Recent comments in /f/baltimore

sacrificebundt t1_jefiajj wrote

Reply to comment by DfcukinLite in Amtrak shares renderings of rebuilt Baltimore Penn Station by DfcukinLite

Is there actually a plan for through running MARC to Virginia? I’ve seen lots of proposals from transit advocates, but I haven’t seen anything from the relevant bodies. MTA wasn’t at the table when VA cut a deal with CSX and Amtrak over the Long Bridge replacement, and I’m not sure they’ve don’t more than study the other infrastructure hurdles.

2

Samrulesan t1_jefhu0x wrote

Reply to Anyone know the best way to watch orioles games? by WarmSquare8969

I pay for cable. It sucks. Not only that but MASN isn’t offered in basic packages even though we are local. You always have to pay for a sports package upgrade to get any sports channels besides basic ESPN. I think finally there are no blackouts on mlb tv so you can pay like 100 something bucks to watch games via stream. I could be wrong tho. I’m to scared to find out.

In college I paid for mlb tv only to find out that blackouts were a thing back then and I could watch every baseball game except the orioles. I was beyond pissed.

1

WikiSummarizerBot t1_jefg2sy wrote

Reply to comment by dcfb2360 in Baltimore Safe Streets sites ‘clearly’ reduce homicides, shootings, Johns Hopkins evaluation finds by sit_down_man

Operation Ceasefire

>Operation Ceasefire (also known as the Boston Gun Project and the Boston Miracle) is a problem-oriented policing initiative implemented in 1996 in Boston, Massachusetts. The program was specifically aimed at youth gun violence as a large-scale problem. The plan is based on the work of criminologist David M. Kennedy.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

−1

dcfb2360 t1_jefg14s wrote

Reply to Baltimore Safe Streets sites ‘clearly’ reduce homicides, shootings, Johns Hopkins evaluation finds by sit_down_man

These programs work. As much as i think scott is kinda timid and needs to be more assertive & proactive, his crime approach is the right way to address the problem. If anyone's interested in an overview of these types of crime prevention programs, check out focused deterrence and operation ceasefire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ceasefire

−1

CreampuffOfLove t1_jeffwbb wrote

Reply to comment by hymie0 in On March 28, 1984, Bob Irsay (1923-1997), owner of the once-mighty Baltimore Colts, moves the team to Indianapolis. Without any sort of public announcement, Irsay hired movers to pack up the team's offices in Owings Mills, Maryland, in the middle of the night, while the city of Baltimore slept. by DfcukinLite

That's one of the first things I told my husband when we moved after college - "Using Mayflower was grounds for divorce in my family!"

2

MFoy t1_jeffqe2 wrote

Reply to comment by DONNIENARC0 in Anyone know the best way to watch orioles games? by WarmSquare8969

It’s a sports thing in general. Each league is on a different streaming service, and then you have to pay astronomical cable bills as well.

The difference between now and thirty years ago is that every game is televised. That wasn’t true back in the day. You’d get most of them on HTS, but there’d always be a dozen or so that weren’t.

4

Skontradiction t1_jefcug6 wrote

Reply to Baltimore Safe Streets sites ‘clearly’ reduce homicides, shootings, Johns Hopkins evaluation finds by sit_down_man

While I think this is good news, I would still view this report skeptically for a few reasons:

  1. I’ll just start off by saying the 22% reduction in homicides is not statistically significant according to the report.
  2. Also there is no statistically significant impact in new sites. The authors mention “all sites” because the estimated impacts for the older sites are lower than the newer sites. So combining the data gets them a bigger impact value and they manage to still stay statistically significant. That seems wrong to me.
  3. Research on the impact of SafeStreets in Baltimore is mixed. Other research by Hopkins has found some positive effects but two other studies on the program have found no impact. Similarly the literature nationwide is mixed. To the authors’ credit they note this in the report.
  4. Estimating the impact of Safe Streets is hard because sites are not chosen randomly. The sites in the program are those with the most violence. It is likely that a reduction in violence can be attributed to regression to the mean rather than any given intervention.
  5. The authors try to get around this by creating a synthetic control group. In other words, they take a bunch of areas around the city and weight their arrests, homicide stats, etc until they get a trend that is as close as possible to each Safe Streets site they are studying. This is a decent way to get around the problems in point two but the approach still has drawbacks the authors don’t give information on. For example, they give error bars for each synthetic control site and treatment site post intervention in the appendices. However they do not give data on how well the synthetic control matches the sites pre-treatment which would enable us to know how good a job they did creating controls. Similarly, we don’t have information on why the control matches pre-treatment trends. Do the control sites vary wildly but average out to a close approximation? Or do the control sites generally mirror the treatment site’s patterns closely?
  6. The nonfatal shooting results are barely statistically significant. The confidence intervals stopping at -0.00 for two overall effects makes me wonder if there’s p-hacking going on there. I don’t live and die by a p-value of 0.05 but it’s a flag that maybe data was manipulated until it hit a certain threshold.
  7. Putting the data together suggests a statistically significant effect on homicides in the first four years of Safe Streets but no impact/reversion in later years of program implementation (inferred because the impact becomes insignificant for the entire program duration). Again, these findings only apply to old sites. The authors find no statistically significant impacts in the new sites.

I want this program to succeed and I don’t think the above means the program is a failure. I just am very skeptical of the headline findings being reported here.

28