Impeachment #2 Thread

51,459 Views | 540 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by BearForce2
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

Too bad guys like Ben Johnson aren't around anymore. The Capitol Police could have used him.




It's actually pretty amazing that there wasn't a group of officers who didn't just flat out unload.
Seriously!
There probably should have been hundreds dead.

I suppose Trump would have wanted that. Ultimate victimhood.

The cops there that day are to be majorly commended.
On the one hand it looks like poor policing.
On the other hand, it turned out about as 100% perfect as possible.

I read somewhere (can't find the source right now) that they were told not to shoot.






Based on the Capitol Insurrection, they should pass a Shoot to Kill statute for next time.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proud Boys Member Says Trump to Blame for Inciting Capitol Riot


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-10/proud-boy-tells-court-trump-to-blame-for-inciting-capitol-riot
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

The difference would be he can do the same thing but he won't be President. So the existing administration can control it better. Trump could be arrested for inciting a riot and he wont be able to pardon anyone.


Wonder if the talk of creating a new party of center right would come to fruition. That would be a boon for the Democrats but it would also mean that Trump won't even come close next time if he runs.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

dajo9 said:

About 8 years afterwards, the Republican nominee for President was inside the Capitol building running for his life from a Republican mob. But let's talk more about the Democratic far left.
I flipped over to FoxNews just prior to the beginning of today's session to see what they were saying, and Faulkner was doing a segment about the loss of jobs due to Biden being pressured to cancel the Pipeline.

Pathetic.

Taken on it's own, cancelling that pipeline will curb environmental degradation and push the world toward greener energy solutions. It's fair that Fox and I will take differing opinions. Clearly, though, they are trying to avoid this impeachment as much as possible. I hate Foxnews.
One thing that came to mind as I was reading a recent book by a Harvard professor on use of AI in competing in different industries was that these media pundits and politicians can so easily be taken over by AI. If Ant and Amazon can use AI to recognize patters to have AI create better output, then we can use AI to recognize patterns on someone like Hannity and Gaetz and just generate output based on input of new data.

When was the last time any of these guys said something that deviated from patterns? It could be even be a really weak AI with college student create algorithm to create better and faster content. In fact, we can even use weaker AI to replace some of the posters whom you know what they are going post even before they do. All the time that we can save.
You are assuming that they aren't already using AI to create their opinions and these people aren't just the human conduit for that message. I'm not saying they are, but technologically it is easy to do.

Most people do not understand how much of our lives are spent under the influence of those trying to psychologically manipulate our decisions and opinions. There are so many instinctive behaviors that scientists have known about for decades, that advertising perfected taking advantage of, and now social media has increased exponentially. Things like fear of loss dramatically outweighs appreciation of gain. If you tell someone they will lose $100 by using inefficient light bulbs, it is dramatically more effective than telling them they will save $100 by using efficient ones, for instance. They layer messages so that their first messages don't even seem to have an aim - but the aim is attaching an emotion to something so the later message can trigger the emotional response.

A simple trip to the supermarket is a barrage of psychological tactics. They want you to buy produce first because if you do, you will feel healthy and feel like you deserve the impulse junk food buy. They put the most frequent purchases, like dairy in the hardest place to get to so that you have to walk through the store passing all the advertising and other products. They put obviously stupid items to purchase at the front of the store so you will walk passed them and subconsciously think "aren't I smart I didn't buy that?" and then buy the next thing. They arrange products intentionally illogically through the store to increase the time you spend searching to both expose you to more product and to just tire you out to break down your decision making. They intentionally set things up to create decision fatigue. The music is specifically chosen to slow you down and increase the time you are in the store.

That is one act of grocery shopping. Imagine the same people on your social media feeds? They know exactly how to manipulate populations and they have all the data they need to specifically tailor messages to individuals and to identify which individuals are prone to manipulation.

On the political side, presidential campaigns have evolved these tactics. Bush II waded in ankle deep on determining what messages to sell populations. The Obama campaign dove into the deep end, assigning number codes to individuals to tailor the right messages to each individual. The Trump campaign went further, moving from identifying the right messaging for the right people to actually creating the belief in people who did not have them before, so they could then manipulate those beliefs.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The interesting aspect is that the mass network data generated from so many different interactions (even here - collecting data from the type of responses and post - which even to a human eyes show clear pattern - most of us know what some of the posters are going to post before they post - to which videos and articles those same people view) will make target messaging to get the greatest cult following that much easier in the future. Trump just got lucky because he is a good con man who knew how to message to lowly educated (race and immigration and false promises of reincarnating dead segments of the economy) as well as certain greedy wealthy people (individual income tax cuts and pushing for monetary policies on steroids) and white evangelicals (conservative justices). Someone smarter could do a lot worse to our country with data analytics.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Trevor Noah: 'Nobody expected that Trump's lawyers would be so terrible'


https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/feb/11/trevor-noah-trump-impeachment-lawyers-daily-show-recap?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

The interesting aspect is that the mass network data generated from so many different interactions (even here - collecting data from the type of responses and post - which even to a human eyes show clear pattern - most of us know what some of the posters are going to post before they post - to which videos and articles those same people view) will make target messaging to get the greatest cult following that much easier in the future. Trump just got lucky because he is a good con man who knew how to message to lowly educated (race and immigration and false promises of reincarnating dead segments of the economy) as well as certain greedy wealthy people (individual income tax cuts and pushing for monetary policies on steroids) and white evangelicals (conservative justices). Someone smarter could do a lot worse to our country with data analytics.
I knew you were going to say that. (just kidding)

One disagreement. Trump didn't just get lucky to have a natural instinct to know how to message. The Trump campaign absolutely used all the technology we are discussing. He is a good con man, yes. That may be why people within the campaign selected him to work for. But they flat out used advanced analytics to identify the people that could be made susceptible to certain messages and to tailor those messages directly to those individuals. In fact that was not only what they used analytics for. There was another branch of what they used analytics for. And I think it is what won it for him in 2016 and why he lost in 2020. They used advanced analytics to target messages at democrats and liberals to get them so frustrated with Clinton that they would stay home, and that included attacking her from the left. In fact it mostly included that. (I call this the "Ha Ha! Yogi is an effing moron!" strategy). It absolutely did suppress the democratic vote in 2016, especially when people thought she was going to win easily so they thought they could get what they wanted without having to hold their noses and participate. I think it didn't work in 2020 because Trump was so odious that there was nothing that could be done to Biden to suppress his vote among democrats and liberals. Even if they didn't like Biden, they hated Trump so much it just didn't matter. The only thing they did succeed in on the suppression side was convincing Cubans and Latinx who came from Marxist countries that Biden was a socialist, but that was more of your standard type of messaging that has been used for decades. Didn't need analytics for that.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HERE ARE MY RANKINGS:

The impeachment managers, selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

EXCELLENT:
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland will serve as the lead impeachment manager. He is a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform where he also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He previously served in the Maryland State Senate and taught constitutional law at American University's Washington College of Law for more than a quarter century. Raskin also co-wrote the single article of impeachment against Trump.

Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island serves on the Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees, and is chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. Now in his sixth term, Cicilline was previously a two-term mayor of Providence, his state's capital, and a public defender in the District of Columbia.

VERY GOOD:
Rep. Ted Lieu of California is also a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees and is a former active-duty officer in the U.S. Air Force, where he served as a prosecutor in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He is currently a colonel in the Reserves. The fourth-term congressman also is whip of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and a vice-chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. Lieu is reported to have raised the issue of impeaching Trump as the insurrection was still taking place.

Del. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands sits on the House Ways and Means, Budget and Agriculture committees. The Brooklyn-born Plaskett was a prosecutor in the Bronx District Attorney's office and served as senior counsel at the U.S. Justice Department. As a non-voting delegate to the House, Plaskett could not vote to impeach Trump, but told The Associated Press that her role as an impeachment manager will resonate for residents of American territories. She is also was a former student of lead impeachment manager Raskin.

ACCEPTABLE:
Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado has served in the House since 1997. She is a member of the Natural Resources Committee as well as the Energy and Commerce Committee. On the latter, she serves as the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Previously DeGette served in the Colorado State House and was a civil rights attorney.

Rep. Eric Swalwell of California is a member of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees and is chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Modernization and Readiness. He is also an outspoken critic of Trump. Swalwell ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination last cycle. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Maryland and formerly served as a prosecutor in California's Alameda County District Attorney's office. (I noticed on Facebook that a high school friend and former co-youth soccer coach friend of mine, who is also a member of this unit, has a public photo with him. I'll have to ask next time I see him.)

Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado is in his second term and serves on the Natural Resources, Climate Crisis and Judiciary committees. He is also the first African American to be elected to Congress from Colorado. Prior to serving in Congress, Neguse was appointed by former Gov. John Hickenlooper to his Cabinet as executive director of Colorado's consumer protection agency. At 36, he is the youngest member of the House impeachment manager team.

NOT SO GOOD
Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas is in his fifth term in Congress and serves on the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Education and Labor committees. Prior to serving in Congress Castro served five terms in the Texas legislature. The San Antonio Democrat is a second- generation Mexican American who studied at Stanford University and earned his law degree from Harvard Law School. His identical twin brother, Julin Castro, is a former Democratic presidential candidate and previously served as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Obama administration.

NO GRADE:
Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania is in her second term in Congress and serves on the Judiciary Committee. Prior to that she served in the Pennsylvania legislature and before that was an attorney in private practice. She also is from the same Pennsylvania county as Bruce Castor, a member of Trump's defense team. Prior to her career in public service, Dean spent a decade teaching in the English Department at LaSalle University in Philadelphia, according to her congressional biography.



.... For me, Swalwell has eliminated himself for consideration for future Presidential runs. Listening to Raskin vs Swalwell is too big a gulf. We can do better than Swalwell, just based on these hearings this trial.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

dimitrig said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

Too bad guys like Ben Johnson aren't around anymore. The Capitol Police could have used him.




It's actually pretty amazing that there wasn't a group of officers who didn't just flat out unload.
Seriously!
There probably should have been hundreds dead.

I suppose Trump would have wanted that. Ultimate victimhood.

The cops there that day are to be majorly commended.
On the one hand it looks like poor policing.
On the other hand, it turned out about as 100% perfect as possible.

I read somewhere (can't find the source right now) that they were told not to shoot.






Based on the Capitol Insurrection, they should pass a Shoot to Kill statute for next time.
Yeah, no.
I think it's wonderful that they didn't unload. That would have made this all the more of a firecracker issue. It's rare, I don't think it'll happen again, and I'm basically against guns and violence.

Had they unloaded on this group, I think it's quite possible that a bunch of concealed guns would have turned it into a shootout that would have been extremely uglier for the USA than what we actually had.

I think there are other steps that can be taken. For instance, any time there is a permit for a march or a public gathering on the mall, we can have certain barriers and troops put in place. Push past those barriers, and then YES, shoot. But those like metal rails was not enough.





HOOK THEM UP TO FIRE HYDRANTS
LINK THEM WITH STRONGER TEMPORARY FENCING
DO SOMETHING TO SLOW THE PEOPLE DOWN and let them know it's serious.

The police officers standing face to face with rioters, which vastly outnumbered, made it too encouraging to hooligans.

Draw a circle around certain buildings.
DC is going to end up becoming a lock-down city center at some point soon.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

concordtom said:


I hate Foxnews.
One thing that came to mind as I was reading a recent book by a Harvard professor on use of AI in competing in different industries was that these media pundits and politicians can so easily be taken over by AI. If Ant and Amazon can use AI to recognize patters to have AI create better output, then we can use AI to recognize patterns on someone like Hannity and Gaetz and just generate output based on input of new data.

When was the last time any of these guys said something that deviated from patterns? It could be even be a really weak AI with college student create algorithm to create better and faster content. In fact, we can even use weaker AI to replace some of the posters whom you know what they are going post even before they do. All the time that we can save.
So, you're saying, future politicians will not go to law school, philosophy school, history school, ethics school, debate school. Instead they will go to programming school to simply have the computer tell them what to say in order to get the mass population to support them. It'd be like 1970's basketball or baseball players having the advantage of modern analytics. When to take the pitch, when to switch at a curve ball, when to post up, when to fast break or shoot the 3. Which combination of players, etc....

