Indecision 2024

[lpm]

Trump's health has nothing to do with the outcome so can be ignored.

60% chance Nothing much happens in next year - Biden wins
20% chance Trump has health crisis - Biden wins
20% chance Biden has health crisis - Trump has a chance

(Strawman probabilities added by me.)

Ignoring the second outcome turns a 20% (1:4) likelihood of Trump having a shot into a 25% (1:3) chance of Trump having a shot.

Wow your maths sucks.

[lpm]

% chance Trump has a health crisis is an irrelevant variable. Call it x%.

100%-20%-x% chance Nothing much happens in next year - Biden wins
x% chance Trump has health crisis - Biden wins
20% chance Biden has health crisis - Trump has a chance

Biden wins 100%-20%-x%+x% = 80%

[lpm]

OK, we should consider case where both Biden and Trump have a health crisis. Simultaneously on the same day for maximum comic effect from the scriptwriters.

x% chance Trump has health crisis
20% chance Biden has health crisis
x% x 20% chance both have a health crisis which we'll call a Biden win.

Trump has a chance of 20% - x% x 20%.

A high x% for obese Trump does therefore have an effect, but relatively small. If x% = 20% then Biden wins in 84% rather than 80%.

[lpm]

(the biggest health issue in the US politics/legislature appears to be Mitch McConnell right now. If he isn't in control of the more delusional GOP senators, the wheels could really fall off the public face of the GOP before the election)

It's a sad video. He's only 82, no age.

[dyqik]

Trump's health has nothing to do with the outcome so can be ignored.

60% chance Nothing much happens in next year - Biden wins
20% chance Trump has health crisis - Biden wins
20% chance Biden has health crisis - Trump has a chance

(Strawman probabilities added by me.)

Ignoring the second outcome turns a 20% (1:4) likelihood of Trump having a shot into a 25% (1:3) chance of Trump having a shot.

Wow your maths sucks.

My maths is correct.

[Stranger Mouse]

Shocking video on Vivek and a dodgy Alzheimer’s drug.

Edited to correct link https://x.com/noliewithbtc/status/16966 ... 12480?s=61

[lpm]

(Strawman probabilities added by me.)

Ignoring the second outcome turns a 20% (1:4) likelihood of Trump having a shot into a 25% (1:3) chance of Trump having a shot.

Wow your maths sucks.

My maths is correct.

Yeah sure, it's great, just don't try for a career that needs maths.

[dyqik]

Wow your maths sucks.

My maths is correct.

Yeah sure, it's great, just don't try for a career that needs maths.

Already got one, thanks.

[lpm]

Oh. Well, don't worry about it, in a couple of years ChatGPT will be able to do the maths for you.

[snoozeofreason]

Trump's health has nothing to do with the outcome so can be ignored.

60% chance Nothing much happens in next year - Biden wins
20% chance Trump has health crisis - Biden wins
20% chance Biden has health crisis - Trump has a chance

(Strawman probabilities added by me.)

Ignoring the second outcome turns a 20% (1:4) likelihood of Trump having a shot into a 25% (1:3) chance of Trump having a shot.

My strawman agrees with your strawman's conclusion but doesn't like the fact that your three probabilities add up to 100%, which makes sense only if they describe mutually exclusive events. If you keep the two 20% figures but assume they are independent but not exclusive then the probability of nothing happening (assuming you mean neither man having a problem) is 64%. If Trump getting a shot requires Biden to have a crisis but Trump not to then the probability of that outcome is 16% but would rise to 20% if you could discount the possibility of Trump having a crisis.

[lpm]

Oh. Well, don't worry about it, in a couple of years ChatGPT will be able to do the maths for you.

In the meantime you can get Snooze to do your maths.

[Stranger Mouse]

While we’re talking about maths

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... itia-james

Donald Trump allegedly inflated his net worth by as much as $2.2bn in 2014
Lawyers for Letitia James, the New York attorney general, claim the ex-president then used that blown up value for business deals

[dyqik]

Oh. Well, don't worry about it, in a couple of years ChatGPT will be able to do the maths for you.

