I'm not sure you got the sign right in my comment. I don't think the 5th should protect these papers.
Wasn't the whole point of the 5th to reduce the incentive for authorities to torture people? How that means that accountants should not turn over financial papers when there is probable cause to believe they are evidence of a crime is beyond me.
Russia and the U.S. have several thousand nuclear warheads. Are you sure that the difference between the current shitty Russian behavior and war "makes little difference" ?
We think it tends more toward objectivity than other sources of opinion mainly because its web of ideas is pinned here and there by careful comparisons with observations, stiffened by some mathematical/logical connections, and repeatedly vetted by a competitive critical ethos. As to whether the results are on net good or bad, who the hell knows? Too early to tell.
We really don't know quite how things will be after 2018. And yes, the dependence on billionaires is a big part of why the leadership thought that endorsements from John Negroponte et al. were big pluses and loudly pounding on the infrastructure theme was a risky optional extra.
That's pretty vague. Do you disagree that the attempt to appeal only to suburban Republican women didn't get many votes, and lost many votes from people who were focussed on jobs? Or is it something else that seems like a lie to you? At any rate, it's certainly good to hear from someone as modest and unassuming as you, not like one of those internet smartypants.
Although for the most part HRC did very well in the debates, she had feeble replies to the "30 years in Washington" attack, which Trump then used in his un-answered closing ads. It seemed odd at the time that she didn't clearly make the point that the inadequate stimulus, the rickety structure of ACA, etc. were caused by Republican obstruction. Gradually it became apparent that not only was she trying to make the presidential election entirely about Trump's weird and repulsive character, she had decided never to risk explicitly attacking what the Republican party has been up to- Ryan and the whole crew. Things started to make sense: the bizarre early moves of repeatedly praising Kissinger during the New Hampshire primary, of publicizing lists of Republican war criminals who backed her and who almost no one had heard of except leftists who were trying to decide between her and Stein,...Everything was staked on not offending those suburban Republican crossover women, but there weren't very many of them. There were a lot or down and out workers who heard no big vision about jobs, except for the monosyllabic boasts from Trump. Because getting that message out would have offended Republicans.
In the simple dilution case, the correction just consists of a multiplicative factor. It multiplies the entire confidence interval, error bars and all. Thus it has no effect on whether 0 is included in that interval. A closely related but not quite identical fact is that it doesn't change the p-value. So what it can do is make an effect more important but not change the statistical significance. That's one of many reminders that the focus on p-values with arbitrary cutoffs is at best out of proportion to what it should be, and at worst irrational.
This video was better than typical popularizations but it might mislead naive viewers into thinking there are bigger problems with ITT than there are. The failure-to-comply in RCT's analyzed by ITT does not "bias" the causal interpretation of results, which is rigorously valid with respect to ITT. Under the strong null (no treatment effect) it creates no signal. It does dilute the estimate of the direct effect of treatment. In cases where the non-compliance is reasonably thought not to be strongly related to what the outcomes would have been (e.g. members of a control group getting PSA screening on their own) one can make a fairly good estimate of the effects of actual treatment on outcomes (e.g. death from prostate cancer) by correcting for the dilution.
Of course we're interested in all those pathways. Obviously I meant that the current studies were intended to evaluate one of them. Others can also be evaluated. Unbiased estimates of effects for each path require using the right techniques, usually not simple conditional probabilities. My comment was technical, not political.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
mbweissman 
Production