4 ms·

They should make similar experiments with Saudi-Arabia and maybe a few other countries :-)

mooism2 14y ago
Because discrimination is perfectly fine so long as you're not discriminating as much as somebody more extreme? Of course not. And don't try to wiggle out of it by saying you were only joking. You are still perpetuating the viewpoint.
- claudius 14y ago
  Actually, my idea was that Saudi-Arabia would be less discriminating in this matter, hence displaying the idiocy of such delays even more obviously.
- ethomson 14y ago
  What view point is being perpetuated? I read that pretty literally - that they should, indeed, try this with addresses in Saudi Arabia. Because, you know, it would be interesting. Even if that's not true, I don't think that this is a scientific enough study to suggest that there's serious discrimination problem at the USPS, or where the problem even lies. Does the sender name trigger delays in customs? Does the sender's activity trigger delays in customs and has been flagged for further scrutiny but the name is coincidental?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    They sent a mix of parcels, some with "ATHEIST" branding and some without it. They claim that the parcels with Atheist tape were delayed. If the problem wasn't with the tape we'd expect to see delays spread across all parcels. > I don't think that this is a scientific enough study I agree. It'd be interesting to see a bigger study with better numbers. 140 parcels is a tiny number compared to what USPS handles per day.
    - leephillips 14y ago
      "140 parcels is a tiny number compared to what USPS handles per day." Why does the size of the sample in relation to the size of the population mean that the numbers need to be better?
      - mpyne 14y ago
        Because 140 parcels, not randomly selected, is nowhere near enough to meet the various statistical tests needed to draw meaningful conclusions.
        leephillips 14y ago
        Does not answer my question. The commenter I was responding to mentioned the size of the population; you refer only to the size of the sample.
        mpyne 14y ago
        If the population size is 140 then a "sample" of 140 gives you a complete description. If the population size is 1.4e10 then a non-random sample of 140 is going to give very low confidence. For the topics in between you're going to have to look up Wikipedia pages on statistics to see how sample size and population size relate, how that changes with the methodology used to select your sample, etc. If you know statistics already and you have a point to make then just make it. "20 Questions" might work on Jabber or IRC but it doesn't on a forum like this.
        leephillips 14y ago
        "If the population size is 140 then a 'sample' of 140 gives you a complete description." That would not be what we think of as a sample, but rather a census. "If the population size is 1.4e10 then a non-random sample of 140 is going to give very low confidence." If the sample is non-random then the conclusions are unreliable, regardless of the population size. I don't understand most of the rest of your comment, except as angry sputtering designed to avoid having to correct yourself. As to my playing 20 questions, since I can not imagine in general how the population size could be relevant to statistical conclusions drawn from a random sample, I was wondering if those who imply the opposite could explain it to me. Because it seems obvious that if you want to measure the salinity of the ocean, you can scoop up a cup of water from it and analyse that. You don't have to use a different size cup for different size oceans, or even know how big your ocean is. But if I'm missing something, I'd love to learn what it is.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- dsfasfasf 14y ago
  His intent is to see what happens. Read the sentence again
616c 14y ago
I think it is funny people make such points about Saudi Arabia, as they are what we should compare to. However, I live in a Gulf country neighboring to KSA and trust me mail censorship is bizarrely complicated and we all laugh about it.
- claudius 14y ago
  It’s just the first country that comes to mind that fits the bill of being openly religious/islamic (as opposed to Turkey), having a somewhat working government (as opposed to Egypt, Libya or so) and not being too hostile to ‘the West’ (as opposed to Iran) to make such an experiment at least thinkable.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
_ak 14y ago
Why are you so apologetic about religious discrimination in the US? "But these other people are so much worse than I am" has never been a valid argument.
- dsfasfasf 14y ago
  His intent is to see what happens. I did not see anybody being apologetic.
- claudius 14y ago
  My intent was more ‘You would likely get better results from a country usually assumed to be worse’. Really, I am absolutely not defending the USPS here in any way whatsoever, nor do I claim that the US doesn’t suffer from religious discrimination.

