And, no, I’m not going to “trust me, I’ve seen it before. [I just have no evidence.”

See the "CPI-Adjusted to 2022" column https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-year/

FYI, for anyone else that stumbles upon this: I decided to do a quick check on PyTorch (the most problem-prone dependency I've had), and noticed that they recommending specifically no longer using conda—and have since last November.

But most of my work, since I adopted conda 7ish years ago, involves using the same ML environment across any number of folders or even throw-away notebooks on the desktop, for instance. I’ll create the environment and sometimes add new packages, but rarely update it, unless I feel like a spring cleaning. And I like knowing that I have the same environment across all my machines, so I don’t have to think about if I’m running the same script or notebook on a different machine today.

The idea of a new environment for each of my related “projects” just doesn’t make sense to me. But, I’m open to learning a new workflow.

Addition: I don’t run other’s code, like pretrained models built with specific package requirements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02305

> You know, you can approach this like a scientific hypothesis testing, or you can approach it the way everyday voters do.

That's the problem, there is no proof that will convince them. And I don't mean that derogatorily. In generally, one can't be convinced by facts when they arrived at a conclusion by feelings. Especially, when so much astroturfing that was done about "I'm not saying there's fraud, but a lot of people are saying it.". If you have people in high places, that know better (because we have them on record saying they know 2020 was legit), spreading fear for the sake of it, all it does is create a false narrative of some overwhelming consensus, which then just feeds on itself. "See, look at all of these tweets, posts, articles, mentioning other people mentioning that they have a bad feeling about 2020."

There was no evidence that anything was untoward in the 2020 election—and people have had 4 years at this point to present evidence that there was. The problem with your example is that people looked at something that has occurred for almost every election in the past 100 years, that precinct by precinct votes often come in over time and in groups (you cannot be surprised that a precinct, as in a specific small area, is more homogenous than not). You can find pictures of chalkboards and primitive displays of election-night results coming in even from the early 20th century (probably before this too). But people took these static, after the fact, incremental updates to the running total as some sort of horse race. Like the NYTimes was tracking a basketball game. It's not, to pick a computer metaphor, it's like showing a progress bar for a count of all of the items in a database. The computer literally cannot count all of the "red" or "blue" items in one atomic operation; it has add them up, incrementally.

This has been proposed elsewhere, but in addition to actual speeding up the counting in certain states (and removing the barriers to doing counting ahead of of time(looking at you, PA)), is the idea of making it illegal to post results until some representative threshold of the results are in. As in, once you can be statistically certain that a different outcome isn't possible (maybe 99.99% or something), then you can post your first update of the results. Obviously, no one would accept that we should wait until all of the results are in, because oversees/military/absentee ballots might take days to arrive (even if they were mailed the day before election day). And, one obvious solution is maybe to require, at a national level, that all ballots must be received by COB election day, so that they can be tabulated in a timely manner.

Again, I fully understand that most people operate off of vibes and feels. Even highly educated people, outside of their domain (and maybe even inside their domain, if they have a vested interest in not being proved wrong), will default to vibes and feels. But you literally CANNOT prove a negative. So, just like it's impossible to prove no aliens have visited us, no one can prove that the 2020 election wasn't "stolen". Which is why we require evidence to rebut claims (extraordinary or not). No one has provided proof that aliens have visited us. And no one has provided proof that the 2020 election was "stolen"—as in the outcome would've been different. Yup, there's always some shitheads, ne'er-do-wells, and honestly-mistaken-about-their-elibilibity-to-vote-people that are caught each year. (Sadly, especially for the GOP, the number of GOP-voting voters that fall into the category outnumber the Dem-voting voters.) But, not once, at least that I've been able to find record of, in the past 40+ years, has identified fraud been able to change the result of any election from state-representative on up.

I certainly didn't mention Rogan—I'm aware of his existence, but I've actually never heard him speak nor seen any transcripts of anything he's said. But trying to minimize the flood of absolute obvious shit that comes from right-wing outlets by choosing to point to Rogan specifically is a bit telling.

Anyone and everyone should be called out for lies they manufacture or spread. This includes lies on the left, lest you think I'm granting one side a pass.

If "everyone agrees...the election had fraud", I'm sure you can provide multiple reputable polls showing this sentiment of "everyone". (I'll be generous and lower the bar to just a majority of Americans, but I'm not going to accept polls that show -only- a majority of Republicans, since your claim is "across the political spectrum")

Second. Even if, as you've admitted elsewhere, every single court case was lost (or denied due to lack of standing) in 2020, you do realize that evidence can be presented outside courts, right? Where is this evidence? They've had 4 years to collect it. If it's widespread and, as you said elsewhere is a statistical anomaly, then it, almost by definition, should be obvious to spot. Hand waving to vibes and feels and "sure seems obvious to me" doesn't mean jack.

Now, I'll grant you, that vibes and feels certainly mean a lot to the animal natures of all of us. But feels and vibes are not proof of anything.

To be clear, most brain and heart cells do not require glucose to function. Although, a small subset do.