Category: Lies and Untruths

Old Times There Am Not Forgotten

Legal Stuff, Lies and Untruths

Here’s a little bit of rank injustice:

Harrods could be forced to pay out tens of millions of pounds to female employees sexually abused by Mohamed Al-Fayed because of ‘systemic wrongdoing’ at store, lawyers say.

The Egypytian businessman has been accused of raping five women during his 25-year tenure at the luxury retail outlet, with at least 15 other women saying they were sexually assaulted by him.

Lawyers have warned that Al-Fayed’s offences could range beyond the allegations made in a BBC documentary, with his other former business interests, including Fulham Football Club, now under scrutiny.

Okay, you may be asking about this “systemic wrongdoing” — i.e. that Harrods had a system in place which either encouraged or else allowed the old goat to molest his female emplyees.

Of course, Harrods doesn’t or didn’t have any such system.  But the lawyers have to argue that they did, because:

Al Fayed, who died last year aged 94…

They can’t very well go after him now, you see, so they have to go after the company because, well, because that’s where the bucks are.  And it’s really conveeeeenient that the old fart isn’t around to refute the claims now crawling, like their claimants, from the woodwork.

In the reign of Emperor Kim, of course, bullshit like this would be stopped in its tracks because, duh, it’s bullshit.  And of course some feeeemales stand to get a lot of money out of these unsubstantiated accusations, as do their lawyers, which is how this creative nonsense ever came to see the light of day.

‘It seems from the information received from those who have contacted us, and the information brought to light in the BBC documentary, that the abuse of young women at Harrods should properly be described as human sex trafficking,’ said Richard Meeran, a partner at the London law firm Leigh Day.

Ah yes, the old bogeyman “sex trafficking” — where would we be without this handy little catch-all expression?  And the BBC… hardly an unimpeachable source.

‘This is because the recruitment of young women for the alleged purpose of sexual exploitation entailed and depended on systemic wrongdoing by the company, its senior managers and security personnel, as well as the ultimate perpetrator.’

So these women were hired for the express purpose of being the Harrods owner’s sex toys?  And all the senior management of Harrods were aware of this and did nothing to stop it? 

And it’s not just one woman, but a hundred and fifty (always be suspicious of nice round numbers).  And all of them have kept their mouths shut for all this time, because…?

I report you decide;  but I’ve decided that this — all of it — is arrant bullshit and an attempt to wring money from a wealthy company, just because its erstwhile owner and the “alleged’ perpetrator is dead and can’t defend himself.

Just to be clear on this:  Al Fayed probably was a loathsome old bastard who deserved a good hard flogging / ball-kicking for oh-so many reasons.  But even given that, it doesn’t mean that this pussymail can be justified.

Big Fat Duh

Lies and Untruths, Numbers & Statistics

There’s a great deal I know only a little about, still more about which I know nothing, and a terrifyingly-small number of things I know quite a lot about. [/Donald Rumsfeld]

But one of the things which fall into the latter category is that of statistical sampling, because my very first real job was in the Statistics Department of what was then the largest marketing research company in the world (the Great Big Research Company, or A.C. Nielsen).  And my specific area of expertise was in sample selection:  the methodology of creating a sample, the data drawn from which would accurately represent reality.  A single anecdote will suffice.

One of our major clients was the yogurt-producing subsidiary of a large dairy corporation (think: Yoplait).  Our data was always being questioned by this company, because in some cases we would show their market share as being too small (the sales numbers didn’t jibe with their actual deliveries to stores, for example —  a known quantity), or else, paradoxically, far too large, for exactly the same reason:  all dependent on which geographical area we were reporting on.

My job was to investigate this phenomenon, and some months later I discovered the reason.  The various smaller dairies’ yogurts were not being delivered to all the stores in the area, but in stores where they did have fridge space, they sold extremely well.  Using a simple picture shows the problem:

Our sample of stores may have been representative of say, total grocery sales in the area (and it was), but when Yogurt sales were carved out, the sample simply sucked because of how the dairies’ distribution worked.

