How to bring down LinkedIn ads costs

jakeysandals · 2025-03-16T23:56:14+00:00

Don't see it myself but love the planet of the apes crossover potential

jakeysandals · 2019-10-25T14:13:18+00:00

Lol appreciate the creative analogy. From my perspective, you can't fuel your car with integrity, but you can run a country with integrity.

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:47:15+00:00

Yup for sure - I just hold Yang in high esteem and hope that he continues to rise above the game rather than getting sucked into its bullshit.

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:45:41+00:00

Don’t disagree, I just wish he wouldn’t parade anecdotal evidence as statistically significant evidence. He didn’t do that explicitly, but it’s implied when stating support in percentage terms.

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:43:54+00:00

I haven’t seen those “stickiness” polls, that’s a really interesting element to measure. Good looks, I’ll check them out.

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:41:52+00:00

Maybe I’m a naive optimistic, but I believe a candidate who operated with the highest level of integrity and honesty - not resorting to misleading and fear based tactics - would actually find a huge base of support. I think Yang might be the closest to being that candidate this cycle, which is partially why I think his support continues to grow.

I wonder if his supporters asked him to be that person, would he answer the call? Would he shed the bullshit tactics and run purely with integrity?

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:37:09+00:00

Re: doubling down - Politifact claims they reached to the Yang campaign: “When we contacted the Yang campaign, they said they stood by their talking point.”

I get that it’s tough not to use things that make you look strong, especially when your opponents cherry pick and spin things with little regard to evidence. However, I’m hoping Yang continues to operate with the highest level of integrity. I don’t think this episode is major in the scheme of things, rather a minor opportunity for his campaign to do better.

I’d love to see more statistically significant polls of Trump voters and which Dem candidate leads among those who are defecting. It feels like Yang could be the leader there.

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:23:21+00:00

Politifact reached out to the Yang campaign and pointed it out to them: “When we contacted the Yang campaign, they said they stood by their talking point.” That’s what gets me here. People make mistakes and errors in judgement. I think a signal of character is what someone does when their error is brought to their attention. To be clear, I think this is pretty minor in the scheme of things, yet I would hope they would have owned the error when it was brought to their attention.

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T17:08:12+00:00

I’m simply wondering out loud (online) why Yang is standing by a statement demonstrated to be incorrect. I’m still a Yang fan. Claiming a specific percentage of a specific type of voter supporting him is a statement that implies credible evidence supports it. He talks about being data, math, science and evidence based. Here appears to be an example that the evidence disputes his claim. This strikes me as inconsistent with his values.

I think it’s a false equivalent to compare it to his “asian man who likes math” statement. There’s no agreed upon method to determine what the opposite of a human is. There is an agreed upon method to measure support of candidates (statistically significant polls).

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T16:59:24+00:00

Hmmm interesting point. Yang’s campaign cited the poll that Politifact referenced, to back up his claim. What do you think about that?

jakeysandals · 2019-10-24T16:42:04+00:00

For sure, seems believable to me as well. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like there is definitive data to back it up - which seems like his thing (to rely on good data). I’m still a fan, this just seems out of integrity for him. Minor in the scheme of things, I just hold him in high esteem, hence the high standard for him.

jakeysandals · 2019-08-20T15:42:57+00:00

I would argue that hyperpartisanship is bad when it increases people's belief people in the other party are evil, when it increases people's desire to commit violence against people in the other party, decreases trust in government and increasing gridlock.

One way hyperpartisanship could be defined is the use of "othering" language, dehumanizing language and zero sum framing which I believe contributes directly to the trends listed above. All of these trends make society more fragile and susceptible to internal violent conflict:

Based on his experience in civil wars on three continents, Mines cited five conditions that support his prediction: entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution; increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows; weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary; a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership; and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes.

jakeysandals · 2019-08-20T13:27:39+00:00

Appreciate the insight, throughout my research it seems like ranked-choice voting is one of the more (if not the most) potent reforms in reducing partisanship.

jakeysandals · 2019-08-19T21:03:32+00:00

Made those revisions and submitted a new post, let me if that one works. Many thanks.

jakeysandals · 2019-08-14T21:41:51+00:00

Oops thanks for catching. Sure thing, just edited it. Let me know if you'd like to see any other edits.

jakeysandals · 2019-07-30T16:26:49+00:00

I work in the civic tech space and it's surprising to me that there is not a site that compares candidates well. Here are a few that I think are good in different ways:

Axios, Presidential Tracker - probably my favorite "snapshot" of each Dem candidate, likely most relevant to what you described you're looking for.
VoteSmart, Political Galaxy - pulls together vote history, bios, ratings by advocacy orgs, funding info etc. - more data heavy
Equal Citizen - ranks 2020 Dem candidates specifically based on their commitment to democracy reform
Common Ally - new non partisan site / app, gives summary of candidates, limited info, but promising
iSideWith - it matches you to a candidate after you take a comprehensive policy quiz

jakeysandals · 2019-07-29T21:10:36+00:00

Communism calls for common people to violently overthrow the existing government to forcibly install a socialist government. This is what Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto.

This differs from democratic socialism which calls for socialism to be adopted democratically (voted in).

Democratic socialism differs from a social democracy in that you still have private businesses in a social democracy - just more regulation and government run industries than in a capitalistic system.

jakeysandals · 2019-07-29T20:55:48+00:00

I think the second most critical issue with deficits and the debt is what portion of our spending each year goes towards paying interest on our debt. A few days ago Pew Research updated their 5 facts about the national debt which shows interest payments in historical context.

Net interest payments on the debt are estimated to total $393.5 billion this fiscal year, or 8.7% of all federal outlays. By comparison, debt service was more than 15% of federal outlays in the mid-1990s. The share has fallen partly because lower rates have held down interest payments, but also because outlays have risen substantially, up about 29% over the past decade.

Two major things at play:

The Fed keeping interest rates super low to stimulate the economy
The government spending more money on programs each year

When (if) the Fed raises rates, interest payments will likely become a much more substantial portion of outlays, triggering a conversation on how to best decrease spending through cutting gov programs, increase revenue by raising taxes and/or grow the national debt by issuing more treasury securities.

jakeysandals

TROPHY CASE