Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Uber's current business model has the drivers providing the cars.
It seems quite a fantastic leap to Uber providing the means of transport. Not least because it would place an unaccustomed level of responsibility on Uber itself. -
Hard News: On the Clark candidacy, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Colour fool descriptions
Used for those with several feet of clay,
mediocre lies among the earthier tones,
midway between yellow ochre and faecal madder. -
Could be worse. If you listen to the current series of David Baddiel Tries to Understand… (specifically, at the 7 minute mark in the episode on “The Cloud”), you’ll hear one of the nominated “experts” helpfully using the wrong multiplier to explain petabytes …
-
Speaker: What we think and how we vote, in reply to David Hood,
Yes, pretty much.
Yule's Q is a dimensionless ratio that varies between -1 and +1:
terms with Q=-1 are associated only with sample B
(a=0, hence (a-b)=-b, (a+b)=b, hence Q = -b/b = -1);
those with Q=+1 only with sample A
(b=0, hence (a-b)=a, (a+b)=a, hence Q= a/a = +1);
Q=0 corresponds to no difference (a=b, hence (a-b) = 0). -
Speaker: What we think and how we vote, in reply to David Hood,
What came to mind for me is Yule’s Q = (a – b) / (a + b) which has been used to compare relative word frequency (i.e., word counts normalised for text length) in two language samples (with respective relative frequencies a, b per million words). What you’re doing seems to be an extension of that approach to multiple samples.
-
Speaker: What we think and how we vote, in reply to BenWilson,
Probably questions measuring priorities placed on different issues would be more successful predictors of voting preference than questions measuring reactions to single issues?
-
Speaker: What we think and how we vote, in reply to BenWilson,
Part of the difficulty in attempting to build a general model for voting choices may be that often the same label (e.g. “business-friendly”) will have different meanings and evaluations to voters for different parties.
e.g. National basically owns the label “business-friendly”. However hard Labour tries to market itself on that basis too, it doesn’t work for them: even though both National and Labour voters may be generally in favour of government supporting businesses, National voters believe National is more business-friendly than Labour, and only existing Labour voters believe Labour is actually business-friendly. (Meanwhile, Green voters may interpret “business-friendliness” in rather different terms, either evaluating it with much lower priority – if not actually negatively – or else equating it with, say, promoting efficiency and sustainability in business.)
Result in this case: there are probably strong entrenched differences in opinion, but a question about, say, “importance of looking after businesses” probably won’t identify any strong connection to voting patterns, except through evaluations of named parties. -
Southerly: A Tale of Two Iceblocks: Part…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
zero-energy iceblocks in winter
Pretty sure that method won’t lead to any major energy saving: either you’re pumping liquid water, in which case the energy needed to then actually freeze it is of the same order as that needed to cool it from 25°C to 0°C, or else you’re trying to pump semi-frozen slush, which takes more energy.
If you have subzero nocturnal temperatures, surely you’d be somewhat better off just leaving a tray of water out overnight to freeze, then bringing it in next morning? -
Speaker: Darkness in New York, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Indeed it does; but who in America is currently reading that list when making their decision about whom to support for Kick-Ass-In-Chief?
-
where collage educated = having a patchwork of simple beliefs that don’t quite accurately correspond to reality, and are glued together only by unshakeable faith in one’s own importance (cf. also Trump University educated )