5 ms·
On the other hand, people who bought a house last year are far less likely than the general population to buy a house this year. The non-obvious part is that t
by geofft 5y ago
On the other hand, people who bought a house last year are far less likely than the general population to buy a house this year.
The non-obvious part is that the death penalty follows the first model and not the second. You could reason from first principles that the death penalty's intended effect is to prevent crime by executing a criminal, which is a long-term action like buying a house and not a short-term one like buying a steak. Or you could reason that its intended effect is to deter crime by presenting a deeply undesirable outcome for criminals. The surprise is that it's neither, and the counties so often have more people to execute.
- naniwaduni 5y ago> On the other hand, people who bought a house last year are far less likely than the general population to buy a house this year. Is this even true? This is a non-obvious claim where the exact opposite phenomenon is allegedly true of other seemingly one-time purchases (e.g. cars, household appliances).
- fiddlerwoaroof 5y agoI sort of wonder if this is the data behind Amazon’s bizarre tendency to do things like advertise the same GPU to people who just bought one: I’ve always assumed that it’s just bad ML, but I’ve had this nagging thought that repeat purchases are somehow correlated (if only because seeing an ad for the thing you just bought might remind you that you need to purchase a related accessory in a way that seeing the accessory wouldn’t)
- hnick 5y agoYes this comes up a lot. If something like 2% of people ever buy a GPU, but 5% of GPU buyers will buy another one soon, then you spend a lot less overall and also get a better conversion rate advertising only to GPU buyers even if most of them think you're silly for showing them the ad. It also preys on FOMO (show a better deal, they might cancel and re-order from you), brings you top of mind if they need a refund/replacement in short order, and does work for general brand awareness for next time, or conversations with a friend (since the ad knows you are now a GPU buying type of person). "Yeah I got XYZ GPU but I saw ABC GPU is cheaper and probably what you need." I probably missed a few things, but briefly it wouldn't be done if there wasn't a reason with the number of metrics they have these days.
- unishark 5y agoI think it's even less likely to be true in geographical terms; counties where people bought more houses last year are probably more likely to be the places where people buy more houses this year. Even if the individuals who did buy houses are no longer in the market.
- Spooky23 5y agoYou could also reason that killing people is good for getting certain kinds of votes, and generating lots of wasteful and stupid appeals work is good for outside counsel. (Aka donors)
- dragonwriter 5y ago> You could reason from first principles that the death penalty's intended effect is to prevent crime by executing a criminal, which is a long-term action like buying a house and not a short-term one like buying a steak. Or you could reason that its intended effect is to deter crime by presenting a deeply undesirable outcome for criminals. The surprise is that it's neither This doesn’t say anything about the intended effect. It says a lot about the actual dynamics, but there is no necessary relationship between those two things.
- gustavo-fring 5y agoIt not only doesn't say anything about the intended effect, it can't as it is designed, and the intention is different across the people involved - juries, victims, judges, and voters.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]