention their strong correlation with actual outcomes.

Also, passion can be developed later, you can't expect 16 year olds to know what they want to do. Recruit for high competence.

Should they be forced by law to allow non-violent ISIS propaganda on their platform? If not, on what principle have you made that distinction?

Missing the point. It does "always happen" but it doesn't always happen to the same degree or to the same proportion of the population.

The Overton Window can be enforced to varying degrees and contain different percentages of the population.

Contrast the atmosphere during the Cultural Revolution to the atmosphere of a 1990s liberal democracy where the large majority of the population was within the Window.

Yes they did. They say it twice. I have italicised both places where they say it.

"Let's say there is a terrible disease that 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of the population is infected with, and we develop a test that is 99% accurate. You go to the doctor and get a test. Oh no, it's positive. What are the chances that it's a false positive?

Intuition would tell you 1% since the test is 99% accurate. Intuition, as it often is, is wrong. Take a sample size of 'x', we'll use 10,000. How many people will be infected? 1. How many false positives will there be? 1% * 10,000 = 100"

Then they conclude by saying:

  "So there will be 100 false positives, and 1 real positive."

The fact there is one real positive necessarily implies they are assuming the false negative rate is exactly 0, given that the disease prevalence is in 0.01 percent of the population.

I believe this is wrong.

Positive predictive value is the likelihood that, if you have gotten a positive test result, you actually have the disease. It’s calculated as TP/TP+FP.

TP, ie true positives, is a function of false negatives.

Here's a common sense explanation. Assume the false negative rate is 100% and so you have zero true positives. Then every positive test result will be a false positive, and therefore a positive test result shows that you don't have the disease.

On the other hand, assume the false negative rate is 0. Then a positive test result will mean that you probably do have the disease as long as the false positive rate isn't too high.

Remember your post I was replying to was all about the probability that you actually have the disease conditional on a positive test result. That's the question I am addressing. For this question, you must consider the false negative rate.

Their definition of accuracy is 1-false_positive_rate. They were quite explicit about that.

This type of thing looks like the future of Meta or even Zoom to me.

Well, if we assume there is a 0% chance of false negatives (which seems implicit in the post, even though the definition of "test accuracy" doesn't make that assumption), then we don't need to consider it.

If we are not making that assumption, then the 50% chance claim at the end is incorrect, since there's a chance that both of the two positive results are false positives and there is a false negative somewhere else in the remaining 99 (out of 101) people.

The 50% chance of it being a false positive (conditional on two positive results being observed) is actually a lower bound, and will increase as a function of the false negative rate.

Is this just wild speculation? I know those two people got arrested but everything else is new to me.

No, it started well before that, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and when Russia poisoned a democratically elected leader of Ukraine, and when Russian state controlled media and Putin's own essays constantly talks about empire building and Ukraine not even existing, and given Russia's history of invading other neighbors (Georgia). That you actually said "the shit only started a month ago" shows me you're acting in complete bad faith in defence of the fascist Russia and I'm terminating the conversation here.

Germany and Poland aren't under existential threat from Russia. If your neighbor wants to invade you and has 3x the population, you can't pick and choose who you're going to let defend your country. Therefore the blame for tolerance of Azov is purely on Russian aggression.

Look at Mariupol right now. The only reason it's still standing is because of Azov. This shows that the tolerance of Azov was unfortunately necessary in order to stop Russian aggression. If you are upset by Azov, blame Russia.

> 2014 "revolution" was a coup

You've provided no evidence for this. Either provide some evidence, or stop calling it a coup. Your [1] is about the US providing support to Ukraine against a Russian invasion after the revolution.

EDIT: I just saw you posted more than one link, sorry about that. I was already aware of Nuland's leaked call where they're talking about who they want to replace Yanukovych. So? Of course they're going to have such a discussion in the middle of a revolution where someone is about to be ousted and they have relationships with existing people. Regarding the comments of the Estonian FM. Not close to evidence of a coup, or even suggestive. What would Estonia know of a covert CIA plot? This was just that person's opinion. Nobody knew about the Iranian coup outside of the US and Britain, for example. These things are kept under wraps. If Germany's FM was found to have said "it's not a coup", would this journalist have written about it? No.

> original referendum to separate DPR and LPR from Ukraine witch al the west say "the vote is invalid because Ukraine constitution do not support secession" but NO ONE say was rigged and 90+% votes for being a new Republic.

