Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: Spygate, Real Draining

  1. #1
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts

    Spygate, Real Draining

    Exciting times continue Indeed >


  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (8th May 2019), Elen (8th May 2019), JRS (6th May 2020), modwiz (8th May 2019)

  3. #2
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    Nonsense. Only a society failing in its moral duty would have overlooked and promoted such a degenerate.
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (8th May 2019), Dreamtimer (8th May 2019), Elen (8th May 2019)

  5. #3
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    She spoke very well imo

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (8th May 2019), Elen (8th May 2019), Emil El Zapato (8th May 2019), modwiz (21st May 2019)

  7. #4
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Elen (22nd May 2019), Emil El Zapato (21st May 2019), modwiz (21st May 2019)

  9. #5
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    Judge Jeanine...lol...please...raise the level up...

    I'd like to put together a diagram with Trump in the middle and a diagram with Obama in the middle. Then surround them with their friends, staff, and professional associates...I wonder which would look 'cleaner'?
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd May 2019), Dreamtimer (22nd May 2019), Elen (22nd May 2019)

  11. #6
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    Like Amy Pohler said,

    "I say Obama, you say Ayers.
    Obama, Ayers!
    Obama, Ayers!"

    Anyone here recall who that was?

    Obama was supposed to be "pallin' around with terrorists". Ayers was the one, so they said.

    People were so worked up...

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd May 2019), Aragorn (22nd May 2019), Elen (22nd May 2019), Emil El Zapato (22nd May 2019)

  13. #7
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts

  14. #8
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    Pay close attention folks: Below is the baseline source of a lot of alternative propaganda and it is woefully misleading. Ostensibly they are sound principles in the social sciences and indeed are, but they don't effectively translate to the realities governed by the concept of span which is a principle founded in the hard sciences and is completely overlooked by the 'brains' behind conspiracy theories.

    The Classic Study That Showed the World Is Smaller Than You Think
    By Thomas MacMillan


    Psych 101 is an occasional series on classic psychology research and how it informs the way we understand ourselves today.

    Half a century ago, a wheat farmer in Kansas received in the mail a brown folder containing a set of instructions and the name of an assigned target: a Boston divinity school student named Alice.

    Just four days later and hundreds of miles away, Alice was on a sidewalk in Cambridge when something surprising happened.

    “Alice,” said one of her instructors, approaching her and holding the same brown folder. “This is for you.”

    The wheat farmer had followed his instructions. One of hundreds of participants in an ambitious scientific experiment, he had been asked to try to convey the folder to Alice by giving it to someone in his social circle who might be more likely to know her, who then took up the same task. The wheat farmer had given the package to an Episcopalian minister in his hometown, who then mailed it to a colleague in Boston, where it soon reached its target.

    The resulting connection — a rapidly created chain of acquaintances joining two perfect strangers in just a few links — was the first indication that Stanley Milgram, the social psychologist who designed the experiment, was on his way to a moving discovery: It really is a small world after all. It’s a finding that feels just as relevant now as it was then, and it’s one worth revisiting in what seems like an increasingly divided era.

    It’s known as the small-world experiment. In it, packages were sent to hundreds of participants like the wheat farmer, as Milgram tried to determine just how many degrees of separation exist between any two people. In the 51 years since he published his results in 1967 (the same year he took over the social psychology doctoral program at City University of New York), the answer Milgram came up with — six — has become a commonplace truism and a Kevin Bacon–flavored parlor game. “It was really the first thing to experimentally demonstrate a phenomenon which is one of the most important properties of the social network of the world, which is that we’re all just a few steps from each other,” said Jon Kleinberg, a Cornell University computer scientist who studies networks.

    Milgram’s experiment also helped to launch the field of network theory, leading to insights into other important features of an evermore connected world. Today, Milgram’s study can help us understand how diseases can tear through a continent in a matter of days, how a seemingly isolated financial tremor can send markets tumbling across the world, and how fake news from Russian trolls can go viral and transform an American election overnight.

    Stanley Milgram, who died in 1984, is more widely remembered for his controversial obedience experiment, in which participants were ordered to administer what they believed were increasingly intense electric shocks to people who were begging them to stop. The 1961 experiment found a majority of participants would follow orders until the maximum voltage was reached even as the people receiving the “shocks” yelled and protested and finally went silent.

