103 karma · joined May 18, 2020
Outside of numbers. The same logic applies to fact checking sites which is why I always question why so many people use them to refute arguements. The authors decided what was deemed a good source.
A dirty secret I’ve noticed of the most controversial issues at the end of the day can be argued successfully both ways, so the fact checkers effectively choose the side they agree with. For example, should Texas be demonized for removing their mask mandates? Lot of areas in Texas are very remote. Texas is more insular of a state than say New Jersey. Federalism and US legal history typically affords states the latitude to make decisions for themselves based on their populations desires. To what extent does interstate commerce (flying out of Texas for example) justify outside/Federal force to upend Texas sovereignty? Lot of people try to argue Texas is just wrong but it’s deeper than that.
Another time a deli worker at the grocery recommended a good turkey flavor, when I saw him next (it was weeks later) I made sure I told him how much I enjoyed it. I then told someone next to me (unsure of what to get) how the man put me on to a delicious flavor (boars head sausalito FYI). I still say “how are you doing sir” when I see this man working and I’m shopping. He remembers me even masked.
All of this really just involves taking things you notice and instead of keeping it to yourself, sharing it! It’s worth doing! I don’t do it for any selfish reasons (except maybe to keep my observation skills sharp). I genuinely feel an appreciation for sharing things I notice about others as they live their lives. My only hope is it makes them feel good about themselves.
My money and politics teacher @ CMU - John Delano said something that has always stuck with me when in doubt about motivations - “in politics, follow the money”.
1. Call time - at 9am Joe calls 911 and reports their cat has fell out of a tree.
2. Dispatch Queue Time - ideally, at 905am or quickly after the call to 911 time, Dispatcher puts this call into the stack for the police officer that works on Joes beat (let’s say normally that is Officer111). This is accompanied by a call out over the radio to Officer111 to see what he’s doing.
3. Officer acknowledge time - usually along with the radio call-out from dispatch, 905am, the event record for Joe and his cat appear on the screen for all the officers in the district. Let’s say Officer111 is at a car crash, and cannot respond. The event record is still on all Officer screens, and Dispatch asks one of the district officers to go help Joe and his fallen cat. Nearby Officer112 “accepts” the call (via radio and on their laptop). It is 906am when Officer112 accepts the task. He is are now enroute (at 906am)
4. Arrival time - it takes Officer112 14 minutes to get to the scene because it is not his beat and he was in traffic. He pulls up at 920am.
5. Clear time - at 930am, the cat is taken off in an ambulance, and Officer112 tells dispatch over the radio to clear him off the fallen cat call.
Dispatch delay - diff between call recieved and being put into the queue
Response time - time from Officer acknowledgement in the queue to arrival time. In some cases it will be recorded with a timestamp when Officer says enroute.
Cleared time - arrival to clear.
My point is the response time is often tricker than it seems. May be straightforward in this case, but mainly wanted to point it out for other readers.
Throw in waze and you're in a situation where you can basically cruise at 90 for a long distance vs. 75. Escort or V1
I personally feel it's wrong but that's one thing I've always got hung up on in building a critique.
Looking at a regression model as an example in equation form:
Y = a + bX + e
Some "proportion" of a phenomenon is understood. However, many things are not immediately understood but only seen to be a factor in explaining a phenomena if looking at things from a very complete, long term perspective.
Something which we are unlikely be able to do.
Many people can feel when an action produces a ripple effect. Now think of tons of ripple effects interacting, some influential, some not, etc.
Anyway, back to the equation - we have +e the error term, which is the uncertainty that any such explanation will fully predict how something plays out.
I think what you're getting at is the error term also has characteristics.
One of those properties could be that certain things advance all, others are bad for all. Just to tie it back to your other comments.