CoggyMcFee

joined 1 year ago
[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Believe it or not some people may not have been investing significant amounts of time into learning about Elon Musk’s personality in 2014

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

This is the ignorant “I don’t understand statistics” take. If Nate Silver had given Clinton a 100% chance to win, then maybe you’d have some sort of point. But, in fact, the 538 projection gave Trump a much higher chance than most of the major election models, to the point that I remember Nate having to defend himself against angry people on Twitter over and over. He wrote an article ahead of the election pointing out that if an outcome has a 30% chance of happening, not only is it possible, but in fact you expect it to happen 3 in 10 times. I was very nervous on Election Day 2016 specifically because I had been closely following 538 projections.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The name “pro-life” is absurd. Too far from reality

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think you all need a new name for yourselves. It sounds absurd at this point

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I’ve noted that you are a superior human who doesn’t waste your time with celebrity nonsense. I assume that’s what you were going for with this comment.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It is genuinely amazing. I have watched it multiple times since I first saw it! It feels like something that would be funny but should get old after a few minutes, and yet it never does.

The whole talk appears to be done in one continuous take!

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

When the 270 mark is passed, it has the effect of making every vote equal everywhere.

Right, and this is bad for the Republican Party, so they will do everything in their power to stop it.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bill Clinton never debated George W Bush

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

What kind of Dem candidate is pro fracking?

One who exists in a fucked up electoral system where the entire fate of our country rests upon a few thousand votes in western PA.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.

The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.

It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

thoughtful people

There’s your problem right there

 

For example, if it says “bear left” versus “turn left”, what process is it using to make that nuanced judgment?

I see two possible ways:

a) It analyzes the map visually and has an algorithm to decide, based on the angle/curve/etc, which way to describe the turn.

b) Every place where two roads meet has metadata keyed in, indicating what type of turn it is in each direction.

I think option (a) is too expensive to be done in real-time by the end-user’s GPS, so most likely if option (a) is used, it’s done periodically on the server side to generate metadata as in option (b). And then perhaps this metadata is hand-checked by a person, and things the analysis gets wrong are overridden by a person, but all of this is just speculation on my part.

This question came up when some turn-by-turn directions incorrectly said to “bear left” at a standard, right angle intersection. I wondered if someone keyed something in wrong or if there is some little blip in the way the map was drawn at the intersection that we wouldn’t visually detect, but threw off the turn-by-turn.

I expected to easily find an article spelling it out, but I haven’t been able to and it’s driving me crazy not knowing for certain!

view more: next ›