    Milgram was already notorious for this experiment when he arrived in New York City in the late ’60s and he was an important hire for CUNY, said Herbert Saltzstein, a psychology professor there who overlapped with Milgram. “This was a big deal for them, absolutely,” Saltzstein said. Milgram’s presence may have raised the profile of the department and attracted students, Saltzstein said. “He was probably the best known social psychologist at CUNY, one of the best known in the country, maybe in the world.”

    Milgram had a knack for designing experiments to upend conventional wisdom. Few suspected so many people would willingly electrocute someone, and few predicted the small-world experiment would determine that fewer than ten degrees separated pairs of random Americans. When Milgram asked people beforehand to predict what number he would come up with, the answers ranged from 100 to 1000 to “it’s impossible.”

    “I think the reason it made a splash is that it was so different from what people thought,” said Mark Granovetter, a professor at Stanford University and the author of what’s believed to be the world’s most cited sociology paper, on the spread of information in social networks via weak ties. “I think Milgram’s was the first piece of research to capture the popular and scientific imagination at the same time.”

    Some thinkers, however, had been quietly wondering if apparently unconnected people might in fact be linked. The idea of six degrees of separation is sometimes traced to a 1929 essay by the Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy. And Milgram’s work was preceded by some calculations by political scientist Ithiel de Sola Pool and mathematician Manfred Kochen who in the 1950s estimated a greater than 50-percent chance that any two people could be linked by two intermediate acquaintances.

    But Milgram was the first to test the small-world idea with a real-world experiment. Funded by a $680 grant, Milgram mailed out brown folders, first to participants in Kansas and, in a later experiment, in Nebraska. Each package contained the name of and basic information about a target person, a roster that participants were asked to add their names to as they came into possession of the folder, and a packet of postcards to be returned to Milgram at each step so he could track folder progress. Participants were asked to give the folder to someone with whom they were on a first-name basis.

    The attrition rate was high: Lots of people simply didn’t follow through and forward the package. But the folders that reached their target did so in between two and ten steps, with a median of five intermediaries.

    Milgram wrote up his small-world experiment results in the debut issue of Psychology Today, in May 1967. Accompanied by folksy illustrations, the article began with an anecdote of two strangers finding they have a friend in common, and ended with a tidy kumbaya summation: “While many studies in social science show how the individual is alienated and cut off from the rest of society, this study demonstrates that, in some sense, we are all bound together in a tightly knit social fabric.”

    It is compelling to think that we are all joined as one human family in a way that’s not necessarily obvious in our day-to-day lives. And so it’s not necessarily surprising that a study that seemed to prove it, presented in a glossy magazine and written for mass appeal, would have a lasting impact. (Milgram also published his findings in a more scholarly fashion two years later.)

    But what really launched the small-world idea into the mainstream was the 1990 play — and subsequent film — Six Degrees of Separation, by John Guare. “I read somewhere that everybody on this planet is separated by only six other people,” Stockard Channing says in the 1993 movie. “Six degrees of separation between us and everyone else on this planet. The president of the United States, a gondolier in Venice, just fill in the names.”

    Guare told the New York Times that he remembered reading about Milgram’s experiment in Psychology Today and although Milgram never mentioned the phrase “six degrees of separation,” Guare’s pithy summation of his findings stuck … to Kevin Bacon.

    In 1994, three college students at Albright College in Pennsylvania were watching movies in a snowstorm when they had a moment of clarity: actor Kevin Bacon is the center of the entertainment universe. Bacon had appeared in so many films that he could be connected to seemingly any actor in fewer than six steps. Anthony Hopkins, for instance, has a “Bacon number” of two, since he was in Fracture with Ryan Gosling, who co-starred in Crazy, Stupid, Love with Kevin Bacon.

    The three students’ dorm-room epiphany earned them a spot on The Jon Stewart Show on MTV, and they even created a board game based on the concept. Kevin Bacon initially resisted becoming a meme, but eventually embraced it, starting a charity called Six Degrees. (It’s worth noting that Bacon, despite his reputation, is NOT in fact the center of the Hollywood universe. That honor, according to an analysis by the website Oracle Of Bacon, belongs to Eric Roberts, Julia’s brother and Emma’s father.)