Yeah, that's scary. Ethics replaced with lemmingism.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

HERE ARE MY RANKINGS:

The impeachment managers, selected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

EXCELLENT:
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland will serve as the lead impeachment manager. He is a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform where he also serves as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He previously served in the Maryland State Senate and taught constitutional law at American University's Washington College of Law for more than a quarter century. Raskin also co-wrote the single article of impeachment against Trump.

Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island serves on the Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees, and is chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. Now in his sixth term, Cicilline was previously a two-term mayor of Providence, his state's capital, and a public defender in the District of Columbia.

VERY GOOD:
Rep. Ted Lieu of California is also a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees and is a former active-duty officer in the U.S. Air Force, where he served as a prosecutor in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He is currently a colonel in the Reserves. The fourth-term congressman also is whip of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and a vice-chair of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. Lieu is reported to have raised the issue of impeaching Trump as the insurrection was still taking place.

Del. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands sits on the House Ways and Means, Budget and Agriculture committees. The Brooklyn-born Plaskett was a prosecutor in the Bronx District Attorney's office and served as senior counsel at the U.S. Justice Department. As a non-voting delegate to the House, Plaskett could not vote to impeach Trump, but told The Associated Press that her role as an impeachment manager will resonate for residents of American territories. She is also was a former student of lead impeachment manager Raskin.

ACCEPTABLE:
Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado has served in the House since 1997. She is a member of the Natural Resources Committee as well as the Energy and Commerce Committee. On the latter, she serves as the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Previously DeGette served in the Colorado State House and was a civil rights attorney.

Rep. Eric Swalwell of California is a member of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees and is chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Modernization and Readiness. He is also an outspoken critic of Trump. Swalwell ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination last cycle. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Maryland and formerly served as a prosecutor in California's Alameda County District Attorney's office. (I noticed on Facebook that a high school friend and former co-youth soccer coach friend of mine, who is also a member of this unit, has a public photo with him. I'll have to ask next time I see him.)

Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado is in his second term and serves on the Natural Resources, Climate Crisis and Judiciary committees. He is also the first African American to be elected to Congress from Colorado. Prior to serving in Congress, Neguse was appointed by former Gov. John Hickenlooper to his Cabinet as executive director of Colorado's consumer protection agency. At 36, he is the youngest member of the House impeachment manager team.

NOT SO GOOD
Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas is in his fifth term in Congress and serves on the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Education and Labor committees. Prior to serving in Congress Castro served five terms in the Texas legislature. The San Antonio Democrat is a second- generation Mexican American who studied at Stanford University and earned his law degree from Harvard Law School. His identical twin brother, Julin Castro, is a former Democratic presidential candidate and previously served as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Obama administration.

NO GRADE:
Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania is in her second term in Congress and serves on the Judiciary Committee. Prior to that she served in the Pennsylvania legislature and before that was an attorney in private practice. She also is from the same Pennsylvania county as Bruce Castor, a member of Trump's defense team. Prior to her career in public service, Dean spent a decade teaching in the English Department at LaSalle University in Philadelphia, according to her congressional biography.



.... For me, Swalwell has eliminated himself for consideration for future Presidential runs. Listening to Raskin vs Swalwell is too big a gulf. We can do better than Swalwell, just based on these hearings this trial.

Listening to Raskin just reinforces how important being authentic is for everyone. People can tell so easily who is authentic and who is not. Just being who you are without trying to be clever or fit into some idea of what you think will impress people. Raskin is so powerful as a speaker and an advocate because you can tell he means what he says. No bull**** and no empty bag, just being himself expressing his true beliefs concisely without ego but with vulnerability and empathy. My esteem has skyrocketed for Raskin.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:


I hate Foxnews.
One thing that came to mind as I was reading a recent book by a Harvard professor on use of AI in competing in different industries was that these media pundits and politicians can so easily be taken over by AI. If Ant and Amazon can use AI to recognize patters to have AI create better output, then we can use AI to recognize patterns on someone like Hannity and Gaetz and just generate output based on input of new data.

When was the last time any of these guys said something that deviated from patterns? It could be even be a really weak AI with college student create algorithm to create better and faster content. In fact, we can even use weaker AI to replace some of the posters whom you know what they are going post even before they do. All the time that we can save.
So, you're saying, future politicians will not go to law school, philosophy school, history school, ethics school, debate school. Instead they will go to programming school to simply have the computer tell them what to say in order to get the mass population to support them. It'd be like 1970's basketball or baseball players having the advantage of modern analytics. When to take the pitch, when to switch at a curve ball, when to post up, when to fast break or shoot the 3. Which combination of players, etc....

Yeah, that's scary. Ethics replaced with lemmingism.
Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This trial is so damning, if I ever hear anyone say "Well, Trump wasn't so bad - I liked his policies", my respect for them will just drop again another 5 floors down.

I feel sorry for those partisan people on this board who will go to their cocktail parties and say exactly that. Maybe the person they are talking to feels like me.


Anyone who can't figure this out is a fool.
It's been 5 years.

FIRE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO VOTES FOR ACQUITTAL.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

The interesting aspect is that the mass network data generated from so many different interactions (even here - collecting data from the type of responses and post - which even to a human eyes show clear pattern - most of us know what some of the posters are going to post before they post - to which videos and articles those same people view) will make target messaging to get the greatest cult following that much easier in the future. Trump just got lucky because he is a good con man who knew how to message to lowly educated (race and immigration and false promises of reincarnating dead segments of the economy) as well as certain greedy wealthy people (individual income tax cuts and pushing for monetary policies on steroids) and white evangelicals (conservative justices). Someone smarter could do a lot worse to our country with data analytics.
I knew you were going to say that. (just kidding)

One disagreement. Trump didn't just get lucky to have a natural instinct to know how to message. The Trump campaign absolutely used all the technology we are discussing. He is a good con man, yes. That may be why people within the campaign selected him to work for. But they flat out used advanced analytics to identify the people that could be made susceptible to certain messages and to tailor those messages directly to those individuals. In fact that was not only what they used analytics for. There was another branch of what they used analytics for. And I think it is what won it for him in 2016 and why he lost in 2020. They used advanced analytics to target messages at democrats and liberals to get them so frustrated with Clinton that they would stay home, and that included attacking her from the left. In fact it mostly included that. (I call this the "Ha Ha! Yogi is an effing moron!" strategy). It absolutely did suppress the democratic vote in 2016, especially when people thought she was going to win easily so they thought they could get what they wanted without having to hold their noses and participate. I think it didn't work in 2020 because Trump was so odious that there was nothing that could be done to Biden to suppress his vote among democrats and liberals. Even if they didn't like Biden, they hated Trump so much it just didn't matter. The only thing they did succeed in on the suppression side was convincing Cubans and Latinx who came from Marxist countries that Biden was a socialist, but that was more of your standard type of messaging that has been used for decades. Didn't need analytics for that.
Maybe I just assumed that they were idiots because they just come across as idiot. There is that flawed human assumption again.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tomorrow should be filled with more fun as the clown show lawyers re-take the stage.
I expect a lot of Twitter action.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?

