didnt say it wasnt. you just missed the option for others. =)

Ultimately, to handle the fact that things are going to shit, you either choose, despair, ignorance or indifference. The last was my choice.

you’ve missed a important option.

The immigrants aren’t taking our jobs. They’re doing the work “we” don’t want to do. Agriculture. Janitorial. Construction. Stuff like that.

partially false, they’re working under conditions we technically have employment laws against. longer hours, no recourse against management, etc. it helps suppress wages across the board. This include higher paying jobs like software development, nursing, doctors, etc.

Literally none of that is related to what I said except in the most general sense. Me: america’s institutions are democratically very flawed and where used as a way to not build a democracy in modern times. You: OMG AMERICA SUCKS AND HERE IS ALL THE TERRIBLE THINGS THEY’VE DONE.

Yeah no shit. happy you could trauma dump though. hope you feel better.

unfortunately america grew into largest democratic experiment of its time. many of its base processes were not designed to deal with operating such a large country effectively and its not easy to change because of inertia.

the good news is we learned from america’s disaster and most other democratic systems post dating it are more robust

police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random

they (and people like yourself) believe they do, but errors in information/how they interpret information that led to the selection of any given individual makes even the perp brought in by the police potentially random.

the ‘intent’ of the police is immaterial to the facts of how the process actually unfolds. when your high confidence witness’ produce a 12.5% error rate on a line up between 6-8 people. you are literally in the realm of a coin toss. in that study the %ages for when the witness selected a filler were worse than random.

now agreeably the police are often essentially running a drakes equation for selecting the perp. but thats still entirely reliant on the quality of the information they are using for their identification. and often the line up is run early in the investigation. where they may only have eye witness information.

and since none of that information was provided by the OP you dont get to assume anything about it.

Removed by mod

You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right?

feel free to re-read the thread as many times as it takes for you to understand where you fucked up. =)

Removed by mod

That you’ve been provided proof that lineups are purposely selected from criteria

no, i havent. and in fact anyone asserting this is absolutely moronic and has no idea what they are talking about for reasons I’ve already mentioned.

im not doubling down you dunces just dont know what you’re talking about. again as I’ve stated repeatedly.

lets start over so you can understand:

If you showed me a lineup of 10 guys and asked me which one ran a worm farm I feel like I would get it right 100% of the time.

you have:

• a line up of 10 guys.

you are asked:

• which one ran a worm farm

facts:

• nothing in the original statement mentioned any criteria for the 10 guys selected. you chucklefucks are just hallucinating worse than an LLm.
• the only mention of a worm farmer is in the problem being posed to the OP (or you) which is entirely independent of the fucking line up.

chucklefucks:

• morons asserting that the question asked about a set has anything to do with how the set was generated.

Because you dont actually understand what random is.

I didnt bring up police line ups that’s someone else in this thread. Im just happy to point out how those are essentially random selection as well.

My original point was that the OP was ambiguous on the selection process used for the population. thusly assuming a random selection process from the overall popullation is just as valid as assuming 1 worm farmer + 9 randoms.

Now: randomness.

Given a random population of N entities, assume you want a sample of M where M < N and you decide to filter by Y to get X sample.

X is still random despite the filtering. all you’ve done is biased the N random population towards Y. but unless you remove the initial randomness (somehow… which is almost impossible btw). this is why so much of science is predicated on collecting large datasets because we have to make sure enough of the data has the attributes we want that it’ll show up for study once we apply our faulty filtering mechanisms. and its why we spend so much effort creating better and better filters. its also why algorithm that leverage randomness are so powerful, because they match the reality of the problems being solved.

Using the line up as an example:

1. witness says the individual they saw had a long wide nose and a blue shirt.
2. reality: witness had a blue shirt.
3. reality: The detective has very different definition of what a wide/long nose is than the witness.

applying those two faulty filters to population N is still going to result in a random population because the initial candidate selection before applying those two (faulty) filters is random.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

No, I’m reading the words that they said and parsed them

yes, its your lack of comprehension about what you parsed that is the problem… the fact you can’t see that the information you’re asserting isnt actually in the text is literally my point. aka: your reading comprehension problem.

you’re the one insisting that the alternative parsing is incorrect while simultaneously admitting that the information you’re claiming as part of the text was ‘inferred’.

hint: inferences are not the same as facts. both random selection from the population and selecting 1 worm farmer and 9 randoms are valid inferences of the sentence.

I never claimed you had an incorrect understanding of the sentence. only that it isnt the only possible meaning of the sentence.

now move on.

You realize that a police line is literally random selection (including the perp) right? thats kind of the point. There is no guarentee that the ‘perp’ is the actual criminal despite the officers or the witnesses opinions on the matter.

again you’re making assumptions about what information is actually in the text. im moving on I dont really give a shit that your reading comprehension is lacking. =)

implied doesnt mean required. you can think what you want but nothing in that statement means one of them will be a worm farmer. and no I didnt miss any details. you just think an implication means fact. which it doesnt. i suspect you’re often mislead by people exploiting this bias you have.

in order for you to be correct they would have had to state the selection mechanism for the group being considered. since they didnt, its ambiguous and you cannot infer anything from the statement.

they never said a preselected group either. ah the ambiguities of the english language =)

and it wouldnt be. the chances of 1 of 10 randomly picked individuals running a worm farm is very low.

or 99% of the people running instances will want those defaults and its not worth the effort to deal with people like you to bother making it brain dead to disable.

trust me adding friction to a codebase is the a easy way to not have to deal with you.

for example imagine having ti field nonsense feature requests from people who cant even be assed to do basic research on how to remove the blocking configuration. that’d be infuriating.