Randomness thread, part two.

[TheSpoonald]

Huh? I thought Trump saved the economy. Biggest tax cut in history, folks. Numbers so big... you wouldn't even believe.

Please refer yourself to post 26844.

When does the slope of the trend-line change?

[Poopadoop]

Please refer yourself to post 26844.

When does the slope of the trend-line change?

Looks like around 2014 to me. Thanks Obama!

But you could fit a best-fitting line to that curve fairly easily. Go for it Archimedes.

[TheSpoonald]

Looks like around 2014 to me. Thanks Obama!

Oh fuck off. You clearly see the sharp downward trend stop abruptly and reverse right around the fall of 2016

[Poopadoop]

Oh fuck off. You clearly see the sharp downward trend stop abruptly and reverse right around the fall of 2016

*I* see a downward trend from the start of the graph to 2014. After that I see a flat trend.

*you*, on the other hand, look at all the noise in the data and see what you want to see.

[Poopadoop]

Eh, maybe if you squint real hard you can see a bit of a downward trend from 2014 to 2016, but it's very small. After that, flat.

Is this your evidence that Trump has rescued the economy? There's gotta be hundreds of graphs on that website - c'mon you can do better than this one.

[Poopadoop]

What do you see here Tucker? US Employment Rate.

united-states-employment-rate.jpg

Edit: How do I make the figure larger?

[TheSpoonald]

What do you see here Tucker? US Employment Rate.

I see that during Barry's first two years the employment rate went into the toilet. Looks like it bottomed out right before he was re-elected. It rose a little after that before dropping sharply. Then the 2014 midterms happened and Repubs took the senate and an upward trend began that accelerated after Barry retired.

[TheSpoonald]

Is this your evidence that Trump has rescued the economy?

you've redulliated mi bananarium'd again. Taking something I said and turning it into something completely different. I hope the mods do something about you!!!

It was actually my evidence that workforce participation is down. You see, Monkey said that people just find new jobs when technology takes theirs. He said that because he wanted to believe it. Now he can't. I ruined it for him. I did that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Asking a question is not making a statement. Ergo, asking if that's what you think is not saying that's what you think.

Interrogative vs Descriptive, you see.

[Poopadoop]

Fun fact for spaznana:

They won't ever fully automate driving. You know why? Because if there's an accident guess who has to pay the insurance?

Instead, they'll make it like flying a plane. You turn on the autopilot and if anything goes wrong you grab the wheel. That way if you crash they can blame it on you.

You can tell your truck driving buddies their jobs are safe, just about to get a whole lot easier. Thanks automation!

[OngBonga]

They won't ever fully automate driving.

Sure they will. Robots are probably already safer than humans, but the average insurance payout for a robot-caused accident is likely to be much larger than when blame can be pinned on an individual. But that will change. As soon as it's cost effective for insurance companies to pay out on robot accidents instead of human ones, then that's when things will really start to change. In the meantime, it's largely a case of convincing the public that it's safer, which comes with trials and ever-improving technology.

Probably "fully automated" is not going to happen in our lifetimes, in the sense that the driver will be able to override the automation and take control, but eventually there will be no need for that and it will be deemed safer for humans to have no control at all.

[Poopadoop]

Sure they will. Robots are probably already safer than humans, but the average insurance payout for a robot-caused accident is likely to be much larger than when blame can be pinned on an individual. But that will change. As soon as it's cost effective for insurance companies to pay out on robot accidents instead of human ones, then that's when things will really start to change.

You can't hold a robot liable.

You can hold the manufacturer liable. Or you can hold a human liable. Guess which one the manufacturers prefer?

Probably "fully automated" is not going to happen in our lifetimes, in the sense that the driver will be able to override the automation and take control, but eventually there will be no need for that and it will be deemed safer for humans to have no control at all.

It could happen in five years if they wanted it to. They don't for the reasons stated above.

[TheSpoonald]

You can tell your truck driving buddies their jobs are safe, just about to get a whole lot easier. Thanks automation!

It's more complicated than that.

If each driver is doing less work, then each driver is capable of working longer without tiring.

If each driver can work longer hours to move the same freight, then will the number of drivers needed increase, or decrease?


Shhhh, don't answer. Let MMM do it. He's been struggling with fractions lately and I think he needs the practice.

[TheSpoonald]

You can hold the manufacturer liable. Or you can hold a human liable. Guess which one the manufacturers prefer?

