161–170 of 186 posts
> 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.
> pretty big credibility hit after getting that election so wrong That this is the narrative that survived the election is one of the greatest indictments for our society's ability to engage in critical thinking. The day before the election, the Huffington Post published a hit piece criticising Nate for overrating Trump's odds and inspiring panic. Huffpost predicted a 98.2% chance of Clinton winning, NYT predicted 85…
+1. It's insane how history has been rewritten here, though it probably helps that 95% of people don't understand what the fuck a forecast is . They translate "30% chance Trump wins" into "0% chance Trump wins" because 30 < 50. Try asking them whether they think a 45% chance of rain means it definitively isn't going to rain and hear the wind whistling through the empty space between their ears.
That's why people get all weird about probabilities flipping from 49% to 51%, and not at all interested in - say - a probability going from 60% to 90%.
> 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.
I think Nate has become better at this sort of stuff in recent years. But still, he said that Disney "hardly ever" interfered in their editorial process, oblivious to the implication.
(What it means is that Disney/ABC were perfectly willing to interfere in their editorial process, but rarely needed to since Nate said what they wanted him to say anyway).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disney's 2025 profit was $12B: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/net-inc...
Accuracy is important. Thank you for the correction. $12B profit is obscenely large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accuracy is important. Thank you for the correction. $12B profit is obscenely large.
Is it? What is the reason to assume an arbitrary number of a currency is "obscene", without taking into account changes in purchasing power of the currency, number of employees, number of customers, amount of expenses, volatility of the business, time horizon of investment, and myriad other factors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? What is the reason to assume an arbitrary number of a currency is "obscene", without taking into account changes in purchasing power of the currency, number of employees, number of customers, amount of expenses, volatility of the business, time horizon of investment, and myriad other factors?
The size of it concentrated in one place.
Regardless, a single metric is almost never sufficient to provide a well rounded analysis of anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The size of it concentrated in one place.
What does one place mean? Disney sells access to media and entertainment all over the world, to billions of people. Regardless, a single metric is almost never sufficient to provide a well rounded analysis of anything.
I know it can be confusing that many places exist and that the corporation has multiple customers.
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?
It's wild to me how often I see corporate America both: 1. Spend immense amounts trying to build and improve a brand. 2. Toss well known brands aside as if they are useless. Not that it's always the same company doing both at the same time, but it's crazy 538 was just left to die. It was a very recognizable brand among wonky professionals, a very desirable customer base. It's not as if politics and sports have gotten…
Tangential: I miss Nate and Maria Konnikova's Risky Business podcast. It only lasted a year (or two?). I expected it would be resurrected outside the Pushkin network, but hasn't happened yet. What I _don't_ miss is listening to podcasts on Pushkin. I had nothing against Malcolm Gladwell, but something about having his voice on every one of the network's very numerous ads became incredibly grating.