Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 270 posts

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#51

Post by notahacker »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #24
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>cbs, the ny times, and the washington post have all shifted rather noticeably rightward As the Overton window or activist left moves further left on issues like identity politics, crime and free speech (1619 Project era at NYT, staff revolts etc), steady coverage can appear "righter" by comparison without actually changing

Where is the steady coverage? Again, I see coverage moving rightward at every major publication (including the ny times)

Apparently it's "steady coverage" for CBS to be taken over by a culture warring op-ed writer who singlehandedly spikes investigative journalism if the Trump administration don't want to offer their comments on the story, and for WaPo op-eds writers to tweet that "we're now a conservative opinion section"...

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#52

Post by ConceptJunkie »

divbzero wrote: post #12

Some of Disney’s most valuable properties—ESPN, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars—were acquired. FiveThirtyEight may be smaller, but it should be in Disney’s self-interest to set things right and earn a reputation for being a good home for acquisitions.

> earn a reputation for being a good home for acquisitions.

It's way too late for that to be possible any more.

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#53

Post by palata »

bellowsgulch wrote: post #37
shawabawa3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they said trump only had a 30% chance to win? What if they had said 49%? Would that have made their prediction worthless?

I mean everyone said he had a snowball’s chance in hell and then we ended up with him for two terms because the Democrats can’t stop fighting over the worse possible candidates to back that no one is asking for.

I find it interesting to blame it on the democrats. We ended up with him because enough people voted for him.

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#54

Post by doctorpangloss »

bellowsgulch wrote: post #37
shawabawa3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they said trump only had a 30% chance to win? What if they had said 49%? Would that have made their prediction worthless?

I mean everyone said he had a snowball’s chance in hell and then we ended up with him for two terms because the Democrats can’t stop fighting over the worse possible candidates to back that no one is asking for.

do you think nate silver is part of the problem or part of the solution?

the turnout-of-demographic-groups-based election model is surely the underlying intelligence failure here.

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#55

Post by ntonozzi »

bellowsgulch wrote: post #37
shawabawa3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they said trump only had a 30% chance to win? What if they had said 49%? Would that have made their prediction worthless?

I mean everyone said he had a snowball’s chance in hell and then we ended up with him for two terms because the Democrats can’t stop fighting over the worse possible candidates to back that no one is asking for.

Everyone said that except for 538. That's why 538 was worth reading.

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#56

Post by jackmott42 »

ninth_ant wrote: post #31

> I did too much bragging in the media and didn’t anticipate the extent to which public opinion toward FiveThirtyEight would shift once we became a corporate-backed incumbent rather than an eccentric upstart Can’t speak for everyone else, but it wasn’t this for me. It was about 2016 presidential that lost me. He tries to justify this later about how theirs was better than other outlets but I don’t care. Call it emoti…

Nate was a huge outlier in that prediction, he gave trump a better chance than almost anyone else that I can recall, so why are you mad at him about that?

What made me mad is Nate seemed to turn into a MAGA troll himself after that election.

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#58

Post by armchairhacker »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #45
armchairhacker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to AllSides, many outlets moved left, although some did move right: https://www.allsides.com/blog/AllSides-Media-Bias-Rating-Ove... It and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com say NYTimes “leans left” and is “left-center” respectively. What’s an example that you believe highlights NYTimes moving rightward?

> What’s an example that you believe highlights NYTimes moving rightward? The treatment of Mamdani for one, or Hochul/Cuomo. >say NYTimes “leans left” and is “left-center” respectively. That can be true and at the same time it can be moving rightward.

I’ll give you that one: Madmani is treated unusually different by the news and social media, and his opponents were bizarrely overtly flawed.

Re: Disney erased FiveThirtyEight

#59

Post by kypro »

fabian2k wrote: post #36
ninth_ant wrote: post #31

> I did too much bragging in the media and didn’t anticipate the extent to which public opinion toward FiveThirtyEight would shift once we became a corporate-backed incumbent rather than an eccentric upstart Can’t speak for everyone else, but it wasn’t this for me. It was about 2016 presidential that lost me. He tries to justify this later about how theirs was better than other outlets but I don’t care. Call it emoti…

FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 30% chance. Their reporting did make clear that with margin was within the range of a normal polling error. And sometimes you get more than a normal polling error. It doesn't help that the US has a terrible election system that often leads to small margins in some states being decisive.

> FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 30% chance.

I know I'm being super conspiratorial here but why wouldn't all forecasters predict just between 30% - 70%? That way if they're "right" they can take the credit for it and if they're wrong they can say "well, we weren't that wrong". That's probably what I'd do anyway...

Post reply on HN