Exactly, but on steroids since our ability to do predictive analysis, data analytics, creating strong AI through complex algorithms are so much more advanced. What it took Amazon 20 years to get in annual revenue, they multiplied that by 4 times in five years with greater profit margin using more advanced AI and data analytics. There is nothing that AI and data analytics cannot enhance and accelerate, including targeted messaging to each demographics.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Tomorrow should be filled with more fun as the clown show lawyers re-take the stage.
I expect a lot of Twitter action.
You get what you pay for.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

bearister said:

dimitrig said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

Too bad guys like Ben Johnson aren't around anymore. The Capitol Police could have used him.




It's actually pretty amazing that there wasn't a group of officers who didn't just flat out unload.
Seriously!
There probably should have been hundreds dead.

I suppose Trump would have wanted that. Ultimate victimhood.

The cops there that day are to be majorly commended.
On the one hand it looks like poor policing.
On the other hand, it turned out about as 100% perfect as possible.

I read somewhere (can't find the source right now) that they were told not to shoot.






Based on the Capitol Insurrection, they should pass a Shoot to Kill statute for next time.
Yeah, no.
I think it's wonderful that they didn't unload. That would have made this all the more of a firecracker issue. It's rare, I don't think it'll happen again, and I'm basically against guns and violence.

Had they unloaded on this group, I think it's quite possible that a bunch of concealed guns would have turned it into a shootout that would have been extremely uglier for the USA than what we actually had.

I think there are other steps that can be taken. For instance, any time there is a permit for a march or a public gathering on the mall, we can have certain barriers and troops put in place. Push past those barriers, and then YES, shoot. But those like metal rails was not enough.





HOOK THEM UP TO FIRE HYDRANTS
LINK THEM WITH STRONGER TEMPORARY FENCING
DO SOMETHING TO SLOW THE PEOPLE DOWN and let them know it's serious.

The police officers standing face to face with rioters, which vastly outnumbered, made it too encouraging to hooligans.

Draw a circle around certain buildings.
DC is going to end up becoming a lock-down city center at some point soon.
I am not for shooting. The main thing is that it was a huge security failing all around. Security should have been adequate to keep them from getting anywhere near the building. They should have had enough man power and if it still came to it, the tear gas and rubber bullets should have been flying everywhere before they were within 100 yards. Had that all happened, injuries would have been minimal.

Further, the House and Senate should have been evacuated earlier. As soon as it was clear there was a risk the Capitol would be breached, they should have been evacuated. And that was clear for quite some time before it happened.

We should never be faced with this situation again. That being said, with the failings in security allowing them to get to the doors, and the failure to evacuate the lawmakers to safety sooner, the first person that went through those doors should have been shot. If it were just protecting a building, no. With our government leaders in there and a mob there to attack them, at that point their safety is paramount. You use whatever force necessary to save them until they have reached safety. The doors where the woman was shot were going to be breached by the whole crowd in about 5 to 10 seconds had he not fired. I think he made the right decision. If a law maker was killed that day the overwhelming question would have been why the Capitol was taken with no shots fired to defend it.

The way you avoid the shooting is with the proper security measures in the first place. Or not having a President incite a riot.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

Tomorrow should be filled with more fun as the clown show lawyers re-take the stage.
I expect a lot of Twitter action.
You get what you pay for.
Or you get what you promise to pay for but reneg after you got it.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

Tomorrow should be filled with more fun as the clown show lawyers re-take the stage.
I expect a lot of Twitter action.
You get what you pay for.
Or you get what you promise to pay for but reneg after you got it.
Or you get only the type of lawyer who will accept a difficult client who will damage your reputation and potentially pay none but definitely not pay all of the time billed.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

The interesting aspect is that the mass network data generated from so many different interactions (even here - collecting data from the type of responses and post - which even to a human eyes show clear pattern - most of us know what some of the posters are going to post before they post - to which videos and articles those same people view) will make target messaging to get the greatest cult following that much easier in the future. Trump just got lucky because he is a good con man who knew how to message to lowly educated (race and immigration and false promises of reincarnating dead segments of the economy) as well as certain greedy wealthy people (individual income tax cuts and pushing for monetary policies on steroids) and white evangelicals (conservative justices). Someone smarter could do a lot worse to our country with data analytics.
I knew you were going to say that. (just kidding)

One disagreement. Trump didn't just get lucky to have a natural instinct to know how to message. The Trump campaign absolutely used all the technology we are discussing. He is a good con man, yes. That may be why people within the campaign selected him to work for. But they flat out used advanced analytics to identify the people that could be made susceptible to certain messages and to tailor those messages directly to those individuals. In fact that was not only what they used analytics for. There was another branch of what they used analytics for. And I think it is what won it for him in 2016 and why he lost in 2020. They used advanced analytics to target messages at democrats and liberals to get them so frustrated with Clinton that they would stay home, and that included attacking her from the left. In fact it mostly included that. (I call this the "Ha Ha! Yogi is an effing moron!" strategy). It absolutely did suppress the democratic vote in 2016, especially when people thought she was going to win easily so they thought they could get what they wanted without having to hold their noses and participate. I think it didn't work in 2020 because Trump was so odious that there was nothing that could be done to Biden to suppress his vote among democrats and liberals. Even if they didn't like Biden, they hated Trump so much it just didn't matter. The only thing they did succeed in on the suppression side was convincing Cubans and Latinx who came from Marxist countries that Biden was a socialist, but that was more of your standard type of messaging that has been used for decades. Didn't need analytics for that.
Maybe I just assumed that they were idiots because they just come across as idiot. There is that flawed human assumption again.
On a similar subject, the topic of algorithms that search engines and social media are using needs to be addressed. Essentially they are pushing everyone to the extreme on everything. You click on 1 thing you get 10 more pushed at you. That is one thing if you just happen to think that Grogu Funko Pop is cute and 6 months later you are sitting in a room with 100 Funko Pops. It is another when we are talking politics. You start off a little left of center. You click on an article you find interesting that is maybe a little left of where you are. You get 10 more. Now you click a little bit more left. And so on.