    By the late 1990s, the idea of six degrees of separation had permeated the culture, and it found its way back into the world of science.

    “I was on the phone with my dad one night,” said Duncan Watts, a mathematician and network theorist and author of Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. “And he said, ‘Did you know that everyone is just six handshakes away from the president of the United States?’ I said, ‘That sounds like a math problem.’”

    Watts, along with mathematician Steven Strogatz, began looking at the way networks function, and came up with a model that explains the small-world phenomenon. They used power grids, the neural network of a nematode worm, and the connections between Hollywood actors to demonstrate in 1998 that just a few long-range connections added to any network can shrink the whole system.

    For instance, Strogatz has lots of local connections in Ithaca where he’s a professor at Cornell University. But he also plays chess on the internet and has gotten to know a player in Holland. “We’re now on a first-name basis. So now I’m connected to Holland,” Strogatz said. Just a single long-range connection exponentially reduces the world: In just a few more degrees of separation, everyone in New York is linked to everyone in Holland.

    “It’s just in the nature of these networks that they have to be small,” he said. “Just the tiniest sprinkling of hubs or shortcuts makes the world small.”

    Milgram’s small-world experiment has not been without its detractors. Most notably, Judith Kleinfeld, a psychology professor at the University of Fairbanks in Alaska, has objected that Milgram cherry-picked both his participants and his results, failed to show that the small-world phenomenon transcends race and class, and ignored the fact that many of the chain-letters in his experiment never reached the intended target.

    But Watts said that while there may have been flaws in Milgram’s study, his results have been confirmed by subsequent studies. Watts did a version of Milgram’s small-world study via email in the early 2000s with 60,000 participants and 18 different targets drawn from an array of professions in 13 countries (a Norwegian veterinarian, an Australian policeman, etc.) The result: Participants were connected in a median of five to seven steps.

    “We’ve done a lot of checking. We have a lot more data. The result as stated by Milgram is solid,” Watts said.

    In a subsequent 2009 meta-analysis, Watts looked at 162,328 “small-world” message chains and found that roughly half could be completed in six or seven steps. And in 2011, a study by Facebook found that its users were separated by an average of 4.57 degrees.

    There’s sometimes confusion between studies about whether “degrees” refers to intermediary acquaintances or to the links between them, Watts said. And different results are obtained by analyzing a data set and finding the shortest routes using perfect information, versus asking people to muddle through and find their own routes by instinct — a distinction referred to as a topological versus algorithmic approach.

    But it doesn’t matter too much what the exact result is; what’s most significant is that all the studies end up with a remarkably small number of degrees of separation, Watts said. “The point is that it’s not 900,000. Or even a thousand, or a hundred. It’s this number less than ten and bigger than two.”

    While Milgram had concluded his small-world study by invoking a sense of universal togetherness, network theorists have since pointed out that there are downsides to living in such a connected world — if we don’t stay mindful of the fact that we’re all in this together.

    Consider the AIDS epidemic, Watts said. “Why did people not care about it? It was far away.” For many Americans, AIDS was something happening in Africa or to gay men or intravenous drug users, and people failed to appreciate it until it became impossible to ignore.

    A danger of a small world, Watts said, is that even though we’re now globally connected, we evolved in small tribes and are thus doomed to fail to fully consider anything beyond our immediate social circle. We care about our friends, and we kind of care about our friends’ friends, but “anything more than two degrees is just some random person,” he said.

    “As humans, we’re not really good at appreciating the consequences of exponential growth,” said Kleinberg. “We’re not aware that the actions we take are rippling outward with a kind of frightening velocity.”

    “Think about fake news. Think about influencing our election. Think about what’s called today the weaponizing of social media,” said Strogatz. People can now remotely sabotage centrifuges half a world away, he added. “We’re playing this very wild social experiment with ourselves where we have now become this global network. We don’t know what we’re doing.”

