this tweet is my objection to the math in article
-
-
division is by # affected then, not # voters. i think ssc was talking from an altruistic pov though
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @solipsistfever @slatestarcodex
Expected Value (divide by total population). Altruism (divide by collective participants). Sum issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
i don't understand. there's never a division by number of voters, linked probability calc covers that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
(by "covers" i mean if you're taking it into account you don't need to also divide by voter pop)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @solipsistfever @slatestarcodex
1 in 60M cases EACH voter gets to "give" $300B is multi-counting. Altruistic donation gets allocated, no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
rest of cases each gives 0. i think this framing is counterintuitive
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
EV of voting is (P(win | vote) - P(win | not vote)) * value(win); linked paper estimates first factor
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
this eq is true regardless of whether value is to the individual or society. no further division by voter count
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @solipsistfever
we can agree to disagree, but I'm saying inspect value(win) and check for double counting if every voters runs some math.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
i don't think there's double counting but i'm happy to give it a rest
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.