Freut mich, dass die Vorlesung weiterhilft.

Freut mich, dass es hilfreich ist.

Die Einzelwahrscheinlichkeit ist wie gesagt sehr gering, aber jetzt kommt der Selektionseffekt ins Spiel (da gibt es übrigens auch eine Vorlesung dazu), dass Leute die nicht Ende März Geburtstag haben, diese Frage auch so wohl nicht stellen würden ;-). Von daher haben wir Glück und können in der Tat am selben Tag Geburtstag feiern!

@@professor_g 😳 Damit hätte ich ja jez tatsächlich nicht wirklich gerechnet. 😅😂

Das is super und freut mich. Ich wünsche dir viel Erfolg!

Freut mich, dass dir das Video hilft. Hört sich nach viel an was ihr da machen müsst :-( Kleiner Tipp: Immer einen Schritt nach dem anderen gehen.

Due to no detailed information, I guess the city should be nodes with geographic information. But you did not identify what the links are, for instance, whether the airline connection exists between two cities? If you have identified the links, you can generate the adjacency network or edge lists as excel file and import it into stata as network.

The original quote from William I. Thomas is "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." The whole thing is known in the literature as Thomas-theorem and was formulated in 1928. Of course, some things objectively do exist or not, no doubt. If you are poor, you are poor and you cannot define it away. I think William I. Thomas wanted to highlight that perception is subjective and that the definition of the situation matters nevertheless. Thoughts?

​@@professor_g Thank you for replying in a thought provoking and intellectual way. I understand what he was trying to say, and what you are saying. It can be very difficult to have a discussion on a simple subject, much less one as esoteric as this one. Why? Because the language that we use, is fundamentally flawed, and have been done so deliberately. Men do not define situations. It is fundamentals which define words through representation, and words in turn, spoken by men, is what defines situations. All objective things are real, with or without man. Furthermore, I can not be "poor"; however, I can be living poorly. I can not be poor as "poor" is an adjective. You can not be a description. You are, and will ever only be a human being. The problem is that nouns are being used as verbs and adjectives are being used as nouns. By his reasoning, if you define lies to be real, then the consequences are real and negative. However, if you define truth to be real, then the reverberations are real and positive. His dictum is logical, but based on a false premise that "real" is most likely negative; therefore his usage of the term "consequences", which has a negative connotation... Eloquence with dire consequences. Man is not the decider of truth, he is the creator of falsehood! And one of the best way to commit acts of malfeasance, undetected, is by perverting the fundamental construct of grammar and language, through the agency of "meaning" and its dissimulation, graphically, through the imperceptible construct of the simulacrum. Truth is eternal and henceforth, fundamental. It is man with his semantic prestidigitation that turns lies into truth.

This thread followed a well established pattern. *1.* initial "quippy" derogatory comment from a nobody (literally "justanotherguy" in this case) *2.* paragraph response from video creator *3.* multiple paragraphs, overuse of the word "furthermore" in a desperate attempt to not be judged solely for the initial random comment

And *4.* comment from a guy who should be asleep, but instead likes to argue on the internet

@@SamBrickell 1. That was a direct quote from the video. You do realize that a persons self ascribed sobriquet is not who they are, it is whom that they would like to be. Quick, run to Google and look up that word because I know that you do not know what it represents. 2. Please learn how to capitalize and punctuate. 3. Learn how to write and speak without usage of the word "literally", and also learn how to use paragraphs. Come with an intellectual response as to why my comment is invalid. I am sure that you can not understand a word that I have said, which is why you did not. I am here to have an exchange of knowledge, I could not care any less about being judged by you. Thank you, and be well.

Hier ist ein link zu einer Version ohne Soundeffekte: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2XannejoJKGbLs

"This is Fake news" ist ein sehr passender Einwurf, wenn über Fehleinschätzungen geht. :D

Interesting point, I am not aware of any research that goes deeper into this. Mostly, the treatment is on "breaking a rule", but special ways of how a rule is broken have not been studied. Probably, in the case of a Banksy, folks would see it as something different than what the rule had tried to prohibit, and then maybe don't break other norms. But that is just a thought and speculation.

@@professor_g i have some insight on this, nothing proven BUT it IS proven in aesthetics, its long but very simple to understand: Whenever an object has irregular shapes, such as those found in the wrinkles of jeans we see wrinkles in different directions, different lengths, depths, curves, lines, etc. All of these are variations, which make the object look INFORMAL. To make the object look more FORMAL, we iron the jeans to remove those random wrinkles and give it a regular or uniform appearance. This may also be why we are required to wear uniforms at school, to achieve this regularity and uniformity (in color, shape, length, etc) We can apply this in many different scenarios: hair that has RANDOM strands in different (directions, lengths, or colors) is almost alway seen as informal. Just think of frizzy, or afro hair, which can be amazing but usually not in formal settings. Speech which has irregular enunciation such as (random spacing of time between words spoken = ehmm...but...., random volume changes = for example, from whispering to almost shouting, random acceleration or deceleration of pacing of words, presents the same informality. The opposite, regularity in enunciation (volume, rhythm, spacing between words) makes it seem more elegant and formal. The same applies to graffity and broken glasses, they are not uniform and are irregular. Graffity is definitely irregular and messy, the spray paint naturally sprays more paint on some letters and less on others, usually they are also sprayed with shaky hands = squiggly i's, t's d's, words going upwards or downwards irregularly. This is all informal, just imagine going to 5th grade class and handing out a paper like that. Same thing applies to broken windows, the shards are a complete mess, some smaller, some bigger, in different directions, some on the floor, some on the window. This mess shows the absence of an authority figure to impose rules or regularity in society. The opposite, elegance and formality, which is shown through REGULARITY, indicate the influence of some authority figure who imposes rules and structure in society. This applies in schools, government and religious institutions, which are almost ALWAYS formal.

Glad you liked it!

are you watching this for sociology at UH? LMFAOO

@@salmazeidat9048 AAAAAYYYYY

@@bigbrotheriswatching1190 LMAOOOO IM SO DEAD