Geobica

The slight differences between the systems is... odd, I'm not sure why they're different in the way they are. I would think that'd be something the WMO would've standardized but alas they did not. There's probably some interesting history in there somewhere.

Chart from https://earthsci.org/processes/weather/cyclone/cyclone.html, though I think it was originally on wikipedia somewhere.

I was inspired to make this by the fact that I couldn't find one quite like it, though admittedly I didn't search that long. This was the best I found, though it fudges the numbers a bit to account for the fact that the systems use averages over different numbers of minutes of sustained winds.

A chart that shows five different Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scales with colors used on Wikipedia, and a map showing which regions the scales are used in.

A chart and map I made based on information found in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropica...

The map shows where the scales are typically used, and are based on outlines of the WMO's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres (RSMCs).

If I ran a newspaper I'd make it easier, is all I'm saying!

Even in specifically science focused news sites there's this game they sometimes play where they'll drop clues like "a 2018 study showed" in one sentence and "the team at Something University found" in another, and so you have to solve a riddle to figure out what their source is.

It's a fairly minor point in this case but I do get consistently annoyed by the fact that journalists don't put hyperlinks or even name the specific paper they're citing when they reference scientific research.

is complicated by differences in definitions and statistical biases.

Either way, the way Al Jazeera worded it implies that the rate is definitively much lower than in the US, which I'm not convinced is anything other than a difference in diagnostic criteria.

I'm not sure what the original source for the "2 to 4 in 10,000" estimate is (they also mention a rate of 0.4 per 10,000 based on the reported number across all of Cuba), but it's certainly not a "2022 study", and as Aguiar et al. cites Vivian Ravelo to have said, the difference from other countries

The 2 there links to www.wpanet.org/uploads/Sect..., which is a 404 page now, though looking on the Internet Archive (where the pdf is actually dated as from 2004) it doesn't seem to contain those numbers.

En Cuba, se reporta una incidencia de 2 a 4 por cada 10 000, aunque según afirma Ravelo, V. "existe la posibilidad de que las cifras sean mucho más bajas que los actuales reportes de hasta uno por 100 de todo el espectro que en algunos países se estiman, pues es cierto que el aumento del reporte para algunos está dado por el mayor conocimiento que del trastorno se tiene, así como la diversidad en las definiciones, los sesgos estadísticos etc., lo que hace parecer que realmente hay más casos".2

However, the 2016 article (Aguiar et al.) isn't the origin either, and it references another document from 2003. scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?p...

1. Introduction Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) encompass a group of neurodevelopmental disorders that appear in the early stages of life, and they are characterized to variable extents by difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, reciprocal social interactions, and restricted or repetitive behaviors [1]. In recent decades, the prevalence of ASD has grown exponentially [2]; for example, an incidence of 2 to 4 per 10,000 is reported in Cuba [3] and at international level there is a global autism prevalence that ranges within and across regions, with a median prevalence of (screenshot cuts off there)

Searching for this alleged study brought me to Hernández-González et al. (2022), which contains these figures in the introduction, but sources that from a 2016 article. www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/12...

According to a 2022 study, Cuba had an autism incidence of about 2 to 4 per 10,000 children in some settings. While research on autism diagnoses in Cuba is much more limited than in the US, the data from the 2022 study shows a far lower rate of recognised cases than in the US – despite the presence of acetaminophen.

The article claims that there exists a "2022 study" that shows "an autism incidence of about 2 to 4 per 10,000 children" in Cuba, which would be significantly less than the US in 2022. However, these numbers aren't from 2022.

@aljazeera.com made an error in this article in how they described a "2022 study" about autism in Cuba. I sent a correction through the form on their website but they haven't changed it. I don't know if that's because it didn't go through or if they're just busy but I'll publicly inform them here:

Jackenstein: "* I WAS BANNISHED TO THE DARK ZONE, ONLY TO APPEAR ON FESTIVAL NAIGHT..."

ok so I just realized that I forgot about this line, which makes me confident that the festival is Halloween

Admittedly I would say yes in this particular encounter

they do talk about it as a thing to go to so I would expect it to be set up somewhere we don't see

it is pretty unusual for an american town to not be decorated for Halloween weeks in advance but maybe that's just a human society thing

maybe they're celebrating Michaelmas or something, it would make sense with the angel focused religion

The festival being Halloween would be strange though with the line about Jackenstein being in the closet as a Halloween decoration with other "creepy stuff", if they were celebrating Halloween that would probably all be out

oh I did somehow forget that there is quite literally autumn foliage lmao

the festival could be easter given that it's a sunday but I think practically they'll do it on whatever makes the development timeline work

chapter 5 is going to be released on a holiday I'd bet

As I did not make any assumption about the voting method used other than that it satisfies the Condorcet Criterion, we can conclude that no voting system satisfies both the Condorcet Criterion and the Sincere Favorite Criterion. ∎

As the voters can achieve a preferable outcome through voting their sincere favorite lower, the Sincere Favorite Criterion is violated.

Regardless of the actual favorites of the members of S, they could have gotten an outcome they'd prefer if they had all ranked B first, as that would have given B a majority over all candidates, and thus made them a Condorcet Winner.

Because A was not a Condorcet Winner, there exists some candidate B that A does not beat 1v1. Consider the set S of all voters who ranked B above A. Because B defeats A in a 1v1, S contains more than half of all voters.

Assume there is a ranked voting system that satisfies the Condorcet Criterion, and an odd number of filled ballots is submitted that does not have a Condorcet Winner. Still, whatever voting system was used, there must be some winner. Let's call them A.

In any Condorcet ranked voting system, there is some circumstance in which people might be better off not ranking their sincere favorite first. A proof of this is as follows:

There are many ranked voting systems that do always select a Condorcet Winner if one exists (there is no guarantee that one does, see Condorcet's Voting Paradox), but in any case they still have strategic voting.

IRV does have the issue though of not making sure Condorcet Winners are always selected, as can be seen in the altered case here (B is still a Condorcet Winner despite losing in first place votes), though how much of an issue this is depends on your preferences for a voting system.