I read a bit further. Definitely got the vibe that AI had a hand in editing the prose as well, it felt like half a story and half a pros/cons list. There’s some technical content in there that is salvageable, but as a piece of writing, it holds up to that stamp of quality, IMO

It was a long ass year though

I don’t think I am describing any hypothetical voter switching? I’m defending the value of the poll as data, and describing how the poll’s data could be extrapolated into a projection of positive or negative vibes for a desired result by comparing outcomes against naive assumptions on how undecided voters might distribute their votes. Maybe you are talking about that? I don’t consider an undecided voter deciding how they will use their vote “switching” on an issue, and I tried to make it clear that I’m not saying anybody should count on any percentage of the undecided vote, just that you’d rather be in a position where you need fewer undecided voters to reach 50% vs more. I actually left out the nuance where opinions can change over the course of a campaign, causing voters to either switch or opt against voting, that does add uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Which is my point; your language is accusing “neoliberals” of “counting on votes”, and I’m just arguing that this poll doesn’t need to count on any votes to communicate a positive, if uncertain, picture of the potential future. Your comment feels like it would be more relevant on an opinion piece about this poll that says that this election is in the bag (kind of like how your original comment implied that this poll meant the election was in the bag as a no, as I read it), which is why I am confused. I’ll admit, I can’t read Icelandic, so I haven’t read the article attached to this headline, which is maybe where I am missing context, I’m just reading the headline and a translated excerpt from the comments, so maybe there is an argument being made elsewhere in the article that I’m unaware of. I’m sorry if my tone was accusatory, I’m trying to express my confusion as to why your reaction to my comment was to talk about neoliberals counting votes, which seemed tangential to the comment I made

Yes. But… This poll doesn’t do that. The headline calls out 44% as the top line number, which includes 0 undecided. The tone of the headline as positive news for those in favor of EU membership is based on an implicit assertion that only 30% of undecideds would be needed to clear the 50% mark, which is a pretty good margin of error on the 50/50 division that you might naively assign to a population you have no other data on, especially before you take into a count those who may opt not to vote. It’s also notable as an opinion poll for politicians actions outside of a direct referendum (not every issue will swing every vote, so knowing that this issue has more potential to swing votes towards vs. against you might encourage actions and rhetoric supporting a closer relationship with the EU. Finally, it’s relevant as a comparison point to prior polls on this issue (in 2017, for example, a quick Google search suggests that the average was more like -20 margin opposed to EU membership, so the transition to +8 in favor is significant). It feels like you are arguing a straw man here, but maybe I am the one missing context.

Only 36% are no. So a +8 poll with 20% undecided. Definitely could swing the other way if it came to a vote/referendum, but you’d almost definitely rather be the candidate with +8 if this were an election

Yep, or any other etf or fund that tracks an ex US index, if folks don’t want to give their money/share votes to Vanguard. I’m unfortunately not well versed in brokerages outside the US, so no fund suggestions, but VXUS tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Ex US index, MSCI also has a World ex US index, it shouldn’t be too hard to find an ex US index tracking fund at a reputable brokerage of your choice

A lot of their direct competition is not in the S&P 500 because they are not American companies. Hyundai, Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan, BYD, etc. American automakers let the EV market languish so long that they are only now becoming legitimate competitors in that space

To be fair, the same can be said of the book it is based on

A nonrepeating number does not mean that a sequence within that number never happens again, it means that the there is no point in the number where you can predict the numbers to follow by playing back a subset of the numbers before that point on repeat. So for 01 to be the “repeating pattern”, the rest of the number at some point would have to be 010101010101010101… You can find the sequence “14” at digits 2 and 3, 104 and 105, 251 and 252, and 296 and 297 (I’m sure more places as well).

For me, I think it’s the fact that I have to prepare for both a social interaction and a monologue depending on whether they answer or not. As someone with mild social anxiety, the uncertainty and the fact that I am unequivocally initiating the interaction messes with a lot of the ways I would cope with joining a normal social interaction and throws me off my game

It’s easier to read if you read it as a line spoken by the Silicon Valley TV character Jian Yang

FYI, I’m pretty sure “at the behest of” means “as requested by”, but it looks like you meant something more like “to the detriment of” or “at the cost of”

This makes one of the “solutions” from the article: “A law was introduced at the end of 2023 that will eliminate the need for permits and environmental impact assessments for bridges that are being widened to add lanes as part of renovations.” look particularly shortsighted. Infrastructure is a maintenance debt that we are reckoning with, so we will make it easier to build specifically bigger infrastructure so that in 25 years we will have an even bigger problem to solve? Not to mention the concept of induced demand meaning that those lanes are going to increase the amount of vehicles using the bridge, which would be exactly the kind of thing that should get an environmental assessment, versus repurposing some lanes for sustainable transit or building a separate bridge for those modes

Low key convinced this started out as “monster hail” and then got butchered by an AI or like 5 Google translate passes

This is a great comment to contextualize the headline. But the numbers you are showing are for registered voters while the headline specifies men. Were there crosstabs for male respondent results that paint a less reasonable picture? 41% (weighted, as you point out) of all registered voters is already pretty high for the two yes-aligned answers, it wouldn’t shock me if the political gender gap pushes those two over 50% when looking specifically at men, as unfortunate of an indicator as that is on the ability of those in my gender to understand what respect for women even looks like

Edit: found it, the crosstabs for men do indeed show 54% at “a lot” + “some”. Truly an embarrassing showing

The monkeys paw curls, everyone now has to drive from the perspective of a back seat passenger looking over the driver’s shoulder

Nation of christians and christian nation are two very different things, despite using the same words. America has historically been populated by a Christian majority, but from its foundation America has existed with separation of church and state as one of its core principles