There are a lot of things that have to happen for us to go from the world we are in today, to a world where individuals need to avoid being critical of the state online or face reprisal.

Advice like this seems helpful, but regular citizens being punished (by the government) for what they say online is very unlikely. Instance owners and influencers sure, but not your average netizen.

So we rename peppers to firemelons, beans to windmelons, and potatoes to earthmelons. Seems simple enough

His fortune is built on seed money from apartheid south africa. How is it news he has a nazi fetish?

Calvin needs more tattoos and a habit.

The world has changed significantly since you were your kiddo’s age, but it sounds like you might be stuck thinking you can regain the things you’ve lost. Time only goes one way and you have to find new ways to live and express yourself.

Look for parts of your life where you are just killing time. Browsing social media, watching a streaming service, playing video games, etc, and see if you can do less of that. Look at what things you buy and see if you can buy less, used, or local to free up some budget for pursuing other interests. And if you feel tired all the time, get some exercise, it really does help with fatigue over time.

Both your partner and kiddo can also help, they would prefer a happy, authentic husband/dad and probably would support you if you asked them for specific assistance.

Ultimately you have to make it a priority or nothing will change.

Sweetie, as another socially isolated loner, that is that isolated. Especially for your immune system.

Why not? Maybe our robot overlords would be more fun

Sounds good to me. I doubt our new machine overlords would let the iranians or russians do anything with their new toys, but either way I am totally okay with this outcome, if for no other reason than I want to see all the bigots suddenly dealing with their periods.

Depending on how many fingers are left I would make the following wishes:

1. I wish the entire world were governed by egalitarian justice.
2. I wish that anyone who would use violence against another living creature would instantly die of a heart attack instead.
3. I wish that every human has the resources they need to live the life they want for themselves.
4. I wish that all people understood the true nature of the reality in which they live.
5. I wish all trans people had been assigned the gender, or lack thereof, they identify with at birth.

Literally in some cases recently freed slaves were arrested for being black and leased back to the same locations where they were enslaved to the same people.

I wonder if you could buy it and flash some other OS on it or if it has hardware level spying stuff.

Yeah, sometimes.

But, like Lemmy is (almost) entirely populated by people who so strongly disagreed with the political drama (either uspol or redditpol) of reddit that they took specific action about it.

It’s a wonder Lemmy isn’t all radical politics.

Luigi makes zero sense as a patsy. He has privilege, charisma, and intelligence. You don’t setup an ivy league educated cousin of a state house representative with money for good legal representation. Not even porky is that stupid (I hope).

Have you seen the final count of the vote (which was released a week or two ago)? Neither candidate won the popular vote (Trump 49.9%, Kamala 48.4%) which was not predicted by the polling. They were projecting a very close race, but everything else was wrong.

The people conducting the polls use a technique called random sampling to select candidates from a pool that gives more accuracy. But it’s not perfect and the academics think it’s sus too (I dropped a few studies in another comment).

You have to dig for it a bit, but the actual survey can be downloaded (as a pdf) from CNBC. Their data show bias. The data over-representing people over 60. Their education numbers are biased towards the less educated. Their racial numbers are biased (slightly) towards white people. Their income numbers are biased towards wealthier people.

Their voting data shows a major bias towards people who voted, but I’m actually okay with that one, at least in the context of the political reporting. The people who didn’t vote’s opinion on the political situation in the US is not as important as the people who voted. As part of an economic survey about holiday spending that also asked questions about the recent election, it’s not so great though.

No one of those biases would be a big deal, but in totality they add up to a significant and misleading bias that favors the opinions of older, white, middle-class respondents who vote and graduated high school (but attained no further education). That demographic is also the biggest consumer of CNBC content, so the reason for the bias seems fairly obvious. And again, as an “All-America Economic Survey” that’s not really a big deal, especially considering the massive gaps in the data they polled. But as a barometer for political opinion it skews the data in very important and meaningful ways.

Nothing. That information is not actually useful for most people. But I fully acknowledge that’s just my opinion.

A better solution would be different metrics for different topics. Consumer faith in the economy can be measured by spending, especially if that data could be broken down by demographic. That data absolutely exists, whether businesses would make it public is abother thing entirely.

The results of the election, especially given it was less than six weeks ago, is a much more compelling data point for how Americans feel about the president elect and his policies. Just under half of all Americans voted, so that’s a pretty decent sample.

The “best solution” would be for news organizations to pool resources and do it more reliably. That would mean no more flash polls or opinion polls, and favor longer term tracking of public sentiment.

Social media companies also have much more robust sets of data that better encapsulate public opinion, they could share that quarterly or even just sell reports to news outlets.

But polls are so unreliable and so many people blindly trust and believe them, eliminating that entire class of reporting would be preferable to continuing to publish and circulate that information.

You could turbo charge it by adding that once a vote is taken where no candidate gets a majority no further votes may be held. That would encourage people to keep showing up to vote and to vote for candidates they might not believe deserve death by drowning just to keep the system functioning.

Most of them would be from an academic source most likely. That kind of polling would be very expensive and time consuming. There probably aren’t commercial, short term polls with that level of rigor.

A 2020 study published by Berkeley found that the accuracy of election surveys (which are conducted similarly to opinion polls) was grossly exaggerated.

A 2018 Cambridge study says “the level of error has always been substantially beyond that implied by stated margins of error.”

For good, reliable data, several orders of magnitude more than 1,000 and it would need to have the methodology and data published along with it.

Opinion polls in general are not reliable sources of information and the wrong approach anyway. Telling people that X% of their neighbors hold Y opinion is a well known and effective propaganda and marketing tool for influencing opinion and decision making.

It’s essentially institutional peer pressure.

Overall, the survey found that 54% of the public are “comfortable and prepared to support” Trump as president. That’s down 2 points from when he took office in 2016. Some 41% are not comfortable, up 5 points from 2016.

The survey of 1,000 people nationwide was taken Dec. 5-8. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.

The survey found 60% say deploying the military to the border to stop illegal drugs and human trafficking should be a 2025 priority for the new administration, with an additional 13% saying it should still be done but later in the term. The proposal is only opposed outright by 24%, including 51% of Democrats, 12% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

Support for raising tariffs is also more lukewarm, with 27% backing it outright and 24% saying it can be done later in the term. It’s opposed by 42% of respondents.

I’m sorry, this article isn’t worth the bits it’s saved in. Trying to read the national opinion and using just 1,000 people is bad science. At best this represents the (very small) portion of the population who would waste their time responding to a junk survey.