I grew up and lost all respect for Nate over something really trivial that made me realize he was full of BS. He said imperial measurements are better because you could say you ran "4 miles", he said saying you ran 3.2km would just sound stupid so why would you want metric? Does he think people in countries that use metric are agonising over having to round distances (just like imperial would the majority of the time) or wish they could express it in miles? Does he always run in exact mile increments every single time? Rant over but it made me irrationally mad. He might have been joking but didn't care enough to find out.
Using larger units means you're more likely to have to resort to fractions lmao, I wish shit here was measured in mm and ml/mg instead of fucking fractional inches and decimal ounces.
i think its really funny that in some engineering domains we use "mils," meaning milli-inches.
for the sake of my file at langley, i am not an engineer, i just dabble in circuit design
Imperial is better. Everybody else has to say "I'm 2.54 centimetreing forward." Americans just say "I'm inching forward." That's obviously better.
hell yeah saying "8 3/5ths cubic inches" makes you sond really smart, and having to use a calculator to convert to the next step (2 1/3rd cubic feet) is not supid at all
I recently found out about the “acre foot” as a volumetric measurement and instantly died at the stupidity
Na that makes perfect sense for what i assume to be the intended use - measuring the amount of soil you have.
It would, except.. they use it to measure the amount of water in swimming pools.
I've also heard it used in relation to water rights. For example, sometime has the right to extract a certain number of acre-feet from a stream over some amount of time.
Guessed correctly one (1) time and built a decade-long career on it despite never coming even close again
I was coming to the comments to ask if I was wrong about this guy and if he had actually been right more than that one single time
taking this as confirmation that I correctly remembered him as an arrogant dumbass
tbh he was probably not far off other statistical analysis in the past but I recall that on the 2020 election his website was extremely wrong
I remember on the morning of the 2016 election, his dip shit voting science site said Clinton had a 93% chance of winning.
Ok so this is weird revisionism, because I remember 538 was the least bullish on Clinton the entire time. The pre election podcast had her odds at 70% or something, which was way better than NYT, etc.
Not to say Nate was "right" about 2016, but compared to other outlets, his actually was closer to the statistical average.
The 93% might have been one of the forecast models, but the day of the election it was only 71.
He still sucks, but he was actually better than other pundits in 2016. They actually got tons of shit from libs because they couldn't comprehend that Trump had 1/3 odds
this is also my recollection. i was checking that shit weekly. i didn't want hillary to win, but her losing to such an obviously awful candidate seemed so unbelievable that the odds they were giving were incomprehensible to me.
and even if it said 99% that doesn't necessarily mean the model was wrong. Sometimes you roll a 1 but the odds of rolling not-1 are still 95% or 83⅓% or whatever
fuck nate but also most of us, including me, don't have math expertise
And I believed it because the Adults In The Room knew What They Were Doing.
8 years later I'm a rabid communist who counts down the hours until the West collapses
Sure he’s been right multiple times. He calls races in winner-take-all elections in the US.
Hi Nate, there are over 50 universities protesting now. Last I checked, 50 does not equal 8, but unlike you I'm not the Math Expert so maybe I am wrong.
That's only the number of universities with tent encampments. My uni doesn't have encampments but we've had hundreds protesting and a couple people arrested in the past couple days.
So many Ivy Leagues nowadays! Even I graduated from one it turns out.
These fucking Twitter liberals have spent so long arguing against leftists, that they really cannot comprehend the fact that the leftist position on Gaza is entirely mainstream, overwhelmingly popular, dominant. They are the absolute fringe, the weirdo wackos. They are Democrats who are to the right of most Republicans.
Love that this dude is living proof that viewing the world as numbers does not make someone smart.
"You get used to it. I don't even see the numbers. All I see is..." falls of chair smashes head on desk.
Lmao if you look at the list of universities with pro-Palestinian encampments like half of them are state unis with acceptance rates around 50-90%
I told the kids thier opinions don't matter. Can I get back in good graces with the establishment my Lords?
the numbers are in, but maybe some $20 dollar words will make them go awayI love how it’s obvious common sense that - as cool as the protests are - you can’t take some 50 protests that involve a relatively small number of people even as a total of the respective student bodies and extrapolate that as indicative of what tens of millions of people in an age cohort think. Literally no one is saying that. But Nate has to add some very technical sounding words to let you know he very smart and is a very big boy who understands everything better than you.
I mean yes, he's right, but not in this context. I don't see any protests at Harvard or Yale or Brown and if I did, they would probably be midnight marches with torches and pointy white hoods. These boys aren't going to sacrifice their future careers in the CIA to attend a Gaza rally.
FYI not that I generally disagree with the idea that the average Ivy League student is exactly what you say but there are ongoing pro-Palestine protests/encampments at all three of those universities too
aim for the new york times for the love of god.
