Aircraft safety is important. That's why we let political activists and airlines make FAA rules, shout down anyone who suggests they're not completely and absolutely safe already, denigrate anyone investing an alleged "accident" as a conspiracy theorist, and delete paper trails. Thank God we take elections just as seriously. Why think of the harm that could befall our nation if cabals of the wealthy managed to strongly influence our electoral process.
You know, I just wish this social mind cancer that has befallen US society, where everybody is on some "side" against each other, and talks like you in your comment, would die.
I'm specifically not saying you are "worse" than others. It's more that that is the standard of how we treat each other now. And that is fucked up.
(Call me off-topic, but this matters.)
There is no "left". There is no "right". There are only people. With needs. If they all get what they need, the beef gets buried.
Itâ(TM)s pretty hard to reach consensus with people who strait up do not agree with the laws or their implementation. One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesnâ(TM)t (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We canâ(TM)t have consensus.
I have always felt that voters should be assigned a unique ID known only to the state and the voter. The full register of votes should be public. You should be able to see all the IDs and how they voted,
You may have just done that which you said was impossible.
It took me until middle age to really learn this well, but I learned something a few years ago. (I guess I knew it intellectually before, but it really sank in a few years ago). You said:
> One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesn't (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We can't have consensus.
What I realized a few years ago, and my six year old seems to already know, is that voter ID isn't
Most of what you say is reasonable. You can phrase it another way: systems always have two complementary types of error (known as "type I" and "type II" errors). In this case, a Type-I error would be NOT allowing somebody to vote when they SHOULD be allowed to vote, and a type-II error would be ALLOWING somebody to vote when they should NOT be allowed to vote.
For systems in general, methods reduce type-I errors tends to increase type-II errors, and vice versa. For example, if a system is a switch, and a typ
Your type 1 and type 2 trade-off analysis is correct - in a case so specific that it's not even relevant to the discussion.
That trade-off occurs when the system, the rules, are completely unchanged while you change a parameter value. That is, keeping all the same rules and just changing a number. An example would be how long the grace period is on expired ID. Texas uses four years. A longer period would reject fewer people, resulting in the trade-off.
In a circuit, changing the VALUE of a particular resist
I was simplifying. Type-I and Type-II errors are complementary. If I had an hour to do the reliability lecture, I would go into series-paralleling (and would point out that sometimes the optimal solution is to pay a little more to buy a better quality switch), but this is a slashdot post.
And you missed the point entirely.
Some people are so caught up in trying to avoid Type-II errors that they massively increase Type-I errors.
Yes, you can plausibly decrease the number of people who vote fraudulently making it really hard to register to vote. This has been shown to significantly increase the number of people who should be able to vote but are not able to. If the number of people who vote fraudulently is a very low number to start with-- and the statistics suggest that it is indeed a very low number-- this is a very bad trade off.
... unless your intent was never to reduce fraud in the first place, but to place barriers to the votes from certain demographic groups.
Aircraft safety is important (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Aircraft safety is important (Score:2, Offtopic)
You know, I just wish this social mind cancer that has befallen US society, where everybody is on some "side" against each other, and talks like you in your comment, would die.
I'm specifically not saying you are "worse" than others. It's more that that is the standard of how we treat each other now. And that is fucked up.
(Call me off-topic, but this matters.)
There is no "left". There is no "right".
There are only people. With needs.
If they all get what they need, the beef gets buried.
So, can I make a proposa
Re: Aircraft safety is important (Score:1)
I have always felt that voters should be assigned a unique ID known only to the state and the voter. The full register of votes should be public. You should be able to see all the IDs and how they voted,
Maybe you did the impossible (not what they want) (Score:5, Insightful)
You may have just done that which you said was impossible.
It took me until middle age to really learn this well, but I learned something a few years ago. (I guess I knew it intellectually before, but it really sank in a few years ago). You said:
> One group wants for example Voter ID. The other group doesn't (presumably because there is an impression illegal votes favor their side?). We can't have consensus.
What I realized a few years ago, and my six year old seems to already know, is that voter ID isn't
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of what you say is reasonable. You can phrase it another way: systems always have two complementary types of error (known as "type I" and "type II" errors). In this case, a Type-I error would be NOT allowing somebody to vote when they SHOULD be allowed to vote, and a type-II error would be ALLOWING somebody to vote when they should NOT be allowed to vote.
For systems in general, methods reduce type-I errors tends to increase type-II errors, and vice versa. For example, if a system is a switch, and a typ
Re: (Score:2)
Your type 1 and type 2 trade-off analysis is correct - in a case so specific that it's not even relevant to the discussion.
That trade-off occurs when the system, the rules, are completely unchanged while you change a parameter value. That is, keeping all the same rules and just changing a number. An example would be how long the grace period is on expired ID. Texas uses four years. A longer period would reject fewer people, resulting in the trade-off.
In a circuit, changing the VALUE of a particular resist
Re:Maybe you did the impossible (not what they wan (Score:2)
I was simplifying. Type-I and Type-II errors are complementary. If I had an hour to do the reliability lecture, I would go into series-paralleling (and would point out that sometimes the optimal solution is to pay a little more to buy a better quality switch), but this is a slashdot post.
And you missed the point entirely.
Some people are so caught up in trying to avoid Type-II errors that they massively increase Type-I errors.
Yes, you can plausibly decrease the number of people who vote fraudulently making it really hard to register to vote. This has been shown to significantly increase the number of people who should be able to vote but are not able to. If the number of people who vote fraudulently is a very low number to start with-- and the statistics suggest that it is indeed a very low number-- this is a very bad trade off.
... unless your intent was never to reduce fraud in the first place, but to place barriers to the votes from certain demographic groups.