[flagged]
FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
61–70 of 102 posts
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#62I am certainly missing a lot of nuance here, but it seems to me Nate Silver managed to have his cake and eat it too. He surely got good money for selling FiveThirtyEight, and now that the buyer has erased the product, Nate can get back a huge chunk of its readers since he offers very similar analyses on his personal site. Sure, natesilver.net has less brand recognition than fivethirtyeight.com, but it's still decentl…
It’s possible NS may have signed a contract saying that he cannot engage in elections prediction for X YZ months to same extent that he did with FiveThirtyEight.
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#63[flagged]
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#64[flagged]
Because of broad statistical illiteracy regarding early forecasts?
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#65[flagged]
... so an event that had a (simulated) 47% percent chance of happening happens, and an event that had a 53% chance of happening didn't.
You must _hate_ it when you need <= 4 and you roll a 5...
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#66I am certainly missing a lot of nuance here, but it seems to me Nate Silver managed to have his cake and eat it too. He surely got good money for selling FiveThirtyEight, and now that the buyer has erased the product, Nate can get back a huge chunk of its readers since he offers very similar analyses on his personal site. Sure, natesilver.net has less brand recognition than fivethirtyeight.com, but it's still decentl…
> Nate can get back a huge chunk of its readers
The downside is this furthers the divide between folks who pay for subscriptions and masses who get shoveled ad-powered slop.
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's where you're wrong, the election was very, very close. In fact, if roughly 40k voters (across three states) had switched from Trump to Hillary, she would have won, that's how close it was. 40k voters, that's really not very many. So it's hard to say whether Trump had a 30% chance of winning or 40% or whatever, but the election at most was a toss-up. Many random events could have resulted in a different outcome…
You misunderstand my point. I am talking about the actual election that happened where these many random events that could have resulted in a different outcome did not happen. I was being a bit facetious maybe in my point. But the point is that the thing that is to be predicted is the actual real event that occurs in this universe. Silver made a prediction, and it was wrong. "Oh but it was only a 70% prediction" You…
Statistical likelihood is a measurement of the known data at the time. If you engage with the content otherwise then it's on you if you have the wrong takeaway. No one who makes a prediction based on a statistical model is going to be right every time. That doesn't mean it's not right to make a prediction. The statistical modeling can help you to be correct more often than not. And if you were going to be truly fair you would note that Nate in fact repeatedly said that it was still very much possible for Trump to win but that the current known polling data and other factors in his model pointed to a loss.
538's own post-mortem's on the event highlight that Trump was a very unusual candidate running in a very unusual election and as such the model was missing a lot of important information. They learned from the experience and adjusted the model going forward. Anyone complaining about that event is really just highlighting that they don't understand how statistical modeling works and are upset about how the model misled them or others which isn't Nate or 538's fault and is entirely on the consumer of their reporting. It's not like they didn't try to educate their consumers in their reporting.
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#68I am certainly missing a lot of nuance here, but it seems to me Nate Silver managed to have his cake and eat it too. He surely got good money for selling FiveThirtyEight, and now that the buyer has erased the product, Nate can get back a huge chunk of its readers since he offers very similar analyses on his personal site. Sure, natesilver.net has less brand recognition than fivethirtyeight.com, but it's still decentl…
> Nate can get back a huge chunk of its readers The downside is this furthers the divide between folks who pay for subscriptions and masses who get shoveled ad-powered slop.
He put up a substantial number of articles for free during the 2024 election, it felt less paywalled than much of the MSM these days.
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#69[flagged]
538: "We have no idea who will win. It seems like basically a coin toss."
Reality: someone wins.
Internet: "How did 538 mess this up so badly?"
Re: FiveThirtyEight articles on the Internet Archive
#70I am certainly missing a lot of nuance here, but it seems to me Nate Silver managed to have his cake and eat it too. He surely got good money for selling FiveThirtyEight, and now that the buyer has erased the product, Nate can get back a huge chunk of its readers since he offers very similar analyses on his personal site. Sure, natesilver.net has less brand recognition than fivethirtyeight.com, but it's still decentl…
He may also finally shake off the comment trolls who piled onto him after 2016, seemingly blaming him for the election results (absurd but people are absurd).
After that election, a certain group would tirelessly work to discredit him any time his election predictions were not entirely one-sided.