Because discrimination is perfectly fine so long as you're not discriminating as much as somebody more extreme? Of course not. And don't try to wiggle out of it by saying you were only joking. You are still perpetuating the viewpoint.

claudius 14y ago
Actually, my idea was that Saudi-Arabia would be less discriminating in this matter, hence displaying the idiocy of such delays even more obviously.
ethomson 14y ago
What view point is being perpetuated? I read that pretty literally - that they should, indeed, try this with addresses in Saudi Arabia. Because, you know, it would be interesting. Even if that's not true, I don't think that this is a scientific enough study to suggest that there's serious discrimination problem at the USPS, or where the problem even lies. Does the sender name trigger delays in customs? Does the sender's activity trigger delays in customs and has been flagged for further scrutiny but the name is coincidental?
- DanBC 14y ago
  They sent a mix of parcels, some with "ATHEIST" branding and some without it. They claim that the parcels with Atheist tape were delayed. If the problem wasn't with the tape we'd expect to see delays spread across all parcels. > I don't think that this is a scientific enough study I agree. It'd be interesting to see a bigger study with better numbers. 140 parcels is a tiny number compared to what USPS handles per day.
  - leephillips 14y ago
    "140 parcels is a tiny number compared to what USPS handles per day." Why does the size of the sample in relation to the size of the population mean that the numbers need to be better?
    - mpyne 14y ago
      Because 140 parcels, not randomly selected, is nowhere near enough to meet the various statistical tests needed to draw meaningful conclusions.
      - leephillips 14y ago
        Does not answer my question. The commenter I was responding to mentioned the size of the population; you refer only to the size of the sample.
        mpyne 14y ago
        If the population size is 140 then a "sample" of 140 gives you a complete description. If the population size is 1.4e10 then a non-random sample of 140 is going to give very low confidence. For the topics in between you're going to have to look up Wikipedia pages on statistics to see how sample size and population size relate, how that changes with the methodology used to select your sample, etc. If you know statistics already and you have a point to make then just make it. "20 Questions" might work on Jabber or IRC but it doesn't on a forum like this.
        leephillips 14y ago
        "If the population size is 140 then a 'sample' of 140 gives you a complete description." That would not be what we think of as a sample, but rather a census. "If the population size is 1.4e10 then a non-random sample of 140 is going to give very low confidence." If the sample is non-random then the conclusions are unreliable, regardless of the population size. I don't understand most of the rest of your comment, except as angry sputtering designed to avoid having to correct yourself. As to my playing 20 questions, since I can not imagine in general how the population size could be relevant to statistical conclusions drawn from a random sample, I was wondering if those who imply the opposite could explain it to me. Because it seems obvious that if you want to measure the salinity of the ocean, you can scoop up a cup of water from it and analyse that. You don't have to use a different size cup for different size oceans, or even know how big your ocean is. But if I'm missing something, I'd love to learn what it is.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dsfasfasf 14y ago
His intent is to see what happens. Read the sentence again

616c 14y ago

I think it is funny people make such points about Saudi Arabia, as they are what we should compare to. However, I live in a Gulf country neighboring to KSA and trust me mail censorship is bizarrely complicated and we all laugh about it.

claudius 14y ago
It’s just the first country that comes to mind that fits the bill of being openly religious/islamic (as opposed to Turkey), having a somewhat working government (as opposed to Egypt, Libya or so) and not being too hostile to ‘the West’ (as opposed to Iran) to make such an experiment at least thinkable.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

_ak 14y ago

Why are you so apologetic about religious discrimination in the US? "But these other people are so much worse than I am" has never been a valid argument.

dsfasfasf 14y ago
His intent is to see what happens. I did not see anybody being apologetic.
claudius 14y ago
My intent was more ‘You would likely get better results from a country usually assumed to be worse’. Really, I am absolutely not defending the USPS here in any way whatsoever, nor do I claim that the US doesn’t suffer from religious discrimination.