151–160 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he kind of sucks and isn’t worth following. He’s a sellout at heart, including his recent association with Polymarket. Someone cool would have never sold out a website as good as 538 used to be. Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers.
You do realize the person responsible for 538 is the same person?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize the person responsible for 538 is the same person?
People change over time. The Nate Silver of 2026 isn't the same Nate Silver of 2010 or 2013.
> BTW, I approached ABC about buying back the former FiveThirtyEight IP*, and they said they wouldn't sell at any price because I'd criticized their management of the brand. --Nate Silver (538 founder) ABC seem pretty petty here.
So Nate & Co sell out to a big corporation then are upset that it does big corporation stuff? I'm more mad at Nate here because 538 was my go-to for political coverage pre-sellout, and because of his greed it went away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he kind of sucks and isn’t worth following. He’s a sellout at heart, including his recent association with Polymarket. Someone cool would have never sold out a website as good as 538 used to be. Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers.
538 got one election right a decade and a half ago with a contrarian alternative data source, and hooked a bunch of partisan gamblers since now you can actually bet on your beliefs and dont need to debate with anyone on whether the koolaid colored wave of choice will actually happen, or whether you are a slave to an algorithm induced hall of mirrors. note, the senate has been 50-50 for over a decade, its probably the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever you feel about his actions that was at worst it was a win-lose decision. He benefited from it. If his comment is accurate, then ABC’s decision is a clear lose-lose decision driven entirely by personal spite.
Honestly is Nate even wrong here? IIRC, he got to keep all of the models and etc from 538 which is kinda all that mattered about it. Like anybody is really going to lookup the 2016 election in 2030 but they're definitely want the model's output in 2030 for 2030. Management seems to be clearly inept and if somebody wants to give you a wheelbarrow of cash for something worthless you're generally foolish to not accept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People change over time. The Nate Silver of 2026 isn't the same Nate Silver of 2010 or 2013.
That's a funny response in the context of "Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers" given I remember posting with him on the 2+2 forums in the early aughts poker boom days where he was a popular poster teaching a lot of people how to profit off gamblers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WOuldn't proof of that be some grounds for breach of fiduciary duty?
Why? Even if the common myth that public company executives must maximize profits at all costs were true, it's easy to construct a plausible explanation for why one might believe in good faith that destroying 538 rather than selling it is the best strategy to maximize profits. For example, because they think the profit they'd lose from 538 competing with their own politics offerings outweighs the amount Silver would…
... and to think I thought I was being clever. I see this has been suggested already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ABC's shareholders are Disney. Whatever Nate offered them isn't even a rounding error in Disney's $36 billion dollars in profits last year. The shareholders aren't going to care.
It's not that a shareholder won't care, but that the modern US company is such a large basket of businesses, it's impossible to put any pressure on a random business unit throwing money away. So, in practice, there's very little pressure to do things right, and a lot of pressure to do what your boss prefers, whether it actually helps the company's profitability or not. There can be negatives if you are doing massive…
This is frustrating as a consumer. Any further insight, on the solution side?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
538 got one election right a decade and a half ago with a contrarian alternative data source, and hooked a bunch of partisan gamblers since now you can actually bet on your beliefs and dont need to debate with anyone on whether the koolaid colored wave of choice will actually happen, or whether you are a slave to an algorithm induced hall of mirrors. note, the senate has been 50-50 for over a decade, its probably the…
Pretty sure the only election that 538 didn't correctly call was 2016. For sure they correctly predicted both Obama wins and Biden.