It sounds like common sense. It looks like common sense. It should pass for common sense. But guess what.......

Honestly poop, you obviously lean heavily left, but every once in a while you say something that is so far off the democrat script, I wonder if you secretly jerk it to William F Buckley.

In case you missed it, here is the new democrat script....liability falls on the richest party.

So, if you listen to freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, you would know this. See, once upon a time an energy company borrowed money from a bank to build some pipeline. The energy company built the pipeline and sold it's capacity. They used the money to pay back the bank, and then continued to operate normally for years. Then one day there was a mishap, and some oil touched a bird or something.

AOC thinks the bank should clean that up. AOC thinks the bank is liable for that oil spill. Not the oil company. Not the pipeline company. Not the maintenance company hired to keep it working. Not the dumbass bird who can't tell the difference between oil and water. No. AOC thinks that the bank, who had nothing to do with any of this for a period of years......is the one responsible for every bad thing that ever happens related to that pipeline.

[OngBonga]

You can hold the manufacturer liable. Or you can hold a human liable. Guess which one the manufacturers prefer?

Humans, obviously. But do you think the manufacturers care as much if they are insured? Of course they are still motivated by safety, it isn't good for sales if your automated product fails. But if the data is showing that automated cars are much safer, and that insurance companies are willing to insure manufacturers, then there will be progress on the matter.

It could happen in five years if they wanted it to. They don't for the reasons stated above.

I agree they could do it soon but won't, for those reasons. But you said ever. That's a bit too big of a statement. It'll happen because computers will eventually be orders of magnitude more reliable than humans. It will get to the point where allowing the human to take control will be a great deal more dangerous than not.

[TheSpoonald]

Insurance companies are basically casinos. they aren't going to turn down a higher +EV bet.

They'll insure the robots. It's currently their wettest wet dream.

[Poopadoop]

It sounds like common sense. It looks like common sense. It should pass for common sense. But guess what.......

Honestly poop, you obviously lean heavily left, but every once in a while you say something that is so far off the democrat script, I wonder if you secretly jerk it to William F Buckley.

In case you missed it, here is the new democrat script....liability falls on the richest party.

So, if you listen to freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, you would know this. See, once upon a time an energy company borrowed money from a bank to build some pipeline. The energy company built the pipeline and sold it's capacity. They used the money to pay back the bank, and then continued to operate normally for years. Then one day there was a mishap, and some oil touched a bird or something.

AOC thinks the bank should clean that up. AOC thinks the bank is liable for that oil spill. Not the oil company. Not the pipeline company. Not the maintenance company hired to keep it working. Not the dumbass bird who can't tell the difference between oil and water. No. AOC thinks that the bank, who had nothing to do with any of this for a period of years......is the one responsible for every bad thing that ever happens related to that pipeline.

Nice non-sequitur there. Is the suggestion that I let AOC or the Ds tell me what to think? Sorry if that's how you work with Rs but it's not how I work.

Got anything relevant?

Didn't think so. Now run along little boy.

[Poopadoop]

I agree they could do it soon but won't, for those reasons. But you said ever. That's a bit too big of a statement. It'll happen because computers will eventually be orders of magnitude more reliable than humans. It will get to the point where allowing the human to take control will be a great deal more dangerous than not.

Until manufacturers decide they want sole legal responsibilty for auto accidents, I don't see it happening.

[TheSpoonald]

Is the suggestion that I let AOC or the Ds tell me what to think?

That and you seem to have missed the latest memo. That's ok. I've put you on the spot, so you're trying to act tough.

I'm sure in 3 months you'll be cursing out whatever bank gave Hitler a mortgage in 1925 and demanding that their current CEO be publicly disemboweled.

Mark your calendar

[TheSpoonald]

Until manufacturers decide they want sole legal responsibilty for auto accidents, I don't see it happening.

Pssst Manufacturers can buy insurance....tee hee

Another fun fact: they can pass the cost on to the consumer, so they pay nothing

No cost. No liability. Easy game.

[Poopadoop]

Got anything relevant?

banana.jpg

Didn't think so. Now run along little boy.

byebye.jpg

[Poopadoop]

Pssst Manufacturers can buy insurance....tee hee

Another fun fact: they can pass the cost on to the consumer, so they pay nothing

No cost. No liability. Easy game.

