TropicalDingdong Now • 100%
I'm not interested in the lies Israel continuously tells the US.
Possibly one of the worst "allies" in US history.
TropicalDingdong Now • 100%
What do you dip it in? Chicken?
TropicalDingdong Now • 50%
So write off GA. Harris has to win Either NC or AZ to make it such that TWO state level results would have to be forced to the SC. Whichever Sunbelt state +1.
It's hard. "Doing ok" isn't fucking good enough and the apologists willing to make excuses for Democrats at every turn are the very reason Democrats struggle so hard to do anything legislatively or electorally.
TropicalDingdong Now • 100%
That is a bad ass sword. Looks like a heck of a chopper.
TropicalDingdong Now • 71%
538 is meaninglessly bad after Silvers exit. I get that you don't get it, but if Kamala doesn't "win by a landslide", which would be 55% plus in the national aggregate and winning basically all of WI/MI/MN/PA and at least one of AZ/NC/GA by numbers which do not warrant a recount, Republicans win.
They key that you need to understand is that break even, is actually losing badly for Democrats. The deck is literally stacked against them. And its going to be worse this time. Republicans realize that all they need to do is, if it comes down to one state, get that to the supreme court and they win. The Democratic path to victory has to be effectively uncontested/ insurmountable. Anything less and its Bush v Gore all over again.
TropicalDingdong Now • 66%
Damn. and I had a whole 4chan NavySealCopypasta but about a disgraced taxonomist ready to go too..
TropicalDingdong Now • 33%
Safety for Democrats is leading in national polling by +10. Kamala isn't +5. She needs +5 to be break even due to structural issues like the electoral college and voter suppression. Her trajectory prior to, and through the convention supported her getting into the safety range. I think that because of what we've seen from the supreme court, this needs to be a blow out. We know republicans will be doing everything they can to steal/ cause chaos and confusion around results/ fail to certify etc. If it isn't violently clear from a major victory, this thing goes to Trump.
Its delusional to think that Kamala is on track for that kind of major victory, but as with Biden's performance and likelyhood of winning, self-delusion around their favorite teams ability to actually win seems to be Lemmy's kink.
TropicalDingdong Now • 14%
We need a landslide for Kamala
Agreed. Kamala had the start of that during/ before the campaign. Like actually great performance. Since/ during the campaign, she's shifted to the right, focusing mostly on how "good she is for business" and touting Republican endorsements. She refused to engage with the uncommitted movement. Before the convention, her trajectory had her heading into the 50-55% zone by election day. That stalled out with her rightwing shift. She's on track to lose this election.
TropicalDingdong Now • 66%
I was kidding. Although I have legitimately seen one entire career come tumbling during the advent of molecular plant phylogeny.
TropicalDingdong Now • 66%
Still grinding out the miles on my gen 1 leaf 😭
TropicalDingdong Now • 75%
by downloading the data and turning it into a scatter plot
TropicalDingdong Now • 83%
This should be a scatter plot.
TropicalDingdong Now • 83%
God if only there were a way to plot x by y on two independent axis...
TropicalDingdong Now • 75%
Yes, but it wouldn't be possible without fans that are willing to eat this drivel up.
TropicalDingdong Now • 97%
They don't know. and the documentary will be bigfoot level speculation.
TropicalDingdong Now • 87%
You really had to bring that up?
This is a meme sub and you thought it was ok to bring politics here?
TropicalDingdong Now • 95%
Just more evidence that Hawaii is forever stuck in the 90s.
TropicalDingdong Now • 33%
I absolutely fucking can considering she built her political career of her fathers.
How many votes is she getting Harris? How many votes is she costing Harris?
These warmongering Republican endorsements; this rightward, hawkish approach: It will lose Democrats the election.
Cheney's endorsement is a net negative.
At one point in this weird nonsensical abortion they call life, I had a 64 Ford Econoline. It was the model that had 360 windows (the 8 door model). It was the most fun touring vehicle I've ever been in. Granted it only did 55 with the pedal to the metal (quite literally floored). The best vehicle I've ever owned. So great for doing back roads in. You could see EVERYTHING. So the Canoo is going to have a 360 view *and* a full roof moon roof? Consider me sold for island driving. Come out and see me bruh you gonna get a tour of the island. So has anyone bought a like.. gen 0 vehicle before? I've never owned a new car. And never from ab untested manufacturer. I'm just lucky to have this chanc. Like, I expect deliveries to start in the next few months and I'm trying to set expectations for myself. Has any one here preordered an EV? Is this a mistake? Should I just get another leaf?