ChatGPT is already much worse at maths than it was a couple of years ago.

[dyqik]

Trump's health has nothing to do with the outcome so can be ignored.

60% chance Nothing much happens in next year - Biden wins
20% chance Trump has health crisis - Biden wins
20% chance Biden has health crisis - Trump has a chance

(Strawman probabilities added by me.)

Ignoring the second outcome turns a 20% (1:4) likelihood of Trump having a shot into a 25% (1:3) chance of Trump having a shot.

My strawman agrees with your strawman's conclusion but doesn't like the fact that your three probabilities add up to 100%, which makes sense only if they describe mutually exclusive events. If you keep the two 20% figures but assume they are independent but not exclusive then the probability of nothing happening (assuming you mean neither man having a problem) is 64%. If Trump getting a shot requires Biden to have a crisis but Trump not to then the probability of that outcome is 16% but would rise to 20% if you could discount the possibility of Trump having a crisis.

I was describing the joint probabilities of the independent factors, not the individual probabilities, and I was only describing them to 1 significant figure - 60% neither has a health crisis, 20% only Biden has a health crisis, 20% only Trump has a health crisis. I did exclude the roughly 4% chance of both Trump and Biden having a health crisis, because the joint probability of that is lower than any reasonable estimate of the uncertainties.

One of the key things in my numerical job is to not spend effort on higher precision than is justified by the inputs or is necessary for the conclusion.

[lpm]

One of the key things in my numerical job is to not spend effort on higher precision than is justified by the inputs or is necessary for the conclusion.

Lol. "I got the maths wrong but it wasn't worth bothering about because the inputs were guesses."

[dyqik]

One of the key things in my numerical job is to not spend effort on higher precision than is justified by the inputs or is necessary for the conclusion.

Lol. "I got the maths wrong but it wasn't worth bothering about because the inputs were guesses."

Again, I didn't get the maths wrong. Please show where I got the maths wrong to 1 s.f.

[lpm]

You said ignoring Trump's health turns a 20% likelihood of Trump winning into a 25% chance of Trump winning.

The correct figures are ignoring Trump's health turns a 16% chance into a 20% chance.

It should have been instantly obvious to you that your maths had gone awry, because you gave Biden a 80% chance of not having a health crisis but only assigned a 75% chance to him winning.

[dyqik]

You said ignoring Trump's health turns a 20% likelihood of Trump winning into a 25% chance of Trump winning.

The correct figures are ignoring Trump's health turns a 16% chance into a 20% chance.

It should have been instantly obvious to you that your maths had gone awry, because you gave Biden a 80% chance of not having a health crisis but only assigned a 75% chance to him winning.

It's your maths that's wrong here.

Ignoring the 20% chance of Trump having a health crisis means that your probabilities only add up to 80%, because you've deleted that 20% chance. The remaining probabilities have to be normalized to that 80% total, because you've specified that Trump doesn't have a health crisis. 20/80 = 25%.

[Al Capone Junior]

some other arse ...

...stupidity of the Electoral College

Sums up most of the election there, except for [incidental info] Biden s running again [/incidental info]

Yes, the repugnicans have lined up a truly reprehensible batch of loudmouth, illiterate, science-denying, bible-thumping (praise JESUS!!!!!*), Mexican fearing, women and children hating, prostitute** and a meth pipe in the no-tell-motel loving, total uber-asswipes as their TOP choices for who they think will best run the country

And in standard age-of-twitter American fashion, yes, it's ok if you plotted and attempted a coup that turned violent and failed against the United States resulting in half a dozen mostly cops people killed, plus you're currently under indictment for many dozens of felonies in multiple states and also federally, most of which are related to said failed coup (amoungst various other reprehensible and utterly f.cked up and/or utterly stupid behaviors that you clearly did do bc it's all on camera and tape)... of course you can run again!

In other more hopeful news, mitch "captain misery" mcconnell freezes up again, giving every decent human left in merkinania*** hope that he's fixin' to kick the bucket****.