There is a story of a woman who was basically your standard "I won't listen to mainstream media" Republican, got into youtube and Tiktok, and a year later is humiliated wondering how she let herself believe in Qanon. She went looking for information and the more she clicked the further right and then the further conspiracy it was getting until she was getting bombarded with nothing but Qanon and other conspiracy theories. When Biden was sworn in she was literally going to take her kid out of school and flee until her mother talked her off the ledge.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

dimitrig said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

Too bad guys like Ben Johnson aren't around anymore. The Capitol Police could have used him.




It's actually pretty amazing that there wasn't a group of officers who didn't just flat out unload.
Seriously!
There probably should have been hundreds dead.

I suppose Trump would have wanted that. Ultimate victimhood.

The cops there that day are to be majorly commended.
On the one hand it looks like poor policing.
On the other hand, it turned out about as 100% perfect as possible.

I read somewhere (can't find the source right now) that they were told not to shoot.






Based on the Capitol Insurrection, they should pass a Shoot to Kill statute for next time.
Yeah, no.
I think it's wonderful that they didn't unload. That would have made this all the more of a firecracker issue. It's rare, I don't think it'll happen again, and I'm basically against guns and violence.

Had they unloaded on this group, I think it's quite possible that a bunch of concealed guns would have turned it into a shootout that would have been extremely uglier for the USA than what we actually had.

I think there are other steps that can be taken. For instance, any time there is a permit for a march or a public gathering on the mall, we can have certain barriers and troops put in place. Push past those barriers, and then YES, shoot. But those like metal rails was not enough.





HOOK THEM UP TO FIRE HYDRANTS
LINK THEM WITH STRONGER TEMPORARY FENCING
DO SOMETHING TO SLOW THE PEOPLE DOWN and let them know it's serious.

The police officers standing face to face with rioters, which vastly outnumbered, made it too encouraging to hooligans.

Draw a circle around certain buildings.
DC is going to end up becoming a lock-down city center at some point soon.
I am not for shooting. The main thing is that it was a huge security failing all around. Security should have been adequate to keep them from getting anywhere near the building. They should have had enough man power and if it still came to it, the tear gas and rubber bullets should have been flying everywhere before they were within 100 yards. Had that all happened, injuries would have been minimal.

Further, the House and Senate should have been evacuated earlier. As soon as it was clear there was a risk the Capitol would be breached, they should have been evacuated. And that was clear for quite some time before it happened.

We should never be faced with this situation again. That being said, with the failings in security allowing them to get to the doors, and the failure to evacuate the lawmakers to safety sooner, the first person that went through those doors should have been shot. If it were just protecting a building, no. With our government leaders in there and a mob there to attack them, at that point their safety is paramount. You use whatever force necessary to save them until they have reached safety. The doors where the woman was shot were going to be breached by the whole crowd in about 5 to 10 seconds had he not fired. I think he made the right decision. If a law maker was killed that day the overwhelming question would have been why the Capitol was taken with no shots fired to defend it.

The way you avoid the shooting is with the proper security measures in the first place. Or not having a President incite a riot.
Could not agree more.

I have heard false argument that Democrats had used similar words.

Well, they did not ask people to gather in front of Capitol Hill right before the certification and used those words after encouraging people to gather in front and march to the building where he would accompany them (which he did not).

Someone could say some crap anonymously to me on a forum without danger. They say the same things to me right in front of my face, they better expect a fight.

And knowing all this, not sure why the security was so light.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

Tomorrow should be filled with more fun as the clown show lawyers re-take the stage.
I expect a lot of Twitter action.
You get what you pay for.
Or you get what you promise to pay for but reneg after you got it.
Or you get only the type of lawyer who will accept a difficult client who will damage your reputation and potentially pay none but definitely not pay all of the time billed.
The story with his defense team leaving was interesting.

Lawyer says he will charge $250K plus expenses for his services. Trump happy.

Lawyer provides budget estimate of $3M with all the support staff, experts, etc. Trump unhappy.

Trump negotiates down to $1M Trump and lawyer unhappy. Trump mad that such a straightforward case would cost $1M.

Then strategy disagreements come up and lawyer says eff this, I don't need this for $1M.

Now, to this point, I have know way of knowing whether Trump or the lawyer are to blame for the miscommunication on fees. Trump has history, but there are also plenty of lawyers who aren't exactly pristine on fees.

But then the next question comes up. When you have raised $170M from your suckers...I'm sorry...supporters on the basis of it being for your legal defense, why on earth would you care about $1M or $3M for that matter?

Maybe it has to do with that small print on the fundraising pitch that says "While I'm saying I am asking for your donation for my legal defense, I get to spend it on whatevs I want, suckah"
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

Tomorrow should be filled with more fun as the clown show lawyers re-take the stage.
I expect a lot of Twitter action.
You get what you pay for.
Or you get what you promise to pay for but reneg after you got it.
Or you get only the type of lawyer who will accept a difficult client who will damage your reputation and potentially pay none but definitely not pay all of the time billed.
The story with his defense team leaving was interesting.

Lawyer says he will charge $250K plus expenses for his services. Trump happy.

Lawyer provides budget estimate of $3M with all the support staff, experts, etc. Trump unhappy.

Trump negotiates down to $1M Trump and lawyer unhappy. Trump mad that such a straightforward case would cost $1M.

Then strategy disagreements come up and lawyer says eff this, I don't need this for $1M.

Now, to this point, I have know way of knowing whether Trump or the lawyer are to blame for the miscommunication on fees. Trump has history, but there are also plenty of lawyers who aren't exactly pristine on fees.

