Sciaphobia

This measure is so blatantly anti-democratic that I can barely understand how anyone could justify it.

This very thing inspired me, a person who currently works nights, to screw up my sleep schedule to vote against it.

Oh yes it’s all clear to me now.

The p value is effectively the % chance something happened by coincidence, and not because of a real effect. Like flipping a coin and getting the same side several times in a row. P value is an assessment of that likelihood. Less than .05 means a less than 5% chance of that. I don’t know what the other bit is, except it was likely a method of statistical analysis.

It’s a way of saying that the results they found were very unlikely to be due to chance.

What could possibly go wrong with that. I heard the Russians have been very trustworthy in the recent past.

Based on what I hear about Texas’ power grid when it enters the news, they may already have that.

I was told it is also less likely to succeed the longer you’ve had it. Relying on reversals is a less than ideal plan.

I think back then he was going to create an alternative to Patreon.

Kinda wild, because at first he seemed reasonable and offered decent, if somewhat generic, advice. Then I looked into some of the stuff he was claiming, and… woof.

what choice do you have if all services are doing it?

Could be worse. Could have been raisins.

Sure, but that’s not the end stage of the thought experiment. It’s not really even the start. How exactly is this larger group of people supposed to enact any viable change? I think we could agree that seems unlikely to be possible in an unorganized/uncoordinated manner. The solution to that is to get organized and coordinate, right?

Well what does that look like? That could take nearly as many forms as people you ask to agree - so you’d need an idea that enough people would fall behind to still out number. Once that is achieved… What? If the goal of the burgeoning group is violent revolution, they won’t get very far into the planning phase before being scooped up by security forces in some form or another. If the goal is nonviolent revolution, such as refusal to work, the system is constructed in such a way that those you would need to participate have a lot to lose, and little ability to withstand a protected protest/encounter/whatever, vs, presumably, a group that could easily outlast all of those things, as well as their children, and their children’s children.

That’s not to say nothing can work, but I think it might be just a bit reductive to suggest that things are as simple as suggesting it is total apathy in those who would need to unite to accomplish these goals that explains why the goals aren’t striven towards.