Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)

  • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    The one that says that Indian government refuses to publish the full numbers.

    I just love that you misread the numbers to reach the conclusion you wanted, and not the real conclusion. And when I call you out, without a beat you pivot to “oh actually it’s that we don’t have the Indian government’s numbers”.

    This is apex “communists are not capable of admitting they could make a mistake”.

    It’s okay man, we’re all just human, we all make little mistakes sometimes. I’ve certainly apologized for mistakes on this site before.

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Oh, I think it’s very sus India won’t publish numbers, but that’s not the point. The point is that I think it’s hilarious that you tried to use it as proof to make your point, when you probably skimmed it too fast because you straight read it wrong.

        Especially when you’re trying to cultivate a perception that you’re a well-informed person, that mistake is just extra embarrassing.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          28·
          1 year ago

          So, just to be clear. You’re saying we should accept that poverty reduction is happening in India despite the fact that they hide their numbers. Did I get that right?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              29·
              1 year ago

              So, what part am I misquoting. Do be clear. As far as I can tell, you are saying that I’m wrong because you believe the numbers indicating poverty decrease in India despite the fact that India hides the actual numbers. That’s your argument is it not?

              Seems that reading the article critically is what you refer to as misquoting.

              • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
                0·
                1 year ago

                No, my argument is that you misread it, because you were trying to use it as proof that poverty was getting worse. The article said nothing about that.

                I think using sources that you’ve misread and are quoting to incorrectly makes for bad messaging.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  39·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m starting to get the impression that you didn’t actually read the article. It talks about poverty decreasing using the numbers that are publicly available from India while also pointing out the following:

                  The survey data leaked to the media showed that poverty had increased in India. Without official data on poverty in a country hosting the largest number of poor in the world, agencies were not able to make an exact estimate of global poverty, whose eradication is the Sustainable Development Goal 1 to be achieved by 2030.

                  It’ also concludes that India contributed to an overall poverty increase globally which is another indirect indicator of poverty actually increasing there:

                  With the addition of India’s new poverty data to the global system, the number of poor has increased. “The global poverty headcount in 2018 is revised slightly up from 8.7 to 8.9 per cent,” says the World Bank, adding, “The 2017 PPPs (purchasing power parities) by themselves reduce global poverty, which is more than offset by the new estimates for India that increase global poverty.”

                  Hope that helps.

                  • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Your two quotes are referring to two different survey counts. Let me explain how this works: it’s impossible to get an exact count down to every individual, you survey a population sample and then make estimates based on your population sample. This can be done by both government and private agencies.

                    Here are the two different surveys from the article broken down:

                    The NSSO survey, done by the Indian government, not officially released, but leaked to the media. All this article tells us about the results of this survey is that “poverty had increased”. No years, no numbers, no percentages. Just three words.

                    The CMIE survey, done by a private company, used by the World Bank. We at least have the numbers for this survey, which says poverty has more than halved from 2011 to 2019. However, the World Bank already assumed that poverty would be decreasing rapidly, and put out global poverty estimations based on rapidly decreasing poverty before

                    When you quoted the World Bank as saying

                    The global poverty headcount in 2018 is revised slightly up from 8.7 to 8.9 per cent

                    That was referring to CMIE survey results being less optimistic than original World Bank projections.

                    I did make a mistake, I didn’t credit you for the NSSO survey, which did indeed support your point. I think that’s why you misread the conclusion of the CMIE survey. I think it’s sus af the government won’t release it, but I’m also a scientist. All we have from it is, “poverty had increased”. Imagine I presented to you a new article that said nothing about poverty rates in China except “poverty had increased”, how much would you value that piece of information?