> So they started with a conclusion, set out to prove it, later found the data they used to prove it was flawed, but still believe it's true. Nate Silver and 5

> So they started with a conclusion, set out to prove it, later found the data they used to prove it was flawed, but still believe it's true. Nate Silver and 538 are fairly hardcore Bayesians, and this is how pretty much all Bayesian thinking works. You start out with some prior "sentiment" (a.k.a. prior belief), and use then use data to update your "sentiment". In turn, invalid data would mean that you'd revert back to your original prior sentiment, and when you get new data you'd start Bayesian inference once again. Edit: Looking at the on-the-ground investigative reporting and the other sources and studies they've cited in the related articles, I actually agree that they have decent evidence to support their belief without these data sets.[0][1] I mean, ignoring the data sets, would you argue against the idea that many people in cities can't afford broadband or that many places in rural America have crummy internet infrastructure? Certainly, I'm less confident than I would be with the additional data, but my confidence is still relatively high without it. I do agree with your other points. Mobile internet access--with or without hotspots--is unreasonably ignored. The conflation between access and usage was a lesser concern since I managed to navigate the articles well enough. [0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-worst-internet-in-america/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-worst-internet-in-a... [1]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lots-of-people-in-cities-still-cant-afford-broadband/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lots-of-people-in-citie...