But then the next question comes up. When you have raised $170M from your suckers...I'm sorry...supporters on the basis of it being for your legal defense, why on earth would you care about $1M or $3M for that matter?

Maybe it has to do with that small print on the fundraising pitch that says "While I'm saying I am asking for your donation for my legal defense, I get to spend it on whatevs I want, suckah"
I think it is the last point. I am sure $169M of that is earmarked for some future consulting firm that Lara Trump will open with Trump as the sole client.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

dimitrig said:

concordtom said:

bearister said:

Too bad guys like Ben Johnson aren't around anymore. The Capitol Police could have used him.




It's actually pretty amazing that there wasn't a group of officers who didn't just flat out unload.
Seriously!
There probably should have been hundreds dead.

I suppose Trump would have wanted that. Ultimate victimhood.

The cops there that day are to be majorly commended.
On the one hand it looks like poor policing.
On the other hand, it turned out about as 100% perfect as possible.

I read somewhere (can't find the source right now) that they were told not to shoot.






Based on the Capitol Insurrection, they should pass a Shoot to Kill statute for next time.
Yeah, no.
I think it's wonderful that they didn't unload. That would have made this all the more of a firecracker issue. It's rare, I don't think it'll happen again, and I'm basically against guns and violence.

Had they unloaded on this group, I think it's quite possible that a bunch of concealed guns would have turned it into a shootout that would have been extremely uglier for the USA than what we actually had.

I think there are other steps that can be taken. For instance, any time there is a permit for a march or a public gathering on the mall, we can have certain barriers and troops put in place. Push past those barriers, and then YES, shoot. But those like metal rails was not enough.





HOOK THEM UP TO FIRE HYDRANTS
LINK THEM WITH STRONGER TEMPORARY FENCING
DO SOMETHING TO SLOW THE PEOPLE DOWN and let them know it's serious.

The police officers standing face to face with rioters, which vastly outnumbered, made it too encouraging to hooligans.

Draw a circle around certain buildings.
DC is going to end up becoming a lock-down city center at some point soon.
I am not for shooting. The main thing is that it was a huge security failing all around. Security should have been adequate to keep them from getting anywhere near the building. They should have had enough man power and if it still came to it, the tear gas and rubber bullets should have been flying everywhere before they were within 100 yards. Had that all happened, injuries would have been minimal.

Further, the House and Senate should have been evacuated earlier. As soon as it was clear there was a risk the Capitol would be breached, they should have been evacuated. And that was clear for quite some time before it happened.

We should never be faced with this situation again. That being said, with the failings in security allowing them to get to the doors, and the failure to evacuate the lawmakers to safety sooner, the first person that went through those doors should have been shot. If it were just protecting a building, no. With our government leaders in there and a mob there to attack them, at that point their safety is paramount. You use whatever force necessary to save them until they have reached safety. The doors where the woman was shot were going to be breached by the whole crowd in about 5 to 10 seconds had he not fired. I think he made the right decision. If a law maker was killed that day the overwhelming question would have been why the Capitol was taken with no shots fired to defend it.

The way you avoid the shooting is with the proper security measures in the first place. Or not having a President incite a riot.
Could not agree more.

I have heard false argument that Democrats had used similar words.

Well, they did not ask people to gather in front of Capitol Hill right before the certification and used those words after encouraging people to gather in front and march to the building where he would accompany them (which he did not).

Someone could say some crap anonymously to me on a forum without danger. They say the same things to me right in front of my face, they better expect a fight.

And knowing all this, not sure why the security was so light.
When the French guy is saying you blew it on security, you have to be embarrassed.

(Note: The French have a lot history fighting hard in wars and that includes playing an instrumental role in our revolution. They have displayed much bravery over the centuries and are actually very good at security. However, the ugly American in me still couldn't resist making a French surrender joke. Maybe we cut them some slack after the 100th anniversary of their surrender to Hitler)
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?

I don't know about AI but Billy Ball has its limitations. It clearly seems to work in June but I don't think it works in the postseason. I think the reason for that is in the postseason you are no longer playing against the average. You are playing against above average. That means your home runs per strikeout rate goes down and we end up with boring postseason games where teams strike out over and over again (using one basic metric as an example).

I believe Billy Ball may help you get into the postseason but the oldtimers have it right for winning championships. Contact. Stolen bases. Manufacturing runs. It's no surprise to me that the marquee player on 2 of the last 3 championships is a classic old school ballplayer who is known for contact, manufacturing runs, and smart baseball - Mookie Betts. The other championship team, the Washington Nationals, lost its Billy Ball hero, Bryce Harper, the previous year. In October, they were better without him. In my opinion, if your star slugger is famous for walks, you have a problem.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:


I hate Foxnews.
One thing that came to mind as I was reading a recent book by a Harvard professor on use of AI in competing in different industries was that these media pundits and politicians can so easily be taken over by AI. If Ant and Amazon can use AI to recognize patters to have AI create better output, then we can use AI to recognize patterns on someone like Hannity and Gaetz and just generate output based on input of new data.

When was the last time any of these guys said something that deviated from patterns? It could be even be a really weak AI with college student create algorithm to create better and faster content. In fact, we can even use weaker AI to replace some of the posters whom you know what they are going post even before they do. All the time that we can save.
So, you're saying, future politicians will not go to law school, philosophy school, history school, ethics school, debate school. Instead they will go to programming school to simply have the computer tell them what to say in order to get the mass population to support them. It'd be like 1970's basketball or baseball players having the advantage of modern analytics. When to take the pitch, when to switch at a curve ball, when to post up, when to fast break or shoot the 3. Which combination of players, etc....

Yeah, that's scary. Ethics replaced with lemmingism.
Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
The thing is though, Billyball just scratches the surface. They not only use analytics to identify what you are susceptible to you, they create emotions to sell you on concepts. Imagine if the A's figured out that not only was Matt Chapman going to be the best third baseman, but if they could get him thinking about his mom, he'd hits 20 points better and they displayed a message of encouragement from his Mom every time he came to the plate.