Actually there are allegations that it was rigged, not to mention the unconstitutional part.

> Of course western resources are scarce, but something is easy to find

Thank you for these resources. These are very concerning and disgusting people/actions. But it isn't genocide (that's a fairly high bar) and it isn't evidence of neo-nazism in Ukrainian leadership. As I said, Russia has a much bigger neo-fascism problem than Ukraine does. Both in general society (according to polls) and the fact that Putin himself is a literal fascist.

> So "minor" that they represent around the totality of non-nazi parties

This is yet another false statement on this topic. You're implying here that 90% of the seats are held by neo-Nazis, which is ridiculous. You also ignore the fact that some far-right parties were banned. And you ignore the fact that the root cause is Putin's invasion.

> No doubt, and I'm pretty sure it's colleagues from Blackwater have similar tattoos...

So you admit that Putin is sending in neo-Nazis to 'denazify' Ukraine.

> Surely not, they are just criminals against humanity who push for various war crimes (do you remember Biden position about Belgrade bombing? About Iraq war, based on officially recognized lies?)

You discredit yourself by thinking that Iraq is equivalent to Ukraine. Iraq was heinous, but invading in order to depose a totalitarian and cruel and widely hated dictator is not the same thing as invading to destroy a democracy, impose dictatorship, and intentionally shell civilians in near-genocidal fashion. You won't find a defender of Iraq in me, but it's a deeply misguided comparison and part of Russia's propaganda. Anyway; the history of US imperialism is fairly irrelevant. This is about Ukraine and Russia and what's happening now.

> With some PRIVATE COMPANIES that ban peoples who say "non aligned" statements

Why are you trying to compare a despot who jails or kills people for saying the wrong thing with private companies censoring stuff. In Russia, people go to jail. In the US, people go to rumble.com. Big difference. Anyway, it's irrelevant.

> Any country have a bloody story, that's nothing new

Am I defending bloody empires from 100 years ago? No. It's irrelevant. Don't bring it up. We are talking about Ukraine and Russia. Russia is an expansionist fascist dictatorship in the year 2022. I am not talking about Nazi Germany in 1940 or the British Empire before that.

> they feel like they have to fight to preserve Russia.

I get that's part of what the propaganda is saying, and therefore some part of the population will believe it strongly. I am just saying it is not believable.

> an attack could overtake Moscow

No it can't. Ukraine doesn't and can't have nukes. Russia has thousands of nukes. This doesn't even begin to make sense. Nobody can invade a nuclear power, let alone one with as many nukes as Russia.

> From Moscow's perspective Ukraine could have a Nazi party take over at some point in the future.

This is their propaganda. It's that logical fallacy; anything could happen, therefore this. Far-right gets very little support in Ukrainian elections, and neo-nazism is a bigger problem in Russia, Poland and Hungary than in Ukraine. Maybe Russia should be scared of Hungary; fair enough. But Ukraine? Azov is a large problem that needs to be dealt with, but it has nothing to do with neo-Nazis inside Ukrainian politics or leadership or broader society. If they wanted Ukraine to deal with Azov, they would stop threatening Ukraine, and then Ukraine wouldn't have the need for Azov. If you create an intense need for defence, then of course Azov isn't going to be dealt with. Azov is purely the fault of Russia.

Well there were a lot of people here questioning whether these long-range nuclear capable ballistic missiles would even work. If the two launches are confirmed, we can put that question to rest. But the US is saying it's unconfirmed right now.

> 2014 coup

The 2014 revolution (not coup in the classic sense) followed by the recent non-rigged (unlike in Russia) democratic election in which the current leader was elected in a landslide of popular support.

> commit a slow genocide on it's own Russian-speaking part of population, around 30% or so

Source? I am aware of one warcrime most likely committed by Ukraine-aligned troops (potentially Azov) in the Donbas that were pointed out by Human Rights Watch. They killed like 15 civilians in criminal shelling. Haven't seen evidence that would amount towards the claim of genocide, which is a high bar.

> Just now they decide to ban all other parties

That's false. They didn't ban all other parties. They banned 11 minority parties that constituted about 10% of the seats which had ties to the country that is currently invading them. Some far-right ones (which get like 2% of the vote) and mostly far-left ones. If Russia hadn't invaded, guess what, this wouldn't have happened.

> force all broadcasts to spread just government propaganda.