(You guys know we're all definitely gonna die, right,?)

* send your dollar today! Praise Jesus! Who needs fuel for his lear jet (it's a a real preaching machine! praise jesus)

**The only time it's ok to be gay

***Numbers diminishing rapidly thanks to social f.cking media and fox f.cking news

****Not to diminish his stellar record of getting richer off of being a congress-douchebag than anyone else in history (by a large margin)

[lpm]

You said ignoring Trump's health turns a 20% likelihood of Trump winning into a 25% chance of Trump winning.

The correct figures are ignoring Trump's health turns a 16% chance into a 20% chance.

It should have been instantly obvious to you that your maths had gone awry, because you gave Biden a 80% chance of not having a health crisis but only assigned a 75% chance to him winning.

It's your maths that's wrong here.

Ignoring the 20% chance of Trump having a health crisis means that your probabilities only add up to 80%, because you've deleted that 20% chance. The remaining probabilities have to be normalized to that 80% total, because you've specified that Trump doesn't have a health crisis. 20/80 = 25%.

Oh mate. No. Your maths still sucks.

You need to think back to basic maths at school. Day one of probability. Throwing a dice 100 times and what do you expect, that sort of thing.

Your error is obvious. In the numbers we have used, Biden's chance can never fall below 80%. Ignoring Trump's health does not mean Biden's odds of a health crisis will change from 20%.

You have taken 100 scenarios and said Trump has a health crisis in 20 of them. Delete those. There are now 80 scenarios. All good so far. But here you make a straightforward arithmetic error. You still give Biden 20 health crises in those 80. You get your erroneous 25%-75% as a result. Obviously you should have scaled back to 16 out of 80, keeping to 20% chance.

You even wrote down 20/80 above, without your brain immediately ringing the arithmetic error alarm bell. And you actually wrote that the remaining probabilities must be normalized to the 80, then failed to do so.

I suggest you go off and concentrate on your big boy maths, leaving the easy maths to the rest of us.

[lpm]

This detour into your maths struggles has proved my underlying point. I said I worried about Biden having a health crisis. You said Trump has just as much or worse chance of having a crisis. I said that's irrelevant. You repeated the implication both need to be considered as they are similar odds. Monkey said ignoring Trump's health was bobbins.

I was right. The outcome is determined by Biden's health risk, it is by far the most dominant variable in possible scenarios. Whether that risk is 5% or 10% or 20% is what matters in the equation.

Trump's health is an almost irrelevant variable. Change it how you like and it barely moves the dial. As you said, the 4% of cases in our numbers, the improvement in Biden's odds from 80% to 84%, is not worth considering given the guesstimates used.

Because under the status quo Biden vs Trump is an easy Biden win, we need only worry about changes to the status quo in the adverse direction, not both directions. Trump's health has almost nothing to do with the outcome so can be ignored.

[nekomatic]

I am not going to be trolled into writing this out to check who’s right. I am not.

[jimbob]

I am not going to be trolled into writing this out to check who’s right. I am not.

But it is so tempting.

My trouble is that if both remain in the same health as now, I'm not sure that Trump's chances are sufficiently low. And anything that raises them is bad.

[tenchboy]

I am not going to be trolled into writing this out to check who’s right. I am not.

"one of them is half-mad - and the other, wholly unscrupulous; but which is which?"

[dyqik]

You have taken 100 scenarios and said Trump has a health crisis in 20 of them. Delete those. There are now 80 scenarios. All good so far. But here you make a straightforward arithmetic error. You still give Biden 20 health crises in those 80. You get your erroneous 25%-75% as a result. Obviously you should have scaled back to 16 out of 80, keeping to 20% chance.

This is what's wrong with your maths, under the terms that I wrote down. I did not include a scenario where Trump and Biden both had health crises. There are three outcomes only, each with a probability of occuring. When you remove one of those outcomes, the probabilities scale in the way I did it.

As mentioned above, these are joint probabilities, and I'd already removed the outcome where Trump and Biden both have health crises (which you had also ignored).