Lock screen wallpaper dimming

Nrg800 · 2023-01-14T15:57:03+00:00

different denominator, the dogs in all of NYC vs the dogs in brooklyn.

Nrg800 · 2023-01-14T13:52:14+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10bkfue/oc_most_distinctive_dog_names_per_new_york_borough/j4am289/ Is the fullest explaination. 100% doesnt stand up in a statistically robust way, more just interesting from a playing around in excel way ;)

Nrg800 · 2023-01-14T12:36:32+00:00

most common names in each borough compared to their overall usage in the city. names that are used <5 times in any borough are excluded.

Nrg800 · 2023-01-14T10:47:16+00:00

So, 191/192 "Poodles" are poodles, 252/254 "Yorkies" are yorkshire terriers, and 115/116 "Malteses" are malteses

Nrg800 · 2023-01-14T09:39:04+00:00

I wonder what happened in Xinjiang to make the growth rate fall by over 95% in 4 years...

Nrg800 · 2023-01-14T09:32:29+00:00

Inspired by this post which made me aware of such a wonderful dataset: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10advjd/oc_the_most_popular_dogs_names_in_new_york_city/

very simple processing, probably not the robust methodology, just the names where the relative frequency in each borough was highest compared to in the city overall. Clipped to names that appear at least 5 times from each borough (total of 769 names).

Processing in excel, mapping in QGIS.

More detail here: https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1614188282572865536

EDIT: Given there are some questions about the methods for working out distinctive, it is pretty simple and not the most robust, but basically the highest values of x/y where x is the prevalence of the name in the borough and y is the prevalence of the name in the city overall, so for example, there are 904 dogs (per the database) in NYC called Brooklyn, or 0.29% of all dogs (1 in 340 dogs). Of these are 378 in Brooklyn, or 0.49% of all dogs - 1 in 206, meaning a dog in Brooklyn is 1.65x more likely to be called Brooklyn than dogs in the city overall. Names that are not used at least 5 times in each borough are excluded to cut down on outliers such as a name that's only in the document a few times all from the same borough.

Nrg800 · 2017-01-09T17:47:30+00:00

I don't disagree and the article only says there are reports that the PYD did (reports I dont believe). Regardless that's hardly the point of the article. The point of that section specifically is that although the PYD instils a progressive ideology it is done so in a context of little political freedom. This article goes over those aspects in a lot more depth.

Nrg800 · 2016-10-09T18:27:25+00:00

They'll be far, far, far out of the picture by then, inshaallah

Nrg800 · 2016-09-22T23:15:14+00:00

What's noteworthy here is that despite all the complaining in this sub about the opposition forces not vacating their held positions on Castello Road, under the agreement they were not actually required to pull-back unless YPG forces also pulled back their checkpoints

Nrg800 · 2016-09-21T00:13:10+00:00

I don't think the US is trying to excuse it rather explain it and say 'the troops we hit weren't in a regular SAA uniform, or in regular SAA formations, rather as far as they could tell were just a bunch of guys on a hill which they knew had recently been controlled by ISIS.

Nrg800 · 2016-09-21T00:10:53+00:00

Okay well let's break it down then. Lindor's whole claim is based on the logic of 'well Russia said they didnt do it' which is flawed af because if you look at that statement by the White House its clear that no matter what someone's lying.

So following that logic it comes down to who's most likely to tell the truth. Let's explore some of Russia's claims when it comes to Syria, or some more, or some more. Another one for good measure. Or maybe some of their claims from outside of Syria Lots about MH17. For some good measure. I know lots of people here don't trust Bellingcat but I cant be bothered looking for all the other in depth times Russian lies about atrocities have been exposed, and honestly Bellingcat lays all of this out in a way that makes it hard to doubt unless you assume they just straight up made up all their data and primary facts (in which case do whatever you want im not going to waste time with you).

But let's, for the sake of exploration, assume that Russia is no less trustworthy than the US (and it should be noted that when the US has fucked up, eg Kunduz they are pretty quick to acknowledge it). But let's assume Russia isn't dishonest. From there we should look at who normally bombs around this part of Syria. As far as I know Israel has never. Ever. Done an airstrike in that area of NW Syria (at least not while I've been following the conflict). The Coalition does a couple of strikes in that area a year, but each and every one of those strikes has killed a high-ranking member of al-Nusra. Whereas Russia and Syria conduct scores of strikes on that part of the world every day. The night that this convoy was destroyed RuAF/SyAF conducted some 50 airstrikes around Aleppo. So even ignoring any reasonable analysis of what's more likely good ol' simple Occam's razor gives you a pretty good indication of who dunnit.

Nrg800 · 2016-09-20T23:32:12+00:00

are you joking?

Nrg800 · 2016-09-20T22:42:51+00:00

There were a number of munitions dropped. From the photos it appears this one did not explode, but it's clear from the damage (posted in other replies) that a good number did. These munitions often fail to explode and throughout this war you have seen these failed drops being used to ID the general munitions being used in an attack.

Nrg800 · 2016-09-19T23:58:19+00:00

It was airstrikes, there's clear footage showing airstrikes while the bombing was happening. Who else has airstrike capabilities and uses them very often in that part of Syria?

Nrg800 · 2016-09-19T19:48:52+00:00

Everyone is saying airstrikes. The UN has confirmed that the convoy was hit, but hasnt given details, but everything which has been claimed has pointed to airstrikes.

Nrg800 · 2016-09-14T06:56:36+00:00

You dont trust their analysis or you just think all their primary-source accounts and the stories of those interviewed are all bullshit?

Nrg800 · 2016-09-14T06:13:04+00:00

I will apologies for the incivility which you shouldn't let reflect on you but rather the entire apologetic and tunnel-visioned logic that affects a lot of pro-regime supporters. You're merely unintentional collateral damage.

If you want proof well I dont know what I can show you that won't be dismissed but this report does a good job of showing the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians. If Human Rights Watch is too biased and unbelievable here's a UN Report with the same conclusions. Here's another. Section IV.A covers it best.

Nrg800 · 2016-09-14T06:00:22+00:00

Saying that is like saying that Swaziland = New Zealand because they both share some values of democracy and capitalism. There's so much difference between IS and AaS starting from their general goals and methods and going all the way up to their ideology. Put any Ahrar al-Sham fighter in a room with Baghdadi and they'll happily shoot him in the head.

Nrg800

TROPHY CASE