You mean forced to spread government information? That's correct. They are being invaded by Russia and so they invoked these kind of martial law measures which would be concerning in any other context. The root cause of martial law in Ukraine is the Russian invasion. If you have a problem with martial law in Ukraine, then blame the country that is invading Ukraine.

> At least putin have killed single individuals who are against him, nothing new under the Sun

Actually, it's not normal to kill domestic political opponents and journalists.

> So fat he finance some nazis, and mercenaries of similar kind (Wagner), but fur less than NATO-armed, trained and financed Azov, Pravy Sektor, C14 et al. and for the mercenaries nothing different than Blackwater and co.

The head of Wagner is an actual Nazi, with SS tattoos on his neck. Putin sent this literal Nazi's henchmen into Ukraine under the guise of 'denazification'.

I will admit that the Nazis in Azov are a huge problem, but if you were a small country that had to defend against Russian aggression, you can't afford to pick and choose who's going to help defend your country. Empirical proof: Azov is proving hugely useful in delaying the Russian invasion in Mariupol. If they have kicked Azov out, Mariupol may have already fallen. Again - the root problem here is Russian aggression. If Russia wasn't a threat, they wouldn't have to resort to desperate measures like this. If you don't like Azov, then blame Russia, because without Russia, Ukraine wouldn't have any need of Azov.

> In purely political criminality terms putin is a criminal like Biden, Trump or Jonson

No. Biden et al are not ultranationalist despots who murder their political opponents, rig elections, ban free speech, and invade democracies.

> we all know that Ukrainian gov was as "democratic" as Xi or Putin and is a puppet regime planted by the west

What? Putin assassinates and jails many of his critics and journalists, holds fraudulent elections, maintains strict control of the press in peacetime, places barriers to protest that in effect make it difficult to impossible, and has no respect for term limits. He's an autocrat turning into a despot. How in any way does that compare to Ukraine? Ukraine's leader wasn't that popular until the invasion but he still won an election in a landslide.

I don't believe I misunderstood. You said the USSR abandoned the goal of overthrowing capitalism around the world in 1924. They (Stalin, in the 1930s, at least) didn't do that exactly. They just temporarily abandoned it as a direct goal based on their own direct intervention, knowing it wouldn't work. They wanted to achieve it firstly indirectly by creating the conditions for revolution in capitalist countries. They also knew that Russia needed to transform into an industrial power before it was possible to expand communism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism/Stalinism#ref5391...

> "A third feature of Stalinism was the idea of “socialism in one country”—i.e., building up the industrial base and military might of the Soviet Union before exporting revolution abroad. To this end, Stalin rescinded the NEP, began the collectivization of Soviet agriculture, and embarked on a national program of rapid, forced industrialization.

> In foreign policy, socialism in one country meant putting the interests of the Soviet Union ahead of the interests of the international communist movement. After World War II, as Winston Churchill famously remarked, an Iron Curtain descended across Europe as Stalin installed communist regimes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Albania, and Soviet-occupied East Germany as a buffer zone against an invasion from western Europe.

> Beyond Europe, the Soviet Union supported anticolonial “wars of national liberation” in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and gave economic and military support to communist regimes in North Korea, North Vietnam, and Cuba."

No. Stalin signed an agreement with Hitler because he wanted different capitalist countries to go to war in order to create the conditions for revolution. That was his doctrine.

2) This has nothing to do with capitalism. The reason Britain didn't form a coalition with the USSR was because they were petrified of getting Stalin's troops out of central Europe after a war. And for good reason given who Stalin was. So they wrongly chose appeasement in the hope that Hitler wouldn't do more. A big mistake, but one you can sympathize with to at least some small extent, and it'd be disingenuous to try to link it to capitalism somehow.

Stalin's doctrine wasn't only to establish communism in Russia. He just realized it was impractical to export communism immediately. His intentional long-term play was to stoke war across the world between capitalist countries so that that war would create the desperate conditions for revolution within those countries similar to the role that WW1 played in creating the conditions for revolution within Russia. That's why he blocked reform to the Versailles Treaty, among other actions.

Negative externalities between neighbors is a thing. See noise pollution.

Is there a way to fast track being able to try out Copilot? I put my email down a few days after it was announced and haven't heard anything.

Practically, what should one do to avoid lead poisoning here and now?

Lead petrol is banned. Lead paint is banned. Lead pipes are a problem in some areas, but let's assume we don't live in these areas.

What do we need to look out for?