Are you making pizza this weekend?? If so what is your plan? What kind of dough or prep? What style? How are you going to bake it? Any changes from last time you made pizza?
www.dropsitenews.com
On Monday, flights at Beirut’s airport were canceled as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to carry out a “harsh” military attack on Lebanon, following Saturday’s deadly strike on a Syrian Druze community in the Israeli-occupied Golan town of Majdal Shams. The horrifying incident killed 12 children on a soccer field. Israel and the U.S. immediately accused Hezbollah of hitting the town with a Falaq-1 rocket launched from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has denied it was behind the attack and both it and the Lebanese government have called on the United Nations to undertake an independent investigation. The way that blame for this incident unfolded publicly lends itself to competing theories of responsibility. Earlier Saturday, Hezbollah had announced it had launched a series of attacks on nearby Israeli military installations in retaliation for the killing of four Hezbollah fighters in an Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon. When news of the deaths at the soccer field began to emerge, Hezbollah swiftly issued a statement saying that it had “no connection to the [Majdal Shams] incident at all, and categorically denies all false allegations.” Hezbollah charged that an Israeli Iron Dome interceptor missile had missed its target and hit the town. Israel has claimed it identified the Hezbollah commander of the strike. [[continue...](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-war)]
www.natesilver.net
 One of the most important decisions you face as a forecaster is simply when to publish a statistical model for public consumption. If you’re just running a model for your personal edification — or to make bets with — the threshold may actually be lower. If you’re evaluating the impact of a player injury on an NFL or NBA game that you’re considering betting on, for instance, then you might only get a couple of minutes before some reasonably rational assessment of the impact has already been priced into prevailing betting lines. Under these circumstances, a good first-pass estimate can go a long way. By the time you dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s to incorporate the impact of the injury into a formal model, it may be too late. When you issue a statistical forecast publicly, though, I think the responsibility is slightly greater. In some cases, probabilistic forecasts can be confusing to people. And in other circumstances, people can take statistical models too seriously and treat them as oracular when in fact all models rely on the researcher’s assumptions. Let’s not get too carried away with this — some assumptions are better than others, which is why some models are better than others. (And putting a model behind a paywall is a pretty useful trick for self-selecting a more knowledgeable reader base.) But there are times when a subjective estimate may be better, especially in unforeseen circumstances that your model wasn’t really designed to handle. For instance, when Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race last Sunday, I suppose we could have just done a hot swap and immediately replaced him with Kamala Harris — pollsters have periodically tested the Harris vs. Trump matchup, especially since Biden’s disastrous debate on June 27. But I think this would have misinformed even our smart, self-selected group of Silver Bulletin readers more than it informed them. The polls were already in flux, given Biden’s mounting crisis on top of the assassination attempt against Trump on top of the Republican convention, which is typically a period when polls can produce short-lived bounces. And Harris’s candidacy was still hypothetical, although she was clearly prepared, working behind the scenes to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee within 24-48 hours.
I bought a cheap Chinese manufactured CO2 sensor (RS485) with basically no documentation. It took a while, but I've finally got it reading. 0 to about 1700 was me continuing to work, then I left the room and did some gardening. I came back into the room at about 3400.
Olive oil, garlic, nutmeg, Parmesan, mottz and basil. I think I went half a cycle too long in the oven. I'm not sure the frequency of rotation but I want to get a timer in the pizza kitchen.
Hey all, I modified my Qstove to take a pizza steel instead of engineered stone and am sharing the results here.
This is an approach I've been using since last November to put Biden's polling in a historical context. I'm using the Gallup approval rating dataset because its the longest, deepest single source dataset where the same question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way [current president's name] is handling his job as president?". Its been going on since the 40's, but has remained extremly predictive of the next president. Previously, I presented some results (March) in the c/Politics community where using this approach, I said that Biden had between a 5-15% of winning the election. At that time, Biden was polling higher and there was more time between now (then) and election day. I've re-run the simulation with updated numbers and am presenting them here. First, get the mean and standard deviation of how approval ratings for past presidents have typically changed leading up to an election based a 30 day window around the current date. I then compare them to a 30 day window at election day, and get back a distribution of shifts: the typical range over which a presidents approval might change between now and the election  Next, I calculate a mean and standard deviation of approval ratings for incumbent Presidents who win their second term. We kind-of have to stick with incumbent presidents, based on the nature of the data. There really is no way to ask the Gallup pole question of non-sitting presidents or candidates.  Using these two distributions, I take a sample from the 'shift' distribution, and add it to Biden's current polling.  I then calculate the probability this new polling value would have come from the "Incumbent presidents who won election" distribution, effectively giving us the probablity, that based on extant polling, Biden can get into an approval range not-disimilar to Presidents who won re-election. Based on this approach, I'm getting an average probability of Biden winning the election at around half a percent. This is down substantially from March, where I had him at at between 5-15% probability of winning. At that time, he was both polling better, and there was more time between March and the election for him to improve.  Using this approach, a Biden victory is currently standing at between a 5 and 6 sigma event. To put it into context, [last years historic rate of ice-melting in the arctic was also a five sigma event.](https://marine.rutgers.edu/announcements/what-is-a-5-sigma-event-why-the-sea-ice-in-antartica-is-alarming-scientists/) Bonus figure: The distribution of Presidential polling for sitting presidents who did not win re-election: 
So I'm going to try and stay true to Nate's blog-post, but I see his predictions as too important to be pay-walled (especially consider how 538 basically isn't 538 any more since they don't use Nate's model). All of the figures in this post are my own and made using Nate's data and were made in R using ggplot. Just simple reproductions for the purposes of discussion. I didn't do all of them, just the big headline figures. If you are in Dark Mode (as you should be) you may have to right click the figures and look at them in a separate tab. Figure 1: Who is ahead in the polls.  Figure 2: Who is ahead in the polls (inset to recent weeks).  Table 1: State and national polling.  Table 2: Who is favored to win the Presidency?  Figure 3: How each candidate's chance of wining has changed.  Figure 4: Probability of Winning Presidential Election.  Keeping everything editorial out of the post. These are basic reproductions of Nate Silvers recent post using data he provided, to support having a discussion.
