4 ms·

Why use correlation to develop a neutral cause hypothesis when there are lawsuit settlements which theorize vast conspiracies of billionaires? That doesn't acti

by adolph 2y ago

Why use correlation to develop a neutral cause hypothesis when there are lawsuit settlements which theorize vast conspiracies of billionaires? That doesn't activate dopaminergic systems at all.

drawkward 2y ago
Because a settlement is a lot closer to indicating causation than correlation is.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  This comment would make a lot of lawyers’ heads spin.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    That's because the legal profession has all kinds of rules about "truth" and what can be admitted in court as "evidence", that differ from true causality. There are whole swaths of things that can be true but inadmissable because they were not discovered the right way. There is a reason we call practitioners of the law lawyers and not scientists
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Decisions to settle are based on money/time/stress cost and probability of favorable judgement from an underqualified judge/jury, rather than the decision just being based on reality, which is often not provable.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        If you as a corporation are unwilling to take the time/effort/resources to prove in a court of law that there is (civil case) not enough evidence to show you most likely did the "wrong" thing, then do not be surprised when the public draws adverse inferences. The expensive nature of the american court system could be improved in a way that you would never be worse off defending yourself, but these companies don't push for that because they LIKE having the power to bully people with stupid expensive lawfare.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        Ah yes, because there is a legal document disclaiming any liability, no one would be reasonable when inferring any. Also, lol at the underqualified jury comment. It's a bit telling on your part. Juries are inherently underqualified? No, sounds like a corporation that doesn't want to face the extreme financial risk that occurs when they face judgment for their conduct.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42601569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42601569 Specifically this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42612782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42612782 Of course, all those comments could be fake, as could mine, but if you have any experience with the courts in the US, then you know going to trial means a lot of uncertainty.
        drawkward 2y ago
        In the context of this discussion, i suspect a good lawyer could say: look at the correlation between avian influenza and the price increases... Unless there were evidence that would come out in discovery that in fact there was price gouging going on.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        I would hope even a bad lawyer (or a non lawyer such as a random HN commenter) could make the case that, absent evidence of illegal behavior, one should assume prices change due to shifting supply and demand curves.
        drawkward 2y ago
        My evidence is the settlement. A settlement is not evidence of absence. On the contrary, a settlement suggests just the opposite.
        freejazz 2y ago
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Sure, and plenty of lawyers love putting their head in the sand and relying on the principle that in the US legal system, everyone is entitled to a good legal defense.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      How is that relevant here? Most settlements happen in civil cases, where there is no right to a lawyer, much less a good one. Otherwise, I don’t know what you could mean.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        It's what all the corporate attorneys tell themselves when they parrot the same line you do about settlements. And in civil cases, corporations must have an attorney, which I suspect you know.
adolph 2y ago
Mea culpa--I used the wrong word, settlement, instead of the correct one, verdict. OTOH, this has to do with inter-corporate battles starting 25 years ago, not some recent rise of commodity cartelling. A 12-year-old federal antitrust case against the nation's largest egg producers came to a tentative close on Friday, after a jury delivered a verdict awarding four food corporations $17.7 million in damages. The four plaintiff corporations first sued the egg producers in December 2011, accusing them of using multiple tactics to jack up egg prices starting as early as 1998. However, the jury found the corporations only suffered damages from the price fixing between October 2004 and December 2008. No individual consumers were represented in the suit. https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-corporations-17-7-million-in-egg-price-fixing-suit/ https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-corporations-17-7... (edit, added link to quote source)

by adolph 2y ago

Why use correlation to develop a neutral cause hypothesis when there are lawsuit settlements which theorize vast conspiracies of billionaires? That doesn't activate dopaminergic systems at all.

drawkward 2y ago

Because a settlement is a lot closer to indicating causation than correlation is.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
This comment would make a lot of lawyers’ heads spin.
- drawkward 2y ago
  That's because the legal profession has all kinds of rules about "truth" and what can be admitted in court as "evidence", that differ from true causality. There are whole swaths of things that can be true but inadmissable because they were not discovered the right way. There is a reason we call practitioners of the law lawyers and not scientists
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Decisions to settle are based on money/time/stress cost and probability of favorable judgement from an underqualified judge/jury, rather than the decision just being based on reality, which is often not provable.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      If you as a corporation are unwilling to take the time/effort/resources to prove in a court of law that there is (civil case) not enough evidence to show you most likely did the "wrong" thing, then do not be surprised when the public draws adverse inferences. The expensive nature of the american court system could be improved in a way that you would never be worse off defending yourself, but these companies don't push for that because they LIKE having the power to bully people with stupid expensive lawfare.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Ah yes, because there is a legal document disclaiming any liability, no one would be reasonable when inferring any. Also, lol at the underqualified jury comment. It's a bit telling on your part. Juries are inherently underqualified? No, sounds like a corporation that doesn't want to face the extreme financial risk that occurs when they face judgment for their conduct.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42601569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42601569 Specifically this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42612782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42612782 Of course, all those comments could be fake, as could mine, but if you have any experience with the courts in the US, then you know going to trial means a lot of uncertainty.
        drawkward 2y ago
        In the context of this discussion, i suspect a good lawyer could say: look at the correlation between avian influenza and the price increases... Unless there were evidence that would come out in discovery that in fact there was price gouging going on.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        I would hope even a bad lawyer (or a non lawyer such as a random HN commenter) could make the case that, absent evidence of illegal behavior, one should assume prices change due to shifting supply and demand curves.
        drawkward 2y ago
        My evidence is the settlement. A settlement is not evidence of absence. On the contrary, a settlement suggests just the opposite.
        freejazz 2y ago
- freejazz 2y ago
  Sure, and plenty of lawyers love putting their head in the sand and relying on the principle that in the US legal system, everyone is entitled to a good legal defense.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    How is that relevant here? Most settlements happen in civil cases, where there is no right to a lawyer, much less a good one. Otherwise, I don’t know what you could mean.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      It's what all the corporate attorneys tell themselves when they parrot the same line you do about settlements. And in civil cases, corporations must have an attorney, which I suspect you know.

adolph 2y ago

Mea culpa--I used the wrong word, settlement, instead of the correct one, verdict. OTOH, this has to do with inter-corporate battles starting 25 years ago, not some recent rise of commodity cartelling. A 12-year-old federal antitrust case against the nation's largest egg producers came to a tentative close on Friday, after a jury delivered a verdict awarding four food corporations $17.7 million in damages. The four plaintiff corporations first sued the egg producers in December 2011, accusing them of using multiple tactics to jack up egg prices starting as early as 1998. However, the jury found the corporations only suffered damages from the price fixing between October 2004 and December 2008. No individual consumers were represented in the suit. https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-corporations-17-7-million-in-egg-price-fixing-suit/ https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-corporations-17-7... (edit, added link to quote source)