Calling Bullshit 2.5: Unfair Comparisons
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- In this segment on unfair comparisons, Carl explains why St. Louis and Detroit are not quite as bad as clickbait "most dangerous cities" lists portray them to be, and looks at the silly arguments over attendance at Trump's inauguration. Also: how to call bullshit on algorithms and statistics without a PhD in machine learning or statistics.
Course: INFO 198 / BIOL 106B. University of Washington
Instructors: Carl T. Bergstrom and Jevin West
Synopsis: Our world is saturated with bullshit. Learn to detect and defuse it.
The course will be offered as a 1-credit seminar this spring through the Information School at the University of Washington. We aim to expand it to a 3 or 4 credit course for 2017-2018. For those who cannot attend in person, we aim to videotape the lectures this spring and make video clips freely available on the web.
callingbullshit.org
/ callin_bull
callinBS
bullsht.course@gmail.com
Information School ischool.uw.edu/
Department of Biology www.biology.washington.edu/
Video edited by Bum Mook Oh
Music by Chris Zabriskie: Prelude No.7
The Piano starts to get annoying if you are bingewatch all of these
I find it very relaxing
Thanks for uploading - very interesting!
GIGO was a CS adage long before data science:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out
Is comparing food stamp fraud to retail fraud an apples to apples comparison?
Not a bad point- a better comparison might be comparing it to fraud in other parts of the government (IRS, unemployment, etc), or to fraud in food assistance programs in other countries. This would depend on whether you want to measure it in how it works as a government program, or how it works in comparison to other countries (Such as tracking welfare fraud in European nations).
@@avradio0b That would be better for the government since the claim is that private business does it better.
Thanks for the useful lectures but I hope this isn't produced by UW film program. It would be helpful to equalize the audio so it doesn't keep going in and out as lecturer turns their head. Of course, actually speaking into the mic would solve it, too...
Question: Wasn't the Conservative Media claim less that more people watched streaming video, and more the hypothesis that because they were watching streaming media, they did not attend? That was not proven, but was how I read their statement.
That's definitely not how I read the article (stream.org/yes-trumps-inauguration-likely-had-the-most-viewers-in-history/) . I don't see implication that streaming video kept the crowd down; the implication is that streaming video viewership indicates massive popularity of Trump's inauguration.
After all, the author stresses Russian viewership: "Most important, millions watched the inauguration on TV and streaming media - probably millions in Russia alone." These people certainly were not going to be attending, streaming video or no.
@@carlbergstrom9071 "probably millions of Russians alone"
So they're saying that without any data whatsoever, just a jab at Trump...
I can tell you fewer people showed up or streamed Biden's illegitimate ceremony despite the most citizens ever totally legitimately voted for him. With half the world quarantined (the stupid half(that includes us)) you would think that streaming numbers at least would have gone up.
The appropriate response from Trump's team would have been to point out that this was an unfair comparison between the attendance at the inauguration of the first black president (a very significant event in American history) and the attendance at just another old white man's inauguration. The fair comparison would have been to show GW Bush's (R), Bill Clinton's(D) and Jimmy Carter's(D) first inauguration crowd's vs Trump's.
This lecture correctly pointed out the apples to oranges comparison error of Trump's supporters regarding the streaming video audience. It left out the bias revealed by the left leaning sources who started the unfair photo comparison between a highly historical event and one that has been regularly occurring over the past 200 years. I'm pretty sure there will be a packed crowd when the first women is sworn in as well, whether she's a Republican or Democrat.
Or now we could just compare it to Biden's who 'received' more votes than Trump, Bush, Clinton, or um uh... "President my boss"(Obeezy) and not only was nobody allowed to attend (government no longer "for the people") but few people even streamed (to be fair, cemeteries are notorious for poor wifi connectivity)
It clearly says "city" and not "metro" and yet you bring in the entire metro area to try to make the numbers look not bad at all. I call bullshit on your bullshit.
If they wanted to include the metro then they would clearly state "metro". But they didn't. You're literally comparing apples (City of St. Louis) to oranges (St. Louis Metro).
What I find even more strange is that you're leaving out Chicago. Listen online to the police scanner for Chicago and you'll quickly see that the south side turns into a shooting gallery after dark, and a robbery and car-jacking hotspot during the day.
You're own childhood memories of St. Louis have obviously given you a confirmation bias and thus "bullshit".
Also, you looked only at the 2009 inauguration and not the 2012 one, i.e. Obama's second one? Yeah, I call bullshit on that one as well. More confirmation bias.
You completely missed the point. The point is that different cities have a different size relative to their metro area. If a city has a very large metro area but a relatively very small "city" within that, they are more likely to have a higher crime rate in the city as less of the suburbs are included in the "city" compared to other cities.