www.pewresearch.org
Key figure: 
www.dropsitenews.com
> The federally appointed monitor tasked with overseeing the United Auto Workers, Neil Barofsky, is ratcheting up his conflict with UAW President Shawn Fain, announcing another investigation into the union leader who rose to national prominence amid the successful “Stand Up Strike” against the Big Three automakers. > > Yet newly unveiled documents suggest Barofsky’s pursuit of Fain has less to do with concerns over union self-dealing and more to do with the politics of Israel-Palestine. > > Barofsky was appointed in 2021 as the result of the Department of Justice-led consent decree put in place in lieu of prosecution of the union itself for rampant corruption, following prison sentences for two consecutive UAW presidents.
www.nytimes.com
> Some major Democratic donors have told the largest pro-Biden super PAC, Future Forward, that pledges worth roughly $90 million are now on hold if President Biden remains atop the ticket, according to two people who have been briefed on the conversations. > > The frozen contributions include multiple eight-figure commitments, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the situation. The decision to withhold such enormous sums of money is one of the most concrete examples of the fallout from Mr. Biden’s poor debate performance at the end of June. > > Future Forward declined to comment on any conversations with donors or the amounts of any pledged money being withheld. A Future Forward adviser would say only that the group expected contributors who had paused donations to return once the current uncertainty about the ticket was resolved.
Key quotes: > House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) met with President Biden Thursday night to relay the sentiments of the House Democratic Caucus regarding his reelection bid, as concerns grow within the ranks about the incumbent’s ability to beat former President Trump in November. > > The meeting — revealed in a letter to colleagues Friday morning — came after Jeffries spoke with a large swath of House Democrats in the two weeks since last month’s debate, which prompted concerns about Biden’s viability at the top of the presidential ticket. . The meeting took place after Biden’s high-stakes press conference that evening, a source familiar told The Hill. > > Jeffries said he passed along the “full breadth” of thoughts he heard within his caucus.
Not sure if this violates rules, but this is breaking news and the primary source. Local news video. 17th house Democrat calls for Biden to step down. Post NATO-news conference, 6:30 Pacific Time
newrepublic.com
Key quote: > Even from behind bars, Steve Bannon’s message is clear: Republicans want Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race. Why? Because they know it will be better for Donald Trump. > > In an email interview with Matthew Boyle from far-right Breitbart News, the former Trump adviser was asked what he made of the Democrats sticking with Biden amid widespread criticism of the president’s performance in last month’s debate and the calls for him to drop out of the presidential race. > > “So we got the candidate we want … and the country is stuck with a nonperforming cadaver,” Bannon replied.
Key quotes: > Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is working furiously behind the scenes to put pressure on President Biden to reconsider his place at the top of the 2024 ticket, according to a number of Democratic lawmakers familiar with her efforts. > > The Speaker emerita is talking to a broad swath of House Democrats — from front-liners in tough districts to hardened veterans with institutional clout — to pump the brakes on the notion that Biden should definitively be the party’s nominee heading into November, these lawmakers said. > > Pelosi has not said Biden should exit the race, but the lawmakers said she harbors deep concerns about Biden’s ability to defeat former President Trump, and she’s fighting to prevent the party from rubber-stamping Biden’s candidacy before there’s a broader discussion about the potentially damaging consequences of that decision. Note: This is a "breaking" story, as in, its been leaked and is just now showing up on multiple outlets.