Do you have a specific rebuke for something I said where you can logically point out where I’m wrong or are you just hand-waving?

How would I know if it is or isn’t different today based on your comment? How am I supposed to answer that question? By asking that, you are asserting that it is different today. Yet you have given no numbers for what it is today for the same countries on that image.

You know that, and you are trying to sidestep me now while accusing me of sidestepping. Why is that? You said in the beginning of your comment:

Americans couldn’t find Iraq and Afghanistan on maps during those wars despite the latter lasting 20 Years and Americans being involved in them.

You are saying here that those wars lasted a long time, and one lasted 20 years, and despite that, Americans couldn’t find those countries on maps during those wars. But the data is from the beginning of that time period. So after 20 years yes obviously the numbers would change. But that data doesn’t say that. That data is the starting point. A lazy reader might very easily think that data supported your point. Same as your previous comment I took issue with.

Like I said: “I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be”

But also, you’re doing it again. You’re saying “despite the latter [Afghanistan] lasting 20 years,” but dude you linked images from 2006. It hadn’t been 20 years yet. In fact, that data is from nearly 20 years ago!

That is, again, extremely misleading data to support the argument you’re making.

Right there with you on that

Do you really think Ukraine being featured prominently in American news, pop culture, political discourse, and zeitgeist in general for the past two and a half years hasn’t affected those numbers? You would not have used Ukraine in this example had it not been for the current conflict. To use numbers from ten years ago is a deliberate misrepresentation of reality.

What do you think being offended means, dude? Because this person you’re replying to is not offended. You ignoring the content of the comments and just hammering on really sounds like you’re offended, though. Because that’s what being offended sounds like.

That article is from ten years ago. I’d suspect the numbers would still be worse than they should be, but Ukraine has become a much bigger situation since then which is why you’re using it in this example, so this is not an accurate picture you’re painting.

It’s even worse on Threads, believe it or not.

X sucks, but Threads is even worse. 99% of everything I have ever seen on Threads is pure distilled engagement bait, and half the time expanding replies gets stuck loading. I wish I were exaggerating, but I’m not.

Right, yeah, they’re evil and they’ve had unfettered power to enact popular policy that would work in their favor for decades but haven’t done any of it yet because we’re dumb sheeple who actually understand how the U.S. political system works

And when your analytics shows that adopting those policies will lose you more voters than you’d gain from the likely third party vote, what then?

No, it’s because you can’t get anything done in the American federal government without clear majority support from at least both houses of congress, just by the nature of how the government works and the current partisan climate. Democrats cannot pass progressive legislation without that support. Republicans are consistently successful in their goals because their goals do not require passing legislation; they require blocking it.

It doesn’t progress your argument. You do not come across as the one arguing in good faith here, just so you know. You should think about why, if you are.

Look at all the graphs for the other races linked on that page. They all follow the same curve. Homeownership across the board followed that curve, not just for black Americans. You have an obvious agenda.

Keep up the good work

That’s great. The history communities on the other site were such great quality on average and I miss them. How do you have time to do all that?

Oh shit you mean like AskHistorians? Is there enough density now for that?

Personally, I’ve found that LLMs are best as discussion partners, to put it in the broadest terms possible. They do well for things you would use a human discussion partner for IRL.

• “I’ve written this thing. Criticize it as if you were the recipient/judge of that thing. How could it be improved?” (Then address its criticisms in your thing… it’s surprisingly good at revealing ways to make your “thing” better, in my experience)
• “I have this personal problem.” (Tell it to keep responses short. Have a natural conversation with it. This is best done spoken out loud if you are using ChatGPT; prevents you from overthinking responses, and forces you to keep the conversation moving. Takes fifteen minutes or more but you will end up with some good advice related to your situation nearly every time. I’ve used this to work out several things internally much better than just thinking on my own. A therapist would be better, but this is surprisingly good.)
• I’ve also had it be useful for various reasons to tell it to play a character as I describe, and then speak to the character in a pretend scenario to work out something related. Use your imagination for how this might be helpful to you. In this case, tell it to not ask you so many questions, and to only ask questions when the character would truly want to ask a question. Helps keep it more normal; otherwise (in the case of ChatGPT which I’m most familiar with) it will always end every response with a question. Often that’s useful, like in the previous example, but in this case it is not.
• etc.

For anything but criticism of something written, I find that the “spoken conversation” features are most useful. I use it a lot in the car during my commute.

For what it’s worth, in case this makes it sound like I’m a writer and my examples are only writing-related, I’m actually not a writer. I’m a software engineer. The first example can apply to writing an application or a proposal or whatever. Second is basically just therapy. Third is more abstract, and often about indirect self-improvement. There are plenty more things that are good for discussion partners, though. I’m sure anyone reading can come up with a few themselves.

May I ask how you’ve used LLMs so far? Because I hear that type of complaint from a lot of people who have tried to use them mainly to get answers to things, or maybe more broadly to replace their search engine, which is not what they’re best suited for, in my opinion.

Put simply, some states get more electors than other states to account for greater population, and each state decides how their electors are supposed to vote according to their statewide popular vote. Most states apply all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote in their state, while some apply them proportionally. Most do the former (“winner takes all”).

This leads to a discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral vote, and it’s mathematically biased against states with higher populations. So, votes in the more populous states (which tend to vote Democrat) are worth “less” in the electoral college than those in less populous states, leading to Democrats winning the popular vote yet losing the actual election… which has happened in every election they’ve lost since Bush v. Gore, if I’m not mistaken. I’ll double check that and edit if I’m wrong.

Edit: Sorry, it did not happen for Bush v. Kerry, Bush won the popular vote in that one by less than 1%. However, in the other two (Bush v. Gore and Trump v. Clinton) the popular votes were actually won handily by Gore and Clinton, not by Bush or Trump.

Edit 2: This is also notably NOT made worse by gerrymandering, because the number of electors you get is equal to the combined number of senators and congressmen your state gets. Since all states apply their electors based on the popular vote result, it doesn’t matter what party alignments your congresspeople have, so gerrymandering plays no role here.

The mathematical bias comes from the fact that every state gets two senators no matter what the population is, and only your congressperson count is proportional to population, but both count toward your number of electors. So, less populous states have proportionally somewhat more “electors per capita” than states with higher populations.