Have you seen any fully automated airliners in operation? Ever wonder why?

Most commercial pilots admit they're basically just ballast at this point. So if it could be fully automated, why isn't it?

Do you know the conclusion reached by the vast majority of air crash investigations? "Human error."

See if you can do the advanced 2+2 math behind that.

[OngBonga]

Pssst Manufacturers can buy insurance....tee hee

Another fun fact: they can pass the cost on to the consumer, so they pay nothing

No cost. No liability. Easy game.

The liability comes with share price fluctuations. But unless your product is less safe than your rivals, it's not a problem because your rivals will also experience such fluctuations, and so long as accidents are significantly rarer than human accidents, then share prices will naturally recover because the market will continue to grow.

[TheSpoonald]

So if it could be fully automated, why isn't it?

Unions probably

[Poopadoop]

I'm not just pulling this information out of my ass btw. This is the story I got from a colleague who's working with car manufacturers.

[OngBonga]

Planes aren't fully automated for the reasons poop states. Computers are not yet reliable enough for manufacturers and insurance companies to feel that it is cost effective. Our confidence isn't strong enough.

That changes with time.

[OngBonga]

I'm not just pulling this information out of my ass btw. This is the story I got from a colleague who's working with car manufacturers.

It's not just about manufacturers though. Insurance companies are influential, too. Who would you rather insure? A human? Or a computer? Obviously the answer depends on your confidence in the computer, and obviously that confidence improves over time. There's a threshold that one day is reached.

[Poopadoop]

The planes are safer than the people flying them. If ~90% of accidents are caused by human error rather than AI malfunction or structural defects, the weak link there is obvious.

Now ask yourself: if the plane would be safer WITHOUT a pilot on board who could fuck things up, what reason would there be for having a pilot on board?

A: Insurance and liability.

[Poopadoop]

It's not just about manufacturers though. Insurance companies are influential, too.

You think the manufacturers haven't thought of all this?

I can't speak to "Someday" - forever is a long time. I'm only referring to the foreseeable future. Maybe the laws will change some day and make it sensible to have fully automated cars. I'm just saying the conditions for that aren't there now - it isn't that the technology is lagging behind.

[OngBonga]

You think the manufacturers haven't thought of all this?

I can't speak to "Someday" - forever is a long time. I'm only referring to the foreseeable future. Maybe the laws will change some day and make it sensible to have fully automated cars. I'm just saying the conditions for that aren't there now - it isn't that the technology is lagging behind.

Well when we talk about the foreseeable future, yeah I agree. But it's a matter of confidence, or more to the point, public confidence. Lots of people die on the roads, the public will accept a small level of risk because there is already significant risk associated with road travel. It's not out of the question that public opinion will shift enough as technology improves, and that technology might not be so far away. It'll take a small progressive country, like Switzerland, to go for it, and then road deaths will be virtually eliminated overnight. That's when bigger countries will seriously start thinking about it.

[OngBonga]

Public confidence is key because ultimately all these companies give a fuck about is selling cars.

[Poopadoop]

Let me lay this out for you:

Ford or whoever designs a fully automated car. The car occasionally crashes and people get injured or die. Ford is 100% liable. Ford's insurance pays the bill and their insurance rate goes up.

or

Ford designs a semi-automated car. The car occasionally crashes. A court has to decide what % of it is Ford's fault and what % the drivers'. In all the cases of accidents the blame on Ford averages (say) 10% and the blame on the driver (say) 90%, because even if the autopilot made an error the driver was there and should have overriden it.

Ford pays a lot less insurance in scenario two.

[Poopadoop]

It's more complicated than that.

If each driver is doing less work, then each driver is capable of working longer without tiring.

If each driver can work longer hours to move the same freight, then will the number of drivers needed increase, or decrease?

So in your little scenario here, drivers just take a nap while the truck goes from Atlanta to Boston?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The driver still has to pay attention to what's going on.

[TheSpoonald]

So in your little scenario here, drivers just take a nap while the truck goes from Atlanta to Boston?.

you just pulled a reduzuki a bananason. Not even close to what I said.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

What way?

The driver still has to pay attention to what's going on.

Why is this in dispute?

[TheSpoonald]

This is another fraction problem. So again, if you know the answer, just keep it to yourself. There are others around here that need some extra time to do their homework.

