God is a woman

I like warmer weather

I appreciate what you’re saying and I even more appreciate your honest attempt at talking through it, so thank you for that. I promise I understand that viewpoint 100%.

There’s a number of issues I took with the initial statement:

• you could just as easily argue it’s not a statistical anomaly until you have future years of data. The same way we cannot state it’s a trend is the exact same reason you cannot treat it as an anomaly.

• I say “you could just as easily argue…” as it’s a very general term with a lot of meanings depending on how broadly one applies it. “Anomalies are patterns in data that do not conform to a well defined notion of normal behavior” is one definition I found. Just because there is a trend upward over the next few years doesn’t actually mean it’s not an anomaly either over a much broader period. If the trend continues for 3 years then recedes, one could still say define that period as a statistical anomaly over a broader time frame.

• the framing of statistical anomaly was also used selectively as it applies to the city. How does the trend match up against the state, the country, with crime in those places, with drug use? A trend could easily already well be there. Even the time frame is selective. Again, the application was so general it renders it nearly meaningless.

• this culminates to my ultimate point that it was an incredibly crass and dismissive statement about murder in the state. If that exact same statement were made about an increase in hate crimes every one of you would loose your collective shit and I strongly suspect it would have never been said. The comment was not helpful and only seemingly accurate in the blandest definition.

Given this, what was the point of the statement? I have guesses but they’re beside the point. Ultimately it only serves to shut down conversation about what is driving the murders and treat them as statistics rather than understanding causes.

He’s saying you need future data points to put this year into context before being able to say if 2022 is an anomaly or the beginning of an upward trend. It has nothing to do with belief, it’s just math.

Absolutely get reservations. I would not expect to find openings at the popular state parks on summer weekends.

Visiting Vermont? Check out other posts about visiting Vermont, or try the subreddit r/NewToVermont!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Eh, let him have it.

Me too! He’s a regular at my local bar. Great guy!

[deleted]

"murder" is a really strong term.

From now on, can we call it "assisted unliving"?

I mean, 2018-19 was the 3rd highest record.

[deleted]

It's Forrest Gump.

Ahorn looks like an Ahole...

But Burlington isn’t a major city lol. There’s like 2 major streets and 40k people lol. It would be considered a medium sized town in any state with an actual major city

was not prepared for that ultimate cuteness.

gasp!

wasn't the answer something very stupid... 'affiliate groups' but definitely not gangs.. Pretty sure the papers already solved that one.

Statistical anomalies and understanding the difference between an anomaly, a trend, etc. Is how statistics work. It's exactly how they work. I've already said this once, but I don't get your argument. It sounds like you are saying we should assume this is the new normal even though we just have one year's worth of data. That isn't how statistics work, and any scientist or data analyst or anyone else with a background in data would tell you that you are incorrectly jumping to conclusions.

This comment doesn't seem like the kind that needed downvotes. Might have been a legitimate educational question, though I can understand the sarcastic undertones probably generating the downvotes.

I will be taking him away from his mother when it's time for him to wean. Many months from now. I'm not an industrial farm, I have no need to keep cows bred to make milk. For my purposes milk is just a bonus of the situation, and if there's enough to share between the calf and us, great. If not, it's all for him.

I got downvoted a bunch a while back for pointing this out. The UN and a bunch of other international organizations got together to define what a “city” was. The general consensus was at least 50k people. Burlington doesn’t even qualify.

>The degree of urbanization is a modern metric to help define what comprises a city: "a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants in contiguous dense grid cells (>1,500 inhabitants per square kilometer)".[19] This metric was "devised over years by the European Commission, OECD, World Bank and others, and endorsed in March [2021] by the United Nations... largely for the purpose of international statistical comparison".[20]

https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/how-do-we-define-cities-towns-and-rural-areas

So it seems drug use is a big driver. With that in mind I think the state should set up safe injection sites that offer free drugs.

WHAT?!? Are you mad??

No, no, but I’ll feed you baby birds.

Economics. Drug dealers make money from selling drugs, this money is the driver for drug supply violence

People addicted to drugs need money to buy the drugs, this drives various crimes from white collar embezzlement to good old fashioned armed robbery.

Finally drugs bought on the street are not regulated by the FDA, there’s no safety standards and no guarantee that they aren’t laced with something much worse or cut with asbestos. This drives ER visit, visits that aren’t cheap.

So, safe injection sites that initially provide testing for products purchased on the street then a doctors prescription for said drugs (with $0 copay) as the first step towards tackling the addiction Rob’s dealers of revenue, puts addicts in touch with the resources they need, saves them money, reduces crime and ER visits.

Who knows part of th funding could come from the defund the police initiative seeing as that was what that actually meant (sweat to go people who come up with these names need to work ship them first)

We need a Taco Bell

No offense, but it seems like the argument has gone over your head.

Yes, if crime went up 500% in one year it would be a statistical anomaly. The argument is that you can't draw conclusions from a single years worth of data. If next year there are again 5 murders or even more then we can gain confidence that this is a trend, but again, we'd need more data.

A statistical anomaly is simply a number that is much greater than normal. If it becomes the norm (I. E. Over the years this rate of murder becomes typical) then it would no longer be an anomaly.

Another example that may help is football. Let's say the Pats score 17 points per game, on average, over the first ten games of the season and then score 45 in week 11. Do you assume that they will continue scoring 45 or similarly high scores moving forward? Or do you assume it's a blip?

My assumption here is that you would assume it's a blip BUT if the Pats continues to score that much week-after-week you could determine that something has changed. You simply can't assume that because murders were high in one year that it will continue, especially when historically murders are low or non-existent. It's an outlier.

I'm not sure what exactly your argument is but it doesn't make sense from a scientific standpoint. You may be confident this is the new norm in Burlington but until the data backs that up with multiple years of a similar trend all you are doing is jumping to conclusions.

I don't understand why you don't get that, but hopefully this helped a bit.

Long term, humans have been in this region for 12,000 to 100,000 years ago, so murder is way down. Ancient Apocalypse, I’m here!