🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@augieray

LOL Thanks for showing your toxicity, bye.

LOL

Them: "Hey lets stop talking"
me: "Ok, bye"
Them: "BLARG how dare you speak to me, BLOCKED!"

LOL cant even make this shit up with these idiots.

@Peg33 I mean, no doubt Trump was a disaster, and we knew that going in... But we dodged a bullet not having her as president, otherwise it would be WWIII right now, hell we are close enough without her making things worse.

@augieray You are welcome. Best way to end a conversation you have nothing further to add to is simply by not speaking. Comes across a little passive aggressive otherwise.

Anyway thanks for the chat.

@augieray I read it before you even posted it. I am a profession Research Scientist who worked on COVID and had some pretty big breakthroughs in my career... yes ive read it. No my point is not purely theoretical.

I am not arguing with the study authors, I am agreeing with, as I explicitly stated. I am disagreeing only with your interpritation, nothing more.

Liberals are literally just 5 year olds pretending to be adults.

@augieray

And yes the risks absolutely would "rise sharply" with distance, that is the nature of an exponent. Those ideas arent in question.

What is in question is that we underestimate this risk, or that it exceeds a linear estimation, which are not proper descriptions.

@augieray I didnt say anything about the findings or recommendations from the research. I only criticized your interpretation of it when you said "in other words...." which was wrong. The paper itself is probably fine in its own wording.

@augieray You have no basis for asserting the distance is small... what are you basing that off of?

Depending ont he exact value of the variables linear growth can exceed exponential growth at any arbitrary point. It is just as possible exponential curve doesnt win out until the last 1 mm of distance.

The point is you can not say it overestimates or underestimates... All you can say is it incorrectly estimates., far away in overestimates the risk, but at some point arbitrarily close it will begin to underestimate the risk.

@augieray

> I don't know what tool you're using, but I think it's wrong.

No its correct, feel free to check.

> The blue bar shows ZERO growth until 0.5, which is not correct for something with exponential growth

No it doesnt. Just looks that way because of the resolution of the graph. The expopnential growth is monotonically increasing, that is to say, it is increasing at every point.

What is true is exponential growth is **very**slow at first, slower than linear, and only accelerates later. What you see here is the exact correct behavior of those plots.

> Growth means growth--both arithmetic and exponential growth patterns will show growth at every increment. There is no ZERO growth increment for something with exponential growth.

Yes and that is exactly whats happening in this graph, nowhere is there zero growth. You are confusing very slow growth with zero growth, not the same. Again plot it yourself youll get the same result.

@LaNaehForaday

> And then you also realize that every single immigrant at our border IS SEEKING ASYLUM right?

Irrelevant how many want asylum. In order to be an asylum seeker you must apply. You **are** allowed to enter illegal to apply, so you arent illegal the moment you enter. But once you've been here for some time without applying for asylum you are no longer an asylum seeker, you are just an illegal immigrant at that point.

So again, I have no problem with them entering and seeking assylum with the government after entering, that is perefectly legal. But those who never register absolutely should either be deported, or at least forced through the process to determine if they.

And no, not everyone entering the border is an asylum seeker. Many are im sure, you saying just because someone entered illegal they are 100% asylum seekers is absolute lunacy.

> And frankly prosecuting FUCKING HUMANS FOR WANTING A BETTER LIFE TURNS MY STOMACH

Turns mine too, Im all for giving them an appropriate legal path to help.

Many years ago I made a conscious decision to stop correcting typos and spelling mistakes in my casual semi-real-time communication. Basically chats, messaging, and social media. It was a conscious effort I made after years of being pedantic about my spelling.

Because I can type very fast correcting my spelling before sending would usually mean x3 the amount of time wasted on messaging. In fact I was so weird about it people would remark when id correct myself after the fact how they knew what iw as saying so it wasnt needed.

Since I made the choice I realize this was the smartest thing I could have done for one reason I didnt expect. I mean sure it saves me time in casual communications where formality isnt important. But it also filters out a very certain type of people, the kind who assume typos determine the value of your message. Like there are actually people who will say "he had typos/misspellings, therefore he must be the one is wrong"... its astounding but its common. I realized eliminating these people from my feed has left a much better quality crowd who are much more productive and enjoyable to interact with.

@LaNaehForaday

Absolutely.. I didnt say asylum seekers, I said illegal immigrants. A person seeking asylum, assuming they went to the office and registered for it after they enter, is NOT illegal and thus not part of the group I mentioned.

Most countries will five asylum seekers due process, but will aggressively pursue illegal immigrants. The USA doesnt even come close to prosecuting illegal immigrants to the same extent as Europe, not even close. We arent talking asylum seekers in that statement,.

@augieray The interpritation here isnt a great one.

The wording is proper to say that we expect arithmetic growth but get exponential. But it is incorrect when the section starts with "in other words"... We do not **underestimate** the risk in approach, we misunderstand the growthrate of approach. This isnt the same because a linear growth can exceed an exponential growth during the relevant range of the function.

I attached an image as an example. Here I picked an agressive exponent to show the effect more clearly, the plot is of x vs x^5. Notice how during most of the graph the linear one actually significantly exceeds the exponential. This is my point, seeing linear growth will actually "overestimate" the danger of covid as you close distance not underestimate it, at least at first.

@ned

I think he means well. But my god that hill he died on... a first year student would know better. It really went far to discredit them with me as well. Especially when he doubled down after being explained.

@mcnado

@mcnado

Agreed here as well.

@AmpBenzScientist

@mcnado

I agree wi5h your statements about death being accurate compared tonusual practices.

The assumption about excess death rate is a bit of a leap, we may find many other secondary effects that arent covid are at play to explain the difference.

@AmpBenzScientist

@dramypsyd

Yea I dont know what the conditions are, if any. But if there are then shame on Biden for putting barriers between kids. If there were none then shame on your governor for rejecting it with no reason.