I don't get why a 70/30 projection for Clinton should have humiliated him? He was more skeptical of Hillary than a lot of mainstream media. What should humiliate him are his dogshit analysis of political strategy and COVID stuff, not his projections
I thought the humiliation of 2016 should have made him crawl under a rock to hide forever
Huh? Silver was literally the only "serious" prognosticator who forecasted a possible upset; everyone else thought it was a no contest (Princeton gave it like a 99.5% "Bayesian" prediction for Hillary).
"Bayesian" in contemporary use means "make up numbers and apply those made up numbers until whatever result you want to happen looks likely, even inevitable."
it may have the Princeton Consortium guy. i think he said he'd literally eat his shoes, or a pile of bugs or something if he lost -- i'm sure he at least ate rhetorical crow and had to follow up with a mea culpa post.
I don't believe the American people are good enough to reject genocide, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Pretty much. Though even then it's also a toss-up, because the system genuinely has nothing to offer and anyone with sense knows it, Klanmala's "joy" and genocidal vibes can't replace the actual material conditions Trump is calling out (though he won't fix them either).
A bad country, with a bad society (many good people, but a profoundly and perhaps inherently sick and wretched society), and admittedly they'll get what they deserve (same counts for my country and the entire west TBF).
I don't believe the American people are good enough to reject genocide, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Oh, and how is Nate Silver still around? I thought the humiliation of 2016 should have made him crawl under a rock to hide forever
I don't get why a 70/30 projection for Clinton should have humiliated him? He was more skeptical of Hillary than a lot of mainstream media. What should humiliate him are his dogshit analysis of political strategy and COVID stuff, not his projections
Huh? Silver was literally the only "serious" prognosticator who forecasted a possible upset; everyone else thought it was a no contest (Princeton gave it like a 99.5% "Bayesian" prediction for Hillary).
"Bayesian" in contemporary use means "make up numbers and apply those made up numbers until whatever result you want to happen looks likely, even inevitable."
Am I misremembering? Who was the statistician who predicted a slam dunk for Clinton and then later released a post about why he got it wrong?
it may have the Princeton Consortium guy. i think he said he'd literally eat his shoes, or a pile of bugs or something if he lost -- i'm sure he at least ate rhetorical crow and had to follow up with a mea culpa post.
Pretty much. Though even then it's also a toss-up, because the system genuinely has nothing to offer and anyone with sense knows it, Klanmala's "joy" and genocidal vibes can't replace the actual material conditions Trump is calling out (though he won't fix them either).
A bad country, with a bad society (many good people, but a profoundly and perhaps inherently sick and wretched society), and admittedly they'll get what they deserve (same counts for my country and the entire west TBF).