Author here. You're right, and this was an intentional omission because it was irrelevant to my larger argument. If you want to go to the full depth of determin

Author here. You're right, and this was an intentional omission because it was irrelevant to my larger argument. If you want to go to the full depth of determinism then yes, with complete knowledge you can eliminate any chaotic factors in the model. The greater point though is that with our current capability of determining state we can eliminate a huge amount of chaotic factors from elections, but very, very few chaotic factors from sports and lotto drawings. We're not anywhere near the ability to determine state to that degree, and even if we were there's the certitude that unless the system was completely closed before the measurements were taken, the minute changes that result from the prediction (a team getting a sense of security, a fan cheering louder, a teammate changing a stride into the locker room because he read a tweet spawned by the prediction) throw the prediction out the window. So yes, on a scientific basis you're right and that's the grist for another blog post, but on a practical level it's irrelevant.