    People may be oblivious to it’s full impact in their day-to-day lives, “but the network is still there. And if the network is only six degrees, you need to pay attention,” Watts said. “That’s ultimately Milgram’s insight.”
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th April 2020)

  16. #9
    Senior Member Emil El Zapato's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,191
    Thanks
    36,640
    Thanked 43,100 Times in 11,915 Posts
    The critical aspect of spans are that they measure the true relevance of the interaction and the nature of the exchange between objects not just the simple objects. The functional output of the interaction is key to understanding the relationship and discerning the truth. If we overlook this, we have missed everything

    Span (category theory)

    In category theory, a span, roof or correspondence is a generalization of the notion of relation between two objects of a category. When the category has all pullbacks (and satisfies a small number of other conditions), spans can be considered as morphisms in a category of fractions.

    A span is a diagram of type {\displaystyle \Lambda =(-1\leftarrow 0\rightarrow +1),}\Lambda =(-1\leftarrow 0\rightarrow +1), i.e., a diagram of the form {\displaystyle Y\leftarrow X\rightarrow Z}Y\leftarrow X\rightarrow Z.

    That is, let Λ be the category (-1 ← 0 → +1). Then a span in a category C is a functor S : Λ → C. This means that a span consists of three objects X, Y and Z of C and morphisms f : X → Y and g : X → Z: it is two maps with common domain.

    The colimit of a span is a pushout.

    Examples
    If R is a relation between sets X and Y (i.e. a subset of X × Y), then X ← R → Y is a span, where the maps are the projection maps {\displaystyle X\times Y{\overset {\pi _{X}}{\to }}X}X\times Y{\overset {\pi _{X}}{\to }}X and {\displaystyle X\times Y{\overset {\pi _{Y}}{\to }}Y}X\times Y{\overset {\pi _{Y}}{\to }}Y.
    Any object yields the trivial span {\displaystyle A=A=A;}A=A=A; formally, the diagram A ← A → A, where the maps are the identity.
    More generally, let {\displaystyle \phi \colon A\to B}\phi \colon A\to B be a morphism in some category. There is a trivial span A = A → B; formally, the diagram A ← A → B, where the left map is the identity on A, and the right map is the given map φ.
    If M is a model category, with W the set of weak equivalences, then the spans of the form {\displaystyle X\leftarrow Y\rightarrow Z,}X\leftarrow Y\rightarrow Z, where the left morphism is in W, can be considered a generalised morphism (i.e., where one "inverts the weak equivalences"). Note that this is not the usual point of view taken when dealing with model categories.
    Cospans
    A cospan K in a category C is a functor K : Λop → C; equivalently, a contravariant functor from Λ to C. That is, a diagram of type {\displaystyle \Lambda ^{\text{op}}=(-1\rightarrow 0\leftarrow +1),}\Lambda ^{{\text{op}}}=(-1\rightarrow 0\leftarrow +1), i.e., a diagram of the form {\displaystyle Y\rightarrow X\leftarrow Z}Y\rightarrow X\leftarrow Z.

    Thus it consists of three objects X, Y and Z of C and morphisms f : Y → X and g : Z → X: it is two maps with common codomain.

    The limit of a cospan is a pullback.

    An example of a cospan is a cobordism W between two manifolds M and N, where the two maps are the inclusions into W. Note that while cobordisms are cospans, the category of cobordisms is not a "cospan category": it is not the category of all cospans in "the category of manifolds with inclusions on the boundary", but rather a subcategory thereof, as the requirement that M and N form a partition of the boundary of W is a global constraint.

    The category nCob of finite-dimensional cobordisms is a dagger compact category. More generally, the category Span(C) of spans on any category C with finite limits is also dagger compact.

    It is without thought, self evident
    “El revolucionario: te meteré la bota en el culo"

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (15th April 2020)

  18. #10
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    Of late > https://theconservativetreehouse.com...esident-obama/

    A very long read but nice good.

  19. #11
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts

  20. #12
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    What a year ahead, jan was wow followed by feb blooming heck then march my gosh then april unbelievable and may now kicks off where we will continue to go > narrative change

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...-three-phases/

  21. #13
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    Did not know that Flynn was a democrat >
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ed-happy-talk/

  22. #14
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,485
    Thanks
    45,719
    Thanked 35,452 Times in 10,162 Posts
    We are only at the start >


  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    JRS (6th May 2020)

  24. #15
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    Trump was a lifelong Democrat. You knew that, right? He was best buds with the Clintons.

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (6th May 2020), Aragorn (2nd May 2020), Wind (2nd May 2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •