161–170 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone mentions Brexit but I have to wonder it the roots of this goes back to the 90's. Remember the battle of seattle and the likes? I can think of a few other more local (to Australia) events that seem to make sense when you factor in this bubbling discontentment.
The roots of this are 8 years of a black man in the White House.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
! Trump wins Florida! Favorite Reddit comments so far. "There is still California, there's always money in the banana stand." "CNN, now is not the time to be playing an advert for The Man In The High Castle".
Have a look at the electoral votes map. Even NYTIMES gives Trump +95% change to win.
Am now wizard.
It's 04:13 here but this is too funny not to stay up for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote an "abuse of our attention". Here's why. Attention is a limited commodity. Movement attracts the eye. Using movement is fine if it conveys information. Movement that never stops should only be used if each movement conveys information. In this case, a better solution would be a blurred needle. It is well known that multi-tasking and context switching has a cost. The same applies to movements on visualizations…
There's very little information it's trying to convey. If you don't want you're attention shifted you can just scroll down.
One can convey mean and standard deviation without animation.
When something moves, the way it moves catches the eye. Arbitrary movement is wasted movement when it comes to conveying real information.
Take electron orbital clouds [1]. They are a nice way to show uncertainty with a static image and without animation. Indeed, an animation of an electron moving around would not the tell the story as effectively. A blurred probability cloud is a better way to do it to tell the story of probability.
Also, a blurred cloud is useful precisely because it does not imply that electrons follow predictable paths.
[1]: http://www.scottsmithonline.com/interests/medicalschool/biol...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scales for example do jiggle around.
Perhaps if the person being weighed jumps around, in which case the scale is doing its job correctly--or a very sensitive scale reacting to changes in air pressure. Scale readings generally do not jiggle/bounce with a static load.
You can see similar issues with most purely mechanical dials to one degree or another when they are responding to a rapid change.
I feel that I'm an educated person, and I try to keep up with politics in America, but I really don't understand our system. How can some states be called with less than 20% of the votes being counted?
Those making a call will typically check how well the results for the counties that reported results so far correlate with the polls and historical results, guesstimate what that would mean for the other counties, and call it when they think the result is clear (hopefully, they employ statisticians to make the call, but even then, it remains an inexact science)
For example, if a state has had over 90% votes for party P in all its counties in the past ten elections, the polls say that won't change, results of ten percent of counties nicely distributed over the state in terms of city/countryside, rich/poor, race, etc. show it hasn't changed, making the call that P will win is easy. Everybody would take that bet.
For an example of 'calling it' going wrong, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman.
I leave work and I see Clinton is the probable winner. I drive home, get some dinner, and I get a text from the WSJ that stock futures are crashing because Trump might win?!? What the friggin hell pollsters? I get the feeling some explaining on the part of the newspapers and new networks is in order.
It's looking like it might be a Brexit moment for the USA. The filter bubble echo chamber of social media and 24/7 coverage of celebrities stumping for Clinton is going to leave a lot of people shocked tomorrow when/if it's officially given to Trump.
I had a feeling this was going to happen today when I saw that virtually everyone in my Facebook feed and everyone on the streets of NYC was supporting Hillary. Every extra +1 in NYC is pretty much going to be -1 in a swing state. As one of the hundreds of folks banned from DailyKos for being too liberal, I've been spending some time reading the Trump subreddit, and I have to say that Hillary has run perhaps the wors…
And remember! The blame for a Trump presidency lies with none other than Hillary Clinton. She's the one that cheated a popular opponent in the primaries, that strategized to promote Trump during the Republican debates, that infiltrated the media and turned journalists into self-admitted "hacks", and she's the one that interjected herself into the presidential race despite knowing that her "scandals" -- electoral corruption, mishandling of classified information, pay-for-play at the Clinton foundation, Bill's history of child rape, etc. -- all disqualify her as a viable opponent to Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a look at the electoral votes map. Even NYTIMES gives Trump +95% change to win.
I called the Gay Marriage Referendum (Ireland), the Brexit Referendum, and now the US elections. Am now wizard. It's 04:13 here but this is too funny not to stay up for.
I leave work and I see Clinton is the probable winner. I drive home, get some dinner, and I get a text from the WSJ that stock futures are crashing because Trump might win?!? What the friggin hell pollsters? I get the feeling some explaining on the part of the newspapers and new networks is in order.