There is a finite amount of freight that has to be moved from various points of origin to their destinations. The total number of hours that it takes to complete all of that transport is represented as (H)

The Department of Transportation regulates how many hours each driver is allowed to drive before it is assumed that the driver is too fatigued to operate the vehicle safely. This limitation is expressed in hours and is represented by the variable (L)

(H)/(L) = D
D= The number of drivers required to complete all transport.

If the trucks drive themselves, then the number of hours that it takes to fatigue a driver will be increased. So (L) increases.

If (H) remains constant and (L) increases, what happens to (D)?

[Poopadoop]

Missing a fair bit of relevant info here:

Is the driver on an hourly rate or fixed salary?
Does the driver get increased overtime pay for working above the usual number of hours per week?
Does the teamsters union allow you to hire fewer drivers to work longer hours?

[OngBonga]

Pfft the trucker's days are numbered for many reasons, not least that freight will soon be transported by drone. That's a decade away at most. It's purely a matter of regulation, the technology is already there.

[TheSpoonald]

Missing a fair bit of relevant info here:

No I'm not

[CoccoBill]

Ahh, peace and quiet again.

Btw, I think most flights are already like 95% automated. With Airbus, all the pilots really do is taxi and take-off, once it's off the ground it's all autopilot until it's landed, and to my understanding it isn't even possible to fully disengage the autopilot. Boeings under most circumstances fly and land on auto also, but they can also be operated manually.

It's all about public perception and fear. Everyone knows that a Tesla had a fatal accident. A robot killed a man and there was nothing he could do. That sounds scary, until you realize human drivers were responsible for 100 deaths in the US alone on that same day, just like every day. Still that one death lives vividly in our memories, because it was something that hasn't happened before. Human drivers dying in traffic is mundane.

I predict human drivers will be illegal in most countries and most roads in no more than 20 years. It'll of course be gradual, like much higher premiums to human drivers due to massively higher chance of accidents. The lorry drivers will disappear first, with AI only lanes for heavy vehicles going neatly in a line at a steady pace, with the cars talking to themselves telling each other what they're gonna do next. The risky period is when there are humans and autonomous cars mixed, so it might be shorter than expected. When the data starts coming in that autonomous cars have like 99% less accidents, things can start to change quickly.

[Poopadoop]

Some people find meaning in life from their work, their family, or from helping others.

Other people find meaning in life from going on internet forums where they're not welcome, and reminding everyone why they're not welcome.

[Poopadoop]

lol what a fucking loser.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ongie posted this in the "please ban me" thread, and it's pure gold.
Wanted to share it in a thread that's not deleted.

[OngBonga]

I think rilla posted it somewhere in a ww game or something.

[Jack Sawyer]

Oh, what did I miss?

[Poopadoop]

Oh, what did I miss?

banana showed up with a cleverly disguised new SN, rage-posted for a couple of hours, demanded an apology for being banned, then rage-posted some more, then got banned again.

iow, not much.

[OngBonga]

He also created another account but I banned him before he could post. I hope he had gone to the trouble of creating a post, only to be denied when he hit submit. That would be the optimal result.

He'll be back. His spoon account is only temp banned, that ban expires in a couple of days. That's if he can wait that long to wish AIDS on us all.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol.

I've got him on hair trigger at this point. That's 2 times that he's broken the rules enough to get banned, then flaunted an absolute lack of respect for the rules with an alt account.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... you cant. You can't fool me again.

[Poopadoop]

The best part is how he keeps acting like he's only getting banned because you guys are being unreasonable, what with your repeated warnings and nearly unlimited patience and the like.

[OngBonga]

I only ban the accounts that have "ban me" names. Like the one I just banned.

He changed IP address, oskar.

[Jack Sawyer]

¯\_ (ツ) _/¯


Banana, you really have problems. Get your shit checked out.

[Jack Sawyer]

Almost 24 hours without even a whisper.

You cunts miss me yet?

Not really, no. Get your shit checked out. You seem to have loose screws which do not allow you to think right.

I have lobbied for you to get your old account back. All you have to do is not be an asshole for some time. But this very easy task seems to be an impossibility for you.

[Poopadoop]

Jack, it is unreasonable to lay out reason to an unreaonalbe person.

[Jack Sawyer]

Jack, it is unreasonable to lay out reason to an unreaonalbe person.

One can try, but it's an uphill climb. The hill looks like a tangent graph tho

[Jack Sawyer]

Thoughts?