It’s a very complex problem, and it applies to just about any sample selection.  In this case, there was no solution other than to broaden the sample, which would have cost too much.  So unless the client was prepared to pay a much higher fee to get better data, they’d either have to live with suspect data or cancel their account altogether.  (The end result was that they stopped looking at specific markets, and only bought data at the national level, which was acceptably accurate, but less useful to the local sales teams.)

I told you all that so I could talk about this.

Harris’ So-Called ‘Surge’ Is Thanks To Oversampling: Pollsters

In the meta data from the call centers college educated Dems are 3-4x more likely to answer than non-college. While weighting can help minimize the bias if done correctly it won’t totally eliminate the problem.
— Mark Davin Harris (@markdharris) August 16, 2024

Critics point out that many polls have been sampling a disproportionately smaller share of Republican voters compared to exit poll data from the 2020 presidential election. The result, they say, is a misleading “phantom advantage” for Ms. Harris. According to them, this skewed sampling could be a strategic move to boost enthusiasm and fundraising for Ms. Harris’ campaign.

Usually, when I talk about situations like this, I use a shorthand expression like:  “They must have drawn their sample from the Harvard Faculty Lounge.”

Unscrupulous polling companies can (and do) draw their samples to show exactly what the clients want to see — tailoring the samples to produce the desired results.  We used to call this the “K factor”:  that number which when applied to the data will provide the result most favorable to the client.  It’s more commonly known within the research community as “bullshit”, but it’s bullshit that will generate headlines — so ten guesses as to whether the mainstream media will accept such data uncritically, either because it favors their own bias/opinion or because they are completely incapable of analyzing the data properly.  (If you answered “or both” to the above, go to the head of the class.)

So is the “Kamala Surge” real, or not?  Given all the players in this particular piece of theater… oh please, it’s patent bullshit.

Wrong Word, Used Stupidly

Health, Lies and Untruths

I’ve come to the point where unless the word “equity” is used in a financial sense — e.g. the increase in your house’s value = higher equity in your personal financial value — I see the word (especially when applied in a social context) and just know what follows is going to be utter bullshit.

Hence this crappy piece of “research” at Tufts University which, as Glenn pointed out, loses me at the “health equity” phrase right there in its sub-head:

American Diets Have a Long Way To Go To Achieve Health Equity

Au fond, its underlying supposition is racist — i.e. that the underclass (specifically, the Black population) — is at greater risk because their diet choices are “bad”.

“Oh noes, Kim,”  you say, “that’s not what they’re implying at all!”

Really?  Here’s the pic at the top of the piece:

In an even bigger tell, note that the proffered plate of (yummy!) food is being held in a White hand, the implication being, of course, that Whitey is driving Blacks to make poor dietary choices.

As a piece of racial propaganda, I can hear Josef Goebbels applauding in the background.

If Black people want true “health equity” with White people — i.e. improve their mortality rate — they should ignore bullshit like this article, eat whatever they want to eat, and instead quit letting their kids kill each other in the inner cities.

Unsurprising

Lies and Untruths, Numbers & Statistics

Given the observation that all Internet surveys on the topics of politics and economics will inevitably prove that you’re a libertarian, I nevertheless took this test:

My problem with these kinds of surveys is that questions are often posed demanding an either/or response, or else the question steers you towards a choice that isn’t really a choice

Here’s one example, in fact the very first question:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

If economic globalization occurs, it will largely be brought about by government and transnational corporations.  Expecting either to protect or enhance the interests of “humanity” is naïve beyond belief, because globalization is sought either for control (government) or profit (corporations).  You can’t actually answer that question inside an Agree / Disagree matrix.  But because the role of governments is ignored in the question, you’re forced into supporting transnational corporations or opposing them — a false dichotomy because in some cases, a uniform model is good (banking) or terrible (gun control).  (I know:  gun control isn’t an economic issue, unless one ignores H.L. Menken’s observation that when politicians talk, regardless of topic, it’s always about money.)

