> It’s very likely that something bizarre happens. And there are still thousands of other things that COULD happen that didn’t, like a candidate getting removed

> It’s very likely that something bizarre happens. And there are still thousands of other things that COULD happen that didn’t, like a candidate getting removed by assassination, car wreck, illness, fatigue, enemy attack on the State, pandemic, on and on, that will have a massive impact on the state of things. Yes, there are lots of things that could happen, but they're all pretty unlikely. A huge impact times a low probability doesn't affect the outcome much. > I really don’t know how to value/process information like “Clinton 90% most likely to win,” and “Clinton loses in hotly contested election.” How do you get from A to B. Well, it helps to not start from "Clinton 90% most likely to win"—if I remember correctly (which I may not), the final odds for Clinton were in the 65%-70% range. > Taleb says model should never have been so confident. I would agree. 538 was not especially confident. > the output information is certainly less valuable than the attention it’s receiving. Seems largely academic, and worthwhile, but not worthy of broad attention outside of the quant circles. Maybe, but it's popular because it's something that people want to know.