You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mark_Friedenbach comments on How Islamic terrorists reduced terrorism in the US - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: PhilGoetz 11 January 2015 05:19AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (72)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2015 05:21:28AM *  5 points [-]

You're graphs are too low resolution to read.

As for individual actors in other nations, what about Anders Behring Breivik? You might find this list helpful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_%28terrorism%29

Comment author: PhilGoetz 11 January 2015 05:36:25AM *  6 points [-]

The graphs look large and clear to me. They're about 570 pixels wide. Are you using a cell phone? I'm using Chrome.

Now that I think about it, even if other countries had a similar base rate of lone-wolf terrorists, I might not see any in 200 samples, because many of them have much higher rates of terrorism than ours (in some cases, a hundred times higher). Also, those with high rates probably can't do the detective work to attribute attacks to "Individual" rather than "Unknown".

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2015 05:59:35AM 0 points [-]

Latest Firefox, and they're still unreadably blury...

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 11 January 2015 03:37:31PM 2 points [-]

The graphs are nice and clear on Chrome.

Comment author: pragmatist 11 January 2015 07:01:17AM 2 points [-]

I use Firefox, and the graphs aren't blurry at all.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 11 January 2015 06:18:09AM 1 point [-]

Doing a side-by-side comparison, they are a tiny bit blurrier in Firefox, which is bizarre, since they're JPEGs. But they're still large and clear on my screen. I can't make them any bigger; that's the size the GTD website produces them in.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2015 06:46:42AM 3 points [-]

Is this what you're seeing?

http://imgur.com/94RsYDV

Comment author: gwillen 11 January 2015 12:08:03PM *  5 points [-]

I think you're behind some kind of image-fucking (i.e. recompressing) proxy server. Are you tethering on a cellphone network by any chance? (Or on an airplane?)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 11 January 2015 06:24:52PM 1 point [-]

If that's it, Phil could solve the problem by using https. That would requiring switching servers to, say, imgur.

Comment author: VincentYu 14 January 2015 03:39:31AM 4 points [-]

The crappy resolution is due to the image host (postimage.org), which is downsizing some images served to some IPs (verified this through a few private VPNs).

Comment author: 9eB1 11 January 2015 08:22:01AM 3 points [-]

I use Firefox on a mac and they look nothing like that on my machine.

http://imgur.com/7l9Xwua