[oskar]

[Poopadoop]

The sad thing is it's hard to tell if that sign is serious or sarcastic.

[oskar]

You have not been paying attention: the second amendment actually saves lives. The more guns the more lives saved. It's simple meths. Get educated!

[oskar]

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...npersoning_us/

I need everyone who ever told me that I am wrong to say that these people are all and without exception fucking retarded, to apologize to me personally pronto.

[Poopadoop]

You have not been paying attention: the second amendment actually saves lives. The more guns the more lives saved. It's simple meths. Get educated!

Damn I need to start reading up on this stuff. I thought it was thoughts and prayers that saved lives.

[OngBonga]

Thoughts?

It's not how gun control works. I don't think people who are "gun sober" are banned, are they? Are there places in America where owning a gun is compulsory? No? So it's not like telling drivers they have to be drunk to drive, is it?

[OngBonga]

I do just about get the point it's trying to make. But it's incoherent and ill thought out.

The pro gun people will say owning a gun potentially saves lives. That's true when the gun is in the right hands, for example, an armed cop. A car under the control of a drunk is never in the right hands though.

[Poopadoop]

I think they're saying if you enforce gun control laws, then the people who will lose their guns are normal, law-abiding citizens, and the criminals will still have guns.

But you're right it's a dumb analogy.

In the UK gun crime is very rare. So no, gun control doesn't mean the criminals all get to keep their guns.

[TheSpoonald]

The CDC estimates that defensive use of guns saves between 500K and 3M lives per year.

How many people die in mass shootings?

[TheSpoonald]

I think they're saying if you enforce gun control laws, then the people who will lose their guns are normal, law-abiding citizens, and the criminals government, will still have guns.

Fixed your post. You almost had it.

[TheSpoonald]

Lawmakers are guarded by Capitol Police officers armed with high-capacity ammunition magazines. They need them apparently because they are guarding very important people.

But YOU can't have a high-capacity ammunition magazine to protect the people you love. Because the people you love apparently aren't important enough.

Having one set of rules for the rulers, and another set of rules for the ruled is exactly why we broke away from Britain. Going back to that just because "ZOMG a kid is dead" is probably the most unamerican idea anyone has ever had.

[oskar]

Why don't studies reflect how much safer your shooty toys make you? If they save so many lives, shouldn't people with shooty shoots be less likely to die from firearm related incidents accidents and negligence? Why is it more? Do you think they need higher capacity magazines?

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...s/#fn-440373-1

Studies in the footnotes. Looks pretty well researched.

[oskar]

That's true when the gun is in the right hands, for example, an armed cop.

Hold on there, little Billy!

[TheSpoonald]

Why don't studies reflect how much safer your shooty toys make you?

This is like asking why people with swimming pools don't drown less

[TheSpoonald]

In the UK gun crime is very rare. So no, gun control doesn't mean the criminals all get to keep their guns.

Gun crime is also rare in Canada. I think you've confused correlation and causation professor.

[TheSpoonald]

Oskar, did you know that owning a chainsaw drastically increases your chances of being injured in a chainsaw related incident.

Should we outlaw chainsaws?

If not, why are guns different?

[TheSpoonald]

[oskar]

Oskar, did you know that owning a chainsaw drastically increases your chances of being injured in a chainsaw related incident.

Should we outlaw chainsaws?

If not, why are guns different?

That is literally what you said. You said up to 3 million lives are saved by guns every year. You said high capacity magazines will protect your family. You are the one claiming: more chainsaws = less chainsaw accidents.

[Poopadoop]

Gun crime is also rare in Canada. I think you've confused correlation and causation professor.

Rare relative to the US, and Canada has stricter gun control laws than the US. Not as rare as in the UK, which has the strictest laws of all three.

I think you've confused correlation and causation professor.

Fit a line to the number of gun owners/capita and incidence of gun crime in different countries Archimedes. Twist yourself in knots trying to argue it's meaningless.

Gahead, i dares ya.

[TheSpoonald]

You are the one claiming: more chainsaws = less chainsaw accidents.

No. I'm claiming more chainsaws = less trees and more guns = less crime.

It must be easy to win arguments when you get to make up what I'm saying.

[Poopadoop]

You are the one claiming: more chainsaws = less chainsaw accidents.

To be fair, I think he was saying owning a chainsaw protects you from other people with chainsaws. Or something.