Coca Cola have been masters of this for a century. Santa Claus used to be pictured in many different forms. Coca Cola took bits of all of these images that would be good selling points, no mystery, no creepy, tall and skinny? No! Religious outfit? No! Green clothes? No! Red and White are our colors. Make him a nice happy, fat guy. They intrinsically tied themselves to Christmas in America for 50 years. Then they taught the world to sing in perfect harmony. Have a Coke and a smile. One thing Coke rarely does is sell the damned drink. Almost every ad campaign ties Coke to an emotion so when you go to buy you think of the emotion. Remember the Pepsi Challenge? In blind taste tests people prefer Pepsi 2 to 1 over Coke. That was true. It still is. Ad campaign sounded effective as it is based on pure facts and based on those facts you should buy Pepsi. Doesn't sell anymore soda though.

They use these tactics now to drive emotions in political discourse. There were tons of stories after the 2010 census that by some year in the near future there will be more minorities than White people in America. Social engineers saw that and were like "Oh shyte! White people are going to freak out and they won't know they are freaking out or why?" And they did. (Before hearing about this, I had actually proposed that this is what happened in California with 187 and 209 and then the subsequent backlash as people realized that the majority minority thing wasn't anything to be afraid of). They ran studies where they tested people's opinions on a range of political subjects, then showed them these stories, and tested them again. White people got significantly more conservative across the board. Then when they did the same thing, but followed up with stories about how things weren't really going to change much based on this, the impact was eliminated. So, for instance, conservative politicos know that the more people hear that the country is going to be more conservative, the more the more they can drive the fear that people will lose their way of life even in people who do not openly fear immigrants or minorities.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?

I don't know about AI but Billy Ball has its limitations. It clearly seems to work in June but I don't think it works in the postseason. I think the reason for that is in the postseason you are no longer playing against the average. You are playing against above average. That means your home runs per strikeout rate goes down and we end up with boring postseason games where teams strike out over and over again (using one basic metric as an example).

I believe Billy Ball may help you get into the postseason but the oldtimers have it right for winning championships. Contact. Stolen bases. Manufacturing runs. It's no surprise to me that the marquee player on 2 of the last 3 championships is a classic old school ballplayer who is known for contact, manufacturing runs, and smart baseball - Mookie Betts. The other championship team, the Washington Nationals, lost its Billy Ball hero, Bryce Harper, the previous year. In October, they were better without him. In my opinion, if your star slugger is famous for walks, you have a problem.

That's not even what Billy Ball is anymore. They moved on from walks and home runs to looking for other advantages like good defense. Reason? The rich teams figured out how to play Billy Ball too and now the cheap sluggers weren't around for the taking. "Moneyball" was less about a specific type of player and more about how to exploit undervalued assets in the market.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

calbear93 said:

concordtom said:


I hate Foxnews.
One thing that came to mind as I was reading a recent book by a Harvard professor on use of AI in competing in different industries was that these media pundits and politicians can so easily be taken over by AI. If Ant and Amazon can use AI to recognize patters to have AI create better output, then we can use AI to recognize patterns on someone like Hannity and Gaetz and just generate output based on input of new data.

When was the last time any of these guys said something that deviated from patterns? It could be even be a really weak AI with college student create algorithm to create better and faster content. In fact, we can even use weaker AI to replace some of the posters whom you know what they are going post even before they do. All the time that we can save.
So, you're saying, future politicians will not go to law school, philosophy school, history school, ethics school, debate school. Instead they will go to programming school to simply have the computer tell them what to say in order to get the mass population to support them. It'd be like 1970's basketball or baseball players having the advantage of modern analytics. When to take the pitch, when to switch at a curve ball, when to post up, when to fast break or shoot the 3. Which combination of players, etc....

Yeah, that's scary. Ethics replaced with lemmingism.
Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
The thing is though, Billyball just scratches the surface. They not only use analytics to identify what you are susceptible to you, they create emotions to sell you on concepts. Imagine if the A's figured out that not only was Matt Chapman going to be the best third baseman, but if they could get him thinking about his mom, he'd hits 20 points better and they displayed a message of encouragement from his Mom every time he came to the plate.

Coca Cola have been masters of this for a century. Santa Claus used to be pictured in many different forms. Coca Cola took bits of all of these images that would be good selling points, no mystery, no creepy, tall and skinny? No! Religious outfit? No! Green clothes? No! Red and White are our colors. Make him a nice happy, fat guy. They intrinsically tied themselves to Christmas in America for 50 years. Then they taught the world to sing in perfect harmony. Have a Coke and a smile. One thing Coke rarely does is sell the damned drink. Almost every ad campaign ties Coke to an emotion so when you go to buy you think of the emotion. Remember the Pepsi Challenge? In blind taste tests people prefer Pepsi 2 to 1 over Coke. That was true. It still is. Ad campaign sounded effective as it is based on pure facts and based on those facts you should buy Pepsi. Doesn't sell anymore soda though.

They use these tactics now to drive emotions in political discourse. There were tons of stories after the 2010 census that by some year in the near future there will be more minorities than White people in America. Social engineers saw that and were like "Oh shyte! White people are going to freak out and they won't know they are freaking out or why?" And they did. (Before hearing about this, I had actually proposed that this is what happened in California with 187 and 209 and then the subsequent backlash as people realized that the majority minority thing wasn't anything to be afraid of). They ran studies where they tested people's opinions on a range of political subjects, then showed them these stories, and tested them again. White people got significantly more conservative across the board. Then when they did the same thing, but followed up with stories about how things weren't really going to change much based on this, the impact was eliminated. So, for instance, conservative politicos know that the more people hear that the country is going to be more conservative, the more the more they can drive the fear that people will lose their way of life even in people who do not openly fear immigrants or minorities.


You are now sounding like me on the dangers of data analytics especially in the consumer side and how predictive analytics to get you hooked on staying on their platform longer and sell your data, including how to make you want something or feel something, is the monetization of free applications.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?

I don't know about AI but Billy Ball has its limitations. It clearly seems to work in June but I don't think it works in the postseason. I think the reason for that is in the postseason you are no longer playing against the average. You are playing against above average. That means your home runs per strikeout rate goes down and we end up with boring postseason games where teams strike out over and over again (using one basic metric as an example).

I believe Billy Ball may help you get into the postseason but the oldtimers have it right for winning championships. Contact. Stolen bases. Manufacturing runs. It's no surprise to me that the marquee player on 2 of the last 3 championships is a classic old school ballplayer who is known for contact, manufacturing runs, and smart baseball - Mookie Betts. The other championship team, the Washington Nationals, lost its Billy Ball hero, Bryce Harper, the previous year. In October, they were better without him. In my opinion, if your star slugger is famous for walks, you have a problem.
You mistake the principles of Moneyball.

You start with analytics. So that is finding what player traits maximize wins. That is actually not that hard to figure out. Moneyball was not about that. Moneyball's first success came because NO ONE was using analytics. Old time scouting was based on gut feeling borne out of experience. That is not to say at all that scouts were wrong about everything. But they were wrong about a lot. But guess what? Analytics would say Mike Trout and Barry Bonds, and Willie Mays are awesome players. So would scouts.

Conclusions from analytics absolutely work in the playoffs. For instance, OPS is a lot more important stat than batting average. Absolutely true in the regular season or the post season.

Moneyball isn't the championship strategy and it never was intended to be. The point is, the A's didn't have any money. (still don't). So they were looking for the traits that those that had money were not valuing. If you went back to the Moneyball era and looked at the analytics the A's were using, and asked what were the top 100 things they could do to win based on the analytics, all 100 of those line items would have screamed "SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!" And the next 100 would have been to sign a whole lot of guys the A's couldn't afford. The point of Moneyball wasn't to build the best team. It was to build the best team they could afford. The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees. But, at the end of the day, they were shopping from a list of players that no one wanted. Analytics can only take you so far. Every year the A's have made the playoffs, if given the chance they would have traded rosters with almost anyone else in the post season (assuming dollars are equal). they don't lose because the analytics are wrong. They lose because the other teams are better. The A's are buying Hondas. That is a good car. Best car they can afford. But there will always be a guy with unlimited money to spend with a better car.

The A's were never wedded to what some people have mistakenly dubbed "Moneyball". Moneyball just means whatever is undervalued at the moment. Even this year one of the color commentators was surprised that the A's weren't doing what they haven't done in 10 years. Because other teams used the same analytics and now overvalued the traits the A's were buying in the 2000's. So, the A's steal bases now (What?). The A's have the best defensive player in baseball. The A's have arguably the best defensive first baseman and center fielder (What? The A's play defense?) The A's were early on in valuing the bullpen because starting pitching was so expensive. They also go beyond the old analytics and look at how they can improve player performance. For instance, they have picked up cheap, journeyman pitchers and said, "You know that 3rd or 4th pitch that you throw 2% of the time because you think it sucks? Well, it ain't great, but when you throw it 10% of the time, your other pitches all become a lot more effective" They also worked specifically on what launch angles were most successful in Oakland on offense and got their batters to work to those. And then did the same for the road so the A's launch angle as team 2 years ago was significantly different at home than on the road.

The frequency that the A's go to the playoffs is amazing given the money they spend. Yes, they lose. But that is all about what they spend. The strategy that people said can't win in the playoffs basically immediately won when the Red Sox adopted the same strategy with a huge payroll. Saying Moneyball doesn't work in the playoffs doesn't really mean anything because the A's are constantly changing their strategy based on what they can afford. What is true is that being cheap doesn't win in the playoffs.

College sports fans should understand this. It's the old saying "It's not about the X's and O's. It's about the Jimmy's and Joe's". You can't win at the highest level without the recruits.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?

I don't know about AI but Billy Ball has its limitations. It clearly seems to work in June but I don't think it works in the postseason. I think the reason for that is in the postseason you are no longer playing against the average. You are playing against above average. That means your home runs per strikeout rate goes down and we end up with boring postseason games where teams strike out over and over again (using one basic metric as an example).

I believe Billy Ball may help you get into the postseason but the oldtimers have it right for winning championships. Contact. Stolen bases. Manufacturing runs. It's no surprise to me that the marquee player on 2 of the last 3 championships is a classic old school ballplayer who is known for contact, manufacturing runs, and smart baseball - Mookie Betts. The other championship team, the Washington Nationals, lost its Billy Ball hero, Bryce Harper, the previous year. In October, they were better without him. In my opinion, if your star slugger is famous for walks, you have a problem.
By the way. To you and concord, Billy Ball refers to the era when Billy Martin was manager of the A's, not to the Moneyball era.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

calbear93 said:


Well, the power of data analytics as opposed to assumptions or human analysis first became famous to regular folks due to baseball and Billy Bean. Things that people assumed were most valuable were not, and the Oakland A's were able to pay for valuable players for much less based on things that data actually showed were relevant to scoring runs, such as on base percentage and slugging percentage. And that insight did not come from some genius baseball person but from a nerdy mathematician from Harvard who barely knew what baseball was.
Right. That's my point. Just apply Billy Ball to Politics. That's what YOU were saying, no?

I don't know about AI but Billy Ball has its limitations. It clearly seems to work in June but I don't think it works in the postseason. I think the reason for that is in the postseason you are no longer playing against the average. You are playing against above average. That means your home runs per strikeout rate goes down and we end up with boring postseason games where teams strike out over and over again (using one basic metric as an example).

I believe Billy Ball may help you get into the postseason but the oldtimers have it right for winning championships. Contact. Stolen bases. Manufacturing runs. It's no surprise to me that the marquee player on 2 of the last 3 championships is a classic old school ballplayer who is known for contact, manufacturing runs, and smart baseball - Mookie Betts. The other championship team, the Washington Nationals, lost its Billy Ball hero, Bryce Harper, the previous year. In October, they were better without him. In my opinion, if your star slugger is famous for walks, you have a problem.
By the way. To you and concord, Billy Ball refers to the era when Billy Martin was manager of the A's, not to the Moneyball era.
When I think of Billy Ball, I think of a manager sending 4 promising young arms out to pitch 20-25 complete games each and burning out their careers in about 2-3 years. Also the legend of Shooty Babbitt, one of the great baseball names of all time.
JeffBear07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees.
Every time Billy Beane sees the name Theo Epstein, he dies a little bit inside.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JeffBear07 said:

Quote:

The number one thing the A's could have done to win was spend like the Yankees. The number 2 thing they could have done was to THEN marry analytics with spending like the Yankees.
Every time Billy Beane sees the name Theo Epstein, he dies a little bit inside.


Wasn't the Red Sox job offered to Beane first? He could have been the one to break the curse.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.