## 16 thoughts on “π‘ππ¨ππ½”

1. Maarten Rossaert says:

Five Xβs, eh?

Way to give βem L, Faux!

Romanes eunt domus

Like

1. Fauxlex says:

Two things:

and

Conjugate the verb!

Like

2. Fauxlex says:

@3:12, [doctor visiting man with leg bitten off] “Yes, there’s a lot of it about, probably a virus…”

Also, has anyone checked the coronavirus pockets for wild roaming tigers?

Like

2. My wife loves Monty Python movies
Life Of Brian is a good one.

Like

3. TimR says:

What to make of CDCβs current report on excess mortality? It comes with pages and pages of difficult explanation of their methodologyβ the different parameters for making estimates, regional reporting differences, statistical algorithms used. Too much for me to unpack. It does have a visual graph showing a 200k spike beginning this year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

What happened to the one we saw here once that was just βall cause mortalityβ? Is there a current version of THAT chart for comparison, or is this link the extent of their all cause reporting at present.

Like

1. TimR says:

Just a month ago, all cause mortality was at average… Now, at 200k plus… Did they cook the books?

Like

4. Greg says:

Many rumors are circulating and the new one is about this coming Friday Sept 18th.
Of course Friday will come and go with hopefully nothing or very little happening.
However the # 9-18 is a dead man’s date.
9, 1+8=9, then 9×9=81 8+1=9…An upside down 666, with the 6’s added =18. multiplied =216, 2+1+6=9.
Whether added or multiplied, the sequences give a 9 or 18.
It would be a good date for the Elite to slam the hammer down.

http://tapnewswire.com/2020/09/september-18th-flagged-as-next-lockdown-date-a-second-time-called-under-the-dome/

Like

5. TimR says:

Please excuse a long comment; I was going to submit it for consideration as a post, but could not find an email address to send to.

&&&&&&&&
Brief Notes on “Talking to Strangers” (2019) by Malcolm Gladwell

Has anyone else read this? He discusses several social scientists whose work would probably be of interest to readers here, as they deal with βlie detectionβ and the limits of human ability in this area. The book is actually structured as a series of (brief) case studies of big media news stories (and a couple historical events or meetings.) The social science is interspersed throughout, as though it can illumine these (probable) pseudo-events and scripted dramas. (Who knows, perhaps the social science came first, and the dramas were designed using their conclusions?)

Itβs a quick, interesting read. Though rather naive of course in its credulous acceptance of all these media narratives. But what to make of the βsocial scienceβ it reports on? Much of it SEEMS credible, even when itβs surprising or unexpected. He gives enough context to make a convincing case.

But the studies do have subtle red flags, and invite closer scrutiny, especially if coming from a POM perspective. For instance, the chapters about the social science and experiments that led to a revolution in policing tactics. In the original study, the researchers concluded that crime was closely βcoupledβ to very limited areas— not just neighborhoods, but certain blocks or even street segments. In a landmark Kansas City experiment, these tiny areas were targeted for aggressive policing. Stopping cars for minor infractions, as a pretext to confiscate guns or pick up on actual criminal behavior. The experiment was allegedly a stunning success, leading to greatly reduced crime rates in those areas, and hence the larger city.

Was the study and experiment real and successful as claimed? Well, whether it was or not, it was promoted as such and rapidly adopted by police chiefs around the country (and world.) With one key difference— according to Gladwell, scientific illiteracy on the chiefsβ part led to rejection of the βcouplingβ thesis, and adoption of just the βaggressive policingβ tactic(!) (This was in the mid to late β90s that it was adopted.)

Then again— could suspicious minds wonder if the Rutgers-based, Yale-trained social scientists were providing a fig leaf rationale for a predetermined change in policing tactics? They needed to convince the chiefs, or at least give them PR cover if they were criticized? βThis is based on recent research that crime will be reduced by xx%, see this study…β

The profs, in Gladwellβs telling, were somewhat distressed by this misuse of their research, but powerless to bring the nectar of enlightenment to those hard-headed, scientifically illiterate cops. The cops liked the experimentβs results, but βknewβ that crime wasnβt βcoupled.β βGet outta here with your pantywaist βcouplingβ talk! IβVE walked a beat, I know the criminal mind. Theyβll just move a block over.β Sounds reasonable. But disregards the work of the βscience godsβ…

(Random wild speculation: is it possible that these βcoupledβ areas of high crime in every city, demonstrated by the same social researchers, coincide with high concentrations of βfakeryβ? Are there scattered city blocks/streets designated for such use? To keep the βfear of crimeβ alive and well? Areas where the trapped, low income elderly residents hunker down behind barred windows and drawn curtains, as fortnightly theatricals play out in their midst?)

βCouplingβ also applied, Gladwell says, in the case of the AIDS epidemic. Fifty census zones out of 5000 (IIRC) provided most cases. Curious, although I suppose we could be talking the most population dense areas.

Anyway, this is just one interesting detour in his book that raises many questions and offers much food for thought. His discussion of βtruth default tendencyβ (people need overwhelming evidence to distrust others) and βtransparencyβ (people assume visible expressions correlate with internal states, despite a large percentage of people on either end of the scale— innocent people who act guilty, guilty people who can feign innocence) are also of interest.

Like

6. David says:

Ah, i was also just thinking to submit something as a consideration for a post (about the same length as yours) but could find no email address.

Like

1. David says:

this email didnt work mark…got another?

Like

1. Fauxlex says:

Here, I’ll make your comment on-topic…

They call me Fauxlex-Rex.

Like

1. TimR says:

I wasn’t sure what the topic was… The Latin phrase is over my head, maybe that’s why I’m lost.

No opinion on the cdc suddenly claiming 200k excess deaths…? Thats off topic too?

Like

7. Big Swede says: