Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

NAU80 t1_j9wzayf wrote

They should compare murders to the amount of money spent on the police department. Every election we here that crime is up and we need to spend more money to put more cops on the street.

We seem to do the same things over and over in the criminal justice area. We then say if we just spend more money we will solve the crime issue. Perhaps we need to rethink what we are doing and try something else?

1

arturocan t1_j9ww3sg wrote

For starters because Uruguay isn't its neighbours. Due small population everyone knows each other and you can't hide your dirty laundry effectively. Then the neighbours are swimming in rich resources with lots of possibilities to profit for being corrupt. So as result of being less resourcefull, less corrupt, and having more humble begginings with lots of struggle Uruguay developed its own identity and political culture making it a polar opposite on certaint aspects of his "brother" argentina, ending looking something like twins separated at birth.

This is skipping a lot of info but is an understandable summary.

13

Aggravating_Fox9828 t1_j9wt0er wrote

You should the fuck up. Two wrongs don't make one right. And it's not a first world problem we are talking about here, is a war were civilians are getting murdered and raped. Unless you support that kind of attrocities, you are the one who needs to shut up. Jesus Christ, what's wrong with this kind of people.

5

Centrismo t1_j9wqidh wrote

Please stop assuming Im an idiot, I know what rate means. The “home ownership rate”, As Defined By Your Source, measures the percent of homes that are owned by one of the occupants. It does not measure the percent of the population that owns a home.

Do I need to screen cap the part of your source’s notes that specifies that for you or do you genuinely not understand why those two measures are different?

1

Mushroom_Tip t1_j9wpbs5 wrote

So you know a couple people who fled Ukraine and don't want to fight and to you that is representative of the entire country?

There are plenty of Ukrainians who are just as susceptible to Russian propaganda. There are plenty who thought when Russia "liberated" their towns and villages that they would be treated kindly and respected. Until the purges.

I know someone from Donetsk who tells me about the horrors of what Russia did. Forcible conscription, disregard for local populace, etc. At least I understand that that is just simply anecdotal and in reality I can't draw an conclusion from that and say it must be most people in Donetsk must be anti-Russia. I don't know.

1

pukabi t1_j9wohh4 wrote

I am aware my opinion is not popular. And the information may be shocking to you. It’s your right to accept or deny it. You choose what to believe in. However it is not all black and white as many people see it. I don’t get info from pikabu - it is a politics free community. I do not reside in Russia. And people who fled Ukraine are friends of mine here. Im not going to lie- they don’t like Russia. But they don’t want to fight in this meaningless war either.

2

kompootor t1_j9wo9y2 wrote

Exactly. With Lightfoot's datapoints being essentially entirely measured during the Pandemic (and the known, but still poorly understood, insanity of fluctuation in certain oddly specific crime rates nationwide during the Pandemic), and that roughness of granularity, I recommend rejecting this chart as useless.

(This goes beyond the notion of evaluating one term of a mayor on 3 datapoints of a single crime metric compared to many more terms and many more datapoints of a previous mayor -- one basic problem of granularity is that each datapoint has a certain sampling bias depending on the cutoff -- you can see this yourself by recalculating the murder rate from daily statistics, but use a different year-to-year cutoff date -- that's one type of this bias. It's not a problem with more datapoints depending on the metric, but here you have only 3 for Lightfoot.)

2

IMovedYourCheese t1_j9wo9nq wrote

The problem is that it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Hindenburg shorts a company and then publishes a damaging report against them. People go "omg Hindenburg published a report, that means the company's share price could fall, so I should sell my shares before that happens". Because everyone thinks this way the share price falls by a lot, and Hindenburg makes a ton of money on their short position. Everyone then goes "wow their report was perfect". After a while they repeat this with another company with the same results.

Nothing they did was illegal, but it's still exploiting the workings of the market. It doesn't matter whether the report is correct or not, nobody is going to read it anyways. And ultimately it is opinion not fact – they say so themselves. What matters is how people react to it.

1

Mushroom_Tip t1_j9wndyo wrote

Hahahaha. Right.

Tell me which side needs a second line of soldiers to shoot retreating troops again? Which side needs Kadyrovites to scare soldiers into not retreating.

Weird how Ukraine can force people into a meat grinder against their will and yet there's no evidence of it.

Here's a tip: "Ukrainians" on Pikabu claiming they know the "real story" they don't tell on "CNN" are trolls.

2