Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing the first word is either "get" or "eat"
I don't know if I'm just dense but I continue to have no idea what the implication is.
You're not alone. Can't be that important though.
A few words about FiveThirtyEight
11–20 of 140 posts
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#12Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
538's final forecast was Kamala 50%, Trump 49%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Nobody who thinks they can pin a probability on an event that only gets sampled once should ever be taken seriously.
And yet, the silver report final modal outcome was exactly the actual result.
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
538's final forecast was Kamala 50%, Trump 49%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Nobody who thinks they can pin a probability on an event that only gets sampled once should ever be taken seriously.
This is such tired debate that comes up whenever 538 is mentioned in discussion. Polls sample an election's outcome many times throughout the campaign. Statistics works. You can't know the future but you can predict it with error bars. 51/49 or 70/30 should tell you there's a very real chance of a Trump victory.
People get bent out of shape about 538 but it's usually because they're misinterpreting the prediction, not that the prediction is meaningless.
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if I'm just dense but I continue to have no idea what the implication is.
both "get" and "eat" would be followed by an expletive. op doesn't like nate.
For sure. Thanks for explaining, I think you're right.
Whenever I hear him interviewed (or read his books) I come away with the impression Silverman is a bit up his own rear but I don't see what's objectionable about writing recommendations for people you've worked with. That's pretty normal.
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#16[flagged]
You mean polls like this that put Clinton 15% ahead? https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/20... I think there’s a stronger argument that those polls were intended to suppress Trump voters into thinking they were not the majority (when in fact they were).
I think there's also a huge misunderstanding of statistics in the US.
More than one person I've spoken to believed that when sites said things like "Hilary has a 70% chance of winning" that that was the same as getting 70% of the vote, i.e. a landslide.
I've had literal arguments with people who can't/won't understand the difference between an average and a median even when presented with 5th grade level phrasing examples.
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody who thinks they can pin a probability on an event that only gets sampled once should ever be taken seriously.
This is such tired debate that comes up whenever 538 is mentioned in discussion. Polls sample an election's outcome many times throughout the campaign. Statistics works. You can't know the future but you can predict it with error bars. 51/49 or 70/30 should tell you there's a very real chance of a Trump victory. People get bent out of shape about 538 but it's usually because they're misinterpreting the prediction, no…
[deleted]
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
538's final forecast was Kamala 50%, Trump 49%. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Nobody who thinks they can pin a probability on an event that only gets sampled once should ever be taken seriously.
Each race is only sampled once. But he runs the same methodology on hundreds of races. If the candidates he gives an X% chance to win go on to win approximately X% of the time, the methodology is reliable.
Re: A few words about FiveThirtyEight
#19[flagged]
You mean polls like this that put Clinton 15% ahead? https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/20... I think there’s a stronger argument that those polls were intended to suppress Trump voters into thinking they were not the majority (when in fact they were).
>I think there’s a stronger argument that those polls were intended to suppress Trump voters into thinking they were not the majority (when in fact they were).
Show your work. What evidence do you have to support that argument?