I'm leaving this up because it's funny, dunk to your hearts content
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
16 points (72.2% liked)
videos
22636 readers
149 users here now
Breadtube if it didn't suck.
Post videos you genuinely enjoy and want to share, duh. Celebrate the diversity of interests shared by chapochatters by posting a deep dive into Venetian kelp farming, I dunno. Also media criticism, bite-sized versions of left-wing theory, all the stuff you expected. But I am curious about that kelp farming thing now that you mentioned it.
Low effort / spam videos might be removed, especially weeb content.
There is a cytube that you can paste videos into and watch with whoever happens to be around. It's open submission unless there's something important to commandeer it with at the time.
A weekly watch party happens every Saturday (Sunday down under), with video nominations Saturday-Monday, voting Monday-Thursday. See the pin for whatever stage it's currently in.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm leaving this up because it's funny, dunk to your hearts content
LOOKS LIKE LIB IS BACK ON THE MENU, HEXBEARS!
Oooooh veritasium! Truly a delicious specimen. Between the Waymo shilling, Silicon Valley "philosophy" ideology propaganda disguised as science, and general STEMlord malaise, it's hard to tell which is the juiciest part!
Reminder to everybody that it doesn't take actual knowledge or being right to make a slick explainer video, just some computers and a team of animators.
Having a slick visual presentation, the illusion of expertise, and speaking in a soothingly condescending tone is enough for Redditors and Reddit-adjecent credulous rubes.
Veritasium is an intellectually impoverished ghoul shilling for neoliberalism; no wonder he doesn't support democracy.
I used to watch him, he mostly did cool science and civil engineering videos for quite awhile. And then all of a sudden, a couple years ago or so, he just started doing tons of videos with the US military and government and the vibe shift was subtle but jarring and turned me off really fast.
Similarly, I never liked Kurtzgesagt videos, largely because of the smug Reddity vibe and the 
aesthetic, but they got even worse when the videos started bootlicking for billionaires more directly, especially techno hopium shit.
"Sure, maybe late stage capitalism will wipe out 99% of the global population, but if even 1% survives, that is a win for team humanity!" 
said without the slightest acknowledgement that whatever planetary condition wiped out the other 99% wouldn't suddenly disappear in a puff of hopium.
Yeah that one I liked for awhile too but also just made a fairly quick transition into billionaire bootlicking and shitting on AES and the global south in every video.
this shit is why I hesitate to recommend any channel unless it is explicitly ML. somebody milkshake ducks and you have to cringe remembering the people you told to check them out
load more comments
(11 replies)
Mathematically proving that enlightened centrism is the only valid choice 
Democracy is mathematically impossible because the bourgeoisie are compelled by market forces to irreparably destroy all social institutions.
"Democracy" is the wrong term here. They mean electoralism
>veritasium
Why do you 
here?
Do you want an audience or something, lib?
FYI OP was been banned from Lemmygrad 2 hours ago for liberal linkspam (including this same post) and seems to be targeting y'all as a result
Wait is this another Pluto alt
that's the vibe I got
They're also spamming radio free Asia and voice of America everywhere.
Both mbfc say are amazing sources even though are propaganda
Why my shit and hair are statistically edible.
what the fuck would this even mean, I'm not watching this video it's blatant clickbait
I'm gonna assume it's about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which is about social game-theory, sort of. There are some weird paradoxes when you get into the mathematics of voting systems. Arrow's Theorem makes a few reasonable assumptions about a ranked-choice voting system, and shows that a third candidate will always spoil the results between the other two. In other words, adding in Jill Stein would change how Kamala and Trump are ranked in relation to each other (in a ranked-choice voting system).
Probably one of the top ten misused bits of math in the world. It relies on some questionable assumptions about voting behavior, several voting systems do not apply, and even if this was 100% true, getting to 99.99% confidence accuracy in your voting system would still be possible. None of that is mentioned in any of the pop science clickbait videos about it however.
it astounds me how many people will base their lives around math and not realize that the point of basing your life around math is to allow yourself and others to actually utilize math and not to jack off endlessly about weird shit
If the issue is about people having high voter prediction accuracy, which leads to them voting differently, than you could just ban using machine learning dark magic or publicly distributing the results of calculations when it comes to elections
adding in Jill Stein would change how Kamala and Trump are ranked in relation to each other (in a ranked-choice voting system)
But how does this make democracy "impossible"? As far as I can tell this would be a good thing IRL. Republicans would become powerless if someone installed an actual ranked vote electoral process overnight, because Democrats would suddenly get a significant flood of second or third place voters for them and general voter disillusionment would plummet. This would inevitably result in the Democrats becoming irrelevant too, because they need the big scary Republican threat to get any votes.
So democracy only seems "impossible" if you want to literally blackmail your voter base. Otherwise what kind of bullshit math wizardry are they pulling out of their ass to argue that the exact ranking of each individual candidate is what makes something "more democratic" rather than whether a system produces what's wanted by popular demand?
bullshit math wizardry are they pulling out of their ass to argue that the exact ranking of each individual candidate
If you're voting in an election with ten candidates, but you only like two of them and equally despise the other eight, the "maths impossibility" arises because you'll have to put a candidate you hate third
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Apparently there's a Wikipedia article about rated voting and how it's effectively spoiler proof. It doesn't seem very "impossible"
The video mentions this as a solution to the problems presented by Arrow's theorems.
Ugggh I hate clickbait
Good assumption, it is about that
It means the adults in the room are making the hard decisions and get shit done in a way you mere ignorant masses can't possibly understand.
-get shit done
-Looks inside
it's just more neoliberalism
Repost to dunk tank
Derek needs to stay in his fuckin lane and make cool science nerd videos
why are you here my guy
Because of , that's why...
Democracy might be mathematically impossible – here’s why. Head to https://brilliant.org/veritasium to start your free 30-day trial and get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Fuck this.
Brilliant dot org? The fuck?
That the same kind of masturbatory self-labeling that made Reddit New Atheists try to call themselves "brights" until everyone else mocked them for it too much?
I don't know how people can unironically use self-congratulatory labels in general. I'd argue that there is a similar case for the word 'progressive' as used by liberals.
The most glaring one to me is when tech billionaire worshipers call themselves capital-R "Rationalists."
load more comments
(2 replies)
I saw this and gave it a watch.
And then I watched him advocate against ranked choice voting... something that would help prevent the shitfest we live in...
Once again, the smuglords say nothing should change and that things that suck should stay the same.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You have to subtract the cia but if you do you get valid solutions for for non imaginary sets
I hate that guy
the pivotal voter is therefore a complete dictator
you heard it here first, folks; Mr. Veritasium wants to exterminate the swing states
Oh goodie, statistical game theory is parading itself as "objective math" again. My favorite! I'll bet the video actual couches this weird-ass opinion, but doesn't explain that it is entirely based on particular types of voting methods.
I can't even stand opening the link. I already know it'll just be full of shit.
As a person with a math background, I think the way the 'dictator voter' is defined in Arrow's theorem is rather silly, and, thus, I never got why it's considered to be the proof that this sort of 'democracy' is impossible - I stumbled upon the theorem about 10 years ago and had the same issue with this part that I have now.
Also, I find another case more interesting, one where it is proven that a system of voting can't allow for all three:
-
Anonimity - every voter's input is weighed the same way as the input of every other voter.
-
Unanimity - if every voter votes for a particular thing A, then A is the elected result of the vote.
-
Continuity - the mapping f(x_1, x_2, x_3,..., x_n), where x_i is the vote of the ith voter, from the topological space of vote-vectors to the topological space of vote results, is continuous.
I first encountered an examination of this case here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ev-RAg7Xs
However, even in this case there are a couple of issues:
-
Specifically for the case of the video, it assumes that preference spaces are (homeomorphic to) standard S^1 and not any other spaces, which I find a faulty assumption, and I'm not familiar with any general proofs that axioms 1, 2, and 3 can't be satisfied at the same time.
-
I don't even think that we should expect continuity, or that continuity is important.
I feel like the preference space assumption was reasonable? Effectively asking "how important is x_i" for every issue i and then normalizing the result. Works at the limits, too, if something is considered infinitely important.
It does depend on how one asks about the preferences. Given a different question one might get a non-complete or non-transitive preference function. Also I think that if there were dependent preferences (e.g. more roads, but only if work-from-home isn't available) then that wouldn't be continuous? Cause the preference for one would jump with the sign change of the other. Continuity might even be harmful.
Honestly I just hate it because it's a rather unmathematical approach to say "voting is the problem" and not "our definition of fair voting is flawed."
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›