DonPiano

Fun: The leak looks the same as if it had sprung from german!

I think it's making fun of the person doing the explaining, because they are overwhelming someone with an overly intense explanation.

Oop, a repeat comment, sorry

Werther's is a German candy and at least popular in Europe and the US

Root beer would be cool to be more popular in Europe, I'd like more selection here..

Eh. I'd say it's center right, the c*u is right, there's the fascists/far right and then you have the social democratic parties left of center like the greens and the linke.

Things don't have to be relative in this context either. They're also relative, but you can use more absolute criteria as well. Stuff like "wants no one to be coerced into employment" vs "wants some people coerced mildly" vs "wants to coerce everyone to be employed". Or the converse with regards to social security. Or criteria relating to individual rights. Or regulation in favor of hierarchical power structures vs regulations in favor of non-hierarchical power structures. These would all be meaningful left-right aligned analytical lenses.

I do agree though that relative statements can for certain contexts be more immediately practical. But also, the case of the spd is one where thinking about the space of possible party landscapes is relevant: What if the spd were center-left, in the sense of reformist left-wing/labor movement/syndicalist-ish policies, instead of a seeheimer circle oriented mildly right-wing party? That would present a very different type of discourse in society, i feel.

When I studied with a researcher on this, I learned it even stronger than "not all": Most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are specifically not pedophiles. By focusing on pedophilia (and there focusing on expressing anger rather than effective preventative measures, which feature support rather than trying to feel morally superior), resources are not only overallocated in one place but underallocated in another, thus making the problem worse

I don't think you should expect that the average proportion of votes should correspond to the expected number of won chunks. This is a known property of first past the post electoral systems, which mayoral elections approximate.

There's slightly over 2000 cities and towns in Germany. If there was a party that gets 1% of the votes, you would not expect them to get 20ish mayoral seats, without further information about clustering of voters, you'd rather expect them to be somewhat homogeneous in their losses (because of the mechanisms that cause the low popularity presumably (!) applying everywhere; if the 1% of voters were all coming from the same place because it's a hyperregional party for example, that would possibly change).

Now, sadly, there's a bit of clustering going on and that makes fascist mayors more likely, but I guess other than that, one possible conclusion here is: Fascist voters are everywhere, so whatever mechanism is behind their etiology, it applies all over the place.

The media landscape and dominant politics feeding into what feeds fascists is a "likely" candidate here. Scare quotes because, like, cmon. :| Friede, Fritze..

Hey now

He was also a racist

Great song!

How's the weather in Tyrol these days, Anton?

I recommend finding a different statistics teacher, preferably one who isn't a comic and one who knows what the difference between a standard deviation, a standard error, and a 95% interval is. Those should not be too hard to find, it's relatively basic stuff, but many people actually kinda struggle with the concepts (made harder by various factors, don't get me started on the misuse of bar charts).

Oops, should have multiplied those intervals with 1.96, ao here again:

9 - 49%

16 - 38%

25 - 30%

100 -16%

400 - 8%

That's how a standard error with normal-ish data works. The more data points for the estimation of a conditional mean you have, the fewer of the data point will be within it. For a normal distribution, the SE=SD/√N . Heck, you can even just calculate which proportion of the distribution you can expect to be within the 95% CI as a function of sample size. (Its a bit more complicated because of how probabilities factor into this, but for a large enough N it's fine)

For N=9, you'd expect 26% of data points within the 95% CI of the mean For N=16, 19% For 25, 16% For 100, 8% For 400, 4% Etc

Out of curiosity: What issue did you take with the error margin not including most data points?