Here’s another:

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Define “race”.  Are we using the classical definitions (e.g. Western-European, Sino-Japanese, Middle-Eastern) or the modern one (Black / White / Yellow / Other)?  The White “race” is superior to the Black race when it comes to things like fine art, architecture or the rule of law, but are those even “qualities”?  Once again, the survey-taker is left to decide what we’re talking about here, but in this case you can’t combine disparate definitions and opinions when using vague terminology.

One more example:

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Those are incomparable conditions, because neither is a cause or a consequence, nor are they relatable.  And “more important” to whom, exactly?

Having worked in the research business for over a quarter-century, I’ve designed literally hundreds of surveys, and found the “agree/disagree” format to be profoundly inferior to discrete / conjoint analysis — the latter involving a set of choices on the same topic, e.g.

Which do you prefer:

Option A or Option B?
Option B or Option C?
Option A or Option C?

The problem with conjoint methodology is that it’s more difficult to set up and to analyze, so lazy researchers (i.e. most of them) tend to go with the simpler binary structure.

Life, unfortunately, is seldom binary (unless you are a computer, totalitarian, religious zealot, libertarian or idiot — some overlap).  The real world is more complex than that, which is why setting economics and social issues on a simple XY axis will almost always lead you to discover that Aha! you too are a libertarian, or would be if you could.

In fact, I have found that I tend more to the authoritarian side of the scale because I have to acknowledge that some form of outside control is sometimes  necessary — protection of private property and streetlights being the simplest ones to imagine — but it can equally be deplorable (e.g. Judenfrei  Nazi Art).

Nuance:  we all have it, in varying degrees, except to most survey-takers.

Please note that I’ve erred on the side of simplicity in the above, because nothing causes a MEGO reaction like a discussion of statistical methodology.  (MEGO:  my eyes glaze over.)

 

…And For This One

Lies and Untruths, Military, Numbers & Statistics

Talking about the Huns fiddling with the numbers when the results aren’t to their liking:

The German army’s accuracy has again been mired in controversy as it was revealed in a classified report the testing for their latest rifle was lowered.

The G95A1 rifle failed to pass trials with military-standard ammunition so the Bundeswehr – the German army – lowered the standards of the test, the report stated.

The manufacturers of the rifle – Heckler and Koch – were allowed to test it with civilian ammunition and at room temperature rather than in extreme heat and cold.

The classified report read: ‘Current testing by the army in laboratory conditions shows that the weapon doesn’t meet army standards when loaded with combat ammunition.

‘The army requires an assault rifle that is sufficiently accurate under real conditions with its combat ammunition.’

The rifle was ordered to replace the G36 – also made by Heckler and Koch – which was dropped after it was found to become inaccurate after sustained firing. 

The G36’s inconsistency was down to a plastic channel that support the barrel would become soft when the gun heats in a quick succession of firing. 

The fault was first discovered when German soldiers serving in Afghanistan complained their guns were not shooting straight after a bout of heavy fire. 

As we all know, when the facts are uncomfortable and/or do not conform to the theory, they must be changed.  (I don’t know how that sounds in German, but I bet it’s lovely.)  Also:

Their 180,000-strong army is due to be receiving new weapons next year after it was reported that they only had enough ammunition to fight for two days.

However, the new gun’s accuracy is up to scratch according to Germany’s elite KSK troops who have been equipped with the G95A1. [as long as you only shoot it indoors — K.]

 A 2015 survey of German soldiers found that only 8 per cent of Bundeswehr soldiers trusted their weapons.

Somewhere out there, Paul Mauser is spinning in his grave.

I bet they’d even do better with one of these instead…

Looks like it’s not just German cars that are starting to suck.

 

Lies? Oh No!

Drive Time, Eco-Crap, Lies and Untruths

Say it ain’t so:

Electric cars have up to a third less battery life than advertised when driven in real-life conditions, an investigation has found. 

The official figures provided by car manufacturers for how many miles an EV can drive on full charge are based on a standardised test done only in warm conditions. 

But an investigation by What Car magazine has found that when the cars are driven in the real-world, particularly in colder temperatures, their batteries go flat much faster. 

In other revelatory news, politicians’ promises aren’t to be trusted, he won’t call you next time he’s in town, and she does love you just for your money, Mr. Murdoch.