41–50 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bviously you don't believe that yourself, you're just incapable of a coherent response to the post I definitely think a human was involved in signing up for the account and occasionally checks in. I think my response was plenty coherent.
[flagged]
I'm seeing a lot about this. What makes this situation different than any other website going offline?
Here are some numbers roughly in the right ballpark: during the Disney era, which lasted about 10 years, FiveThirtyEight published about 20 stories a week. Let’s say that each story took about 20 hours to produce between research, writing, graphics and editing.3 Do the math, and that works out to about 200,000 person-hours of work that ABC News just deleted.Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn’t hedge at the end. Nate always writes the models before election season then doesn’t touch them apart from actual bug fixes. The model actually organically predicted 30%. I still think that’s about accurate. Maybe it should’ve been 40%. Everyone forgets that it was a pretty close election. Clinton could’ve won without the Comey announcement.
I think he did hedge (or "strategically bug fix"). The prediction for Trump went from IIRC around 15 to 30 in the last week or so. It was a big swing, IIRC with a lot of waffle around why it happened but not a lot of verifiable fact. > I still think that’s about accurate. Maybe it should’ve been 40%. It wasn't accurate. This is something people misunderstand about these predictions. If the 2016 election was held 100…
The 70% figure is saying “we know most of the information needed to determine what the outcome of the election will be but we don’t know everything so can’t be certain”. There is no process where you can know every factor that determines the result in advance with absolutely accuracy and I don’t know why people expect there would be.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137942...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he did hedge (or "strategically bug fix"). The prediction for Trump went from IIRC around 15 to 30 in the last week or so. It was a big swing, IIRC with a lot of waffle around why it happened but not a lot of verifiable fact. > I still think that’s about accurate. Maybe it should’ve been 40%. It wasn't accurate. This is something people misunderstand about these predictions. If the 2016 election was held 100…
To give you a trivial example: The simplest way I can put this is that turn out varies based on the weather[1], and turn out is skewed by party. So if it rains on election day you are going to get a different result, and that result can flip the outcome of the election if the election is close. So it’s kind of a nonsense to say. “Trump would have won 100 times out of 100”. Are you saying Nate Silvers model should hav…
What it would be reasonable to say is if his model had correctly predicted the outcome of a significant sample of elections, then you could say his model has some accuracy or predictive power. But it still would never have been accurate or right in the specific instances it got wrong, that's just a misconception about how statistics and predictive models work. I hope this helps.
For any, like myself, wondering " Who is Ben Welsh " ? Hello. My name is Ben Welsh. I'm an Iowan living in New York City. I am a reporter, an editor and a computer programmer. My job is to use those skills, together, to find and tell stories. I work at Reuters, the world's largest multimedia news provider, where I founded the organization's News Applications Desk. In that role, I lead the development of dashboards, d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn’t hedge at the end. Nate always writes the models before election season then doesn’t touch them apart from actual bug fixes. The model actually organically predicted 30%. I still think that’s about accurate. Maybe it should’ve been 40%. Everyone forgets that it was a pretty close election. Clinton could’ve won without the Comey announcement.
I think he did hedge (or "strategically bug fix"). The prediction for Trump went from IIRC around 15 to 30 in the last week or so. It was a big swing, IIRC with a lot of waffle around why it happened but not a lot of verifiable fact. > I still think that’s about accurate. Maybe it should’ve been 40%. It wasn't accurate. This is something people misunderstand about these predictions. If the 2016 election was held 100…
Couldn't figure out why archiving FTE aricles matters, but a quick search yields: > Thousands of FiveThirtyEight articles seemingly vanish from the internet https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/thousands-of-five... And discussions here on hn: ABC News has taken all FiveThirtyEight articles offline https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48152553 Disney erased FiveThirtyEight (article by Nate himself) https://news.…