Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

81–90 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#81
Thiel thinks several steps ahead like a chessmaster. Donating to Trump is likely an effort to thwart the current money influenced political system not about morals.

IMO, Trump will stumble and fall with every step like he already is right now.

Re: undefined

#83
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding that poll specifically: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-...

Their response: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-daybreak-poll-ques... Where they eliminated that one 19 year old, and saw very little effect on the poll.

> Where they eliminated that one 19 year old, and saw very little effect on the poll.

How is that a compelling answer?

It's like if a news investigation found that a company had poor quality control and features a photo of a defective product in their writeup and the company's response was "we issued a refund for the product the news team purchased."

All I can say is that you sound an awful lot like the 2012 talking heads who were convinced Romney would win despite all the polling pointing to the contrary. For the record, Nate Silver's biggest mistake in the primaries was not listening to the polls enough. For him (and every other data-driven forecaster) to be getting the general wrong they'd have to be making the exact opposite mistake as before.

I'd be happy to give you 10:1 odds on Trump losing. And I'm biased here: a few months ago, I was convinced Trump would win.

Re: undefined

#84
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at this specific poll in isolation is fine as long as you understand that you are looking at it in isolation. I say so because of its polling methodology, which is unique. If you're a politics/polling nerd, this poll is interesting. If you're not, then yes, you are probably better off either just reading 538, or looking at the RCP polling average. https://news.usc.edu/109339/why-the-usc-dornsifel-a-times-pr..…

Most politics/polling nerds look at aggregations of polls. Not sure where you get this idea that they are interested in a poll like USC which is such an outlier.

The fact that it's an outlier doesn't interest you? Maybe we have different definitions of "nerd".

Re: undefined

#85

I'm not very political and I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but I don't understand why the tech industry is so anti-Trump. He seems like a relatively sincere and smart guy to me, and some of his policies seem to be better for business. Is it because of tougher immigration laws? Are there other reasons based on his policies, or is it mostly just emotional?

> why the tech industry is so anti-Trump.

People don't risk openly supporting Trump unless they have the kind of fuck-you money/assets that allows them to do so. Truth is that the tech industry is probably leaning toward the Democratic party a lot less than it actually seems simply because of the politically motivated discrimination you would face should you endorse the wrong candidate (or embrace the "wrong" opinions in public).

I have seen what happened to a couple folks who told "unappropriate" jokes in a private discussion to their friends while at a public event. They lost their job.

I have seen how tons of progressives (not to say most) are so entrenched in their own bias that they fail to realize that dissenting opinions to their beliefs are not morally reprehensible. And that their cultish attitude with respect to diversity is as stupid as the white nationalistic obsession of homogeneity.

Finally, I have seen how the democrats/progressives systematically demolish the lives of the people who oppose them. That's why I will remain silent. Post anonymously and take action with my vote. And that's why everyone at my workplace believes I am a staunch HRC supporter.

And before you accuse me of paranoia or to have a persecution complex I recommend you try to first figure out why so many people are behaving the exact same way I am: telling one thing in public (or to pollsters) and do another when they are protected by the opacity of a voting cabin.

edit: I posted this comment 4 seconds ago and it is already at -1. You read very fast!

Re: undefined

#86
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's very difficult to find truly unbiased statistics on this. Every current well-known analyst has been repeatedly egregiously wrong on the matter throughout this election cycle.

On matters of opinion, ABSOLUTELY. On matters of polling, absolutely false. Even Brexit was predicted by the polls, it just didn't happen until a week before the vote. (It's worth noting, of course, the same could happen here. And that's probably what Thiel is counting on).

Exactly there is a big myth going around that polls never predicted Brexit when in fact they absolutely did. People just didn't want to believe them.

Polls are objective not subjective.

Re: undefined

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all of Thiel's investing thesis is to invest in things that are statistically on track to fail, but whose payoff if they succeed is greater than most people imagine. PayPal, Facebook - both of these were terrible ideas when they came out (along with a number of other ones that did, in fact, fail). His idea is that people consistently mis-price risk, and so investing in a portfolio where everyone else thin…

That is one plausible interpretation but there are several layers to this. It is not a coincidence that RenTech and Thiel are supporting Trump. I hesitate to be explicit about what I think is actually going on but if you've read my posts on the Stagnation Hypothesis or watched Peter Thiel's videos on Youtube (low view counts, so I know you're not watching them!) you'll know there is a rather disturbing big picture wh…

I am not sure what you are saying, and I really don't want to watch that video. Can you be explicit? I want to know what you are thinking.

Re: undefined

#88
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all of Thiel's investing thesis is to invest in things that are statistically on track to fail, but whose payoff if they succeed is greater than most people imagine. PayPal, Facebook - both of these were terrible ideas when they came out (along with a number of other ones that did, in fact, fail). His idea is that people consistently mis-price risk, and so investing in a portfolio where everyone else thin…

> That's worth a lot more than $12.5M. Agreed. (Though FWIW $1.25M is the amount he invested)

I'm assuming 1/10 probability of Trump winning. Most poll aggregators are going 1/6; I actually suspect we'll see a bigger Clinton blowout than expected, but that's just MHO.

Re: undefined

#89

He's making a wise investment decision - if Trump wins he will probably gain a lot in favors. If Trump loses, he will lose a little bit of money and some goodwill of some people. I'm sure he can live with that. Cynical.

I'd absolutely agree if I thought: 1. Thiel needed favors 2. Trump was going to hand out favors 3. It wasn't too late.

#3 is really what gets me. We've got 3 weeks. Mail-in ballots are out in a bunch of states already. Peoples' minds are made up. The election is basically over. If you believe in extreme polling error, sure, Trump could win -- but, again, it's so late, will this have made the difference?

I almost wonder if he believes Trump will win, and thinks his last-minute donation will merely give the impression of having made the difference, when he was going to win anyway.

But again -- why now?

Re: undefined

#90
post #16

Thanks for the flexibility (for context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12716662 ).

Not sure why we would turn off flagging, if it's doing its job keeping flame wars off of the front page.
Post reply on HN