4 ms·
I think Nate did a phenomenal job calling out pollsters in that time. Since 538 was predominately a poll aggregator that did tricky stats to rank the reliabilit
by f1ay 5mo ago
I think Nate did a phenomenal job calling out pollsters in that time. Since 538 was predominately a poll aggregator that did tricky stats to rank the reliability of each poll. I remember specifically an interview with him griping about some of the unusual data he was seeing from pollsters that made it look like, and I quote, 'Someone has their finger on the scales'
- stinkbeetle 5mo agoPerhaps critiquing statistical methods used by polling was something he was good at. I have no real opinion of his work there, which I didn't pay attention to. But predicting an election requires a lot more than polling datasets and statistics textbooks. That's the problem that he made himself out to be an election prediction wizard, but really that was off the back of his good prediction in quite a bland and conventional election. When things got slightly more spicy and reality diverged from his vaunted "models", his "data science" predictably fell in a heap. The worst thing is almost not even that he got it wrong, it's that he seemed incapable of recognizing that present reality was quite significantly different from the past data he had used to build his models. Even after being wrong in so many of these predictions. He just kept churning out these pieces about how Trump was probably finished this time.
- bonsai_spool 5mo agoOkay, this is clearly an LLM response, but for the sake of being polite: > But predicting an election requires a lot more than polling datasets and statistics textbooks. That's the problem that he made himself out to be an election prediction wizard, but really that was off the back of his good prediction in quite a bland and conventional election. > When things got slightly more spicy and reality diverged from his vaunted "models", his "data science" predictably fell in a heap The models were correct in two elections - arguably three because a 30% chance means that an outcome will occur in thirty times out of hundred. That is not zero. To the person who is running this LLM, please find better things to do with yourself.
- stinkbeetle 5mo ago[flagged]
- bonsai_spool 5mo ago> bviously you don't believe that yourself, you're just incapable of a coherent response to the post I definitely think a human was involved in signing up for the account and occasionally checks in. I think my response was plenty coherent.
- stinkbeetle 5mo ago[flagged]
- bonsai_spool 5mo agoThere was no substance to the text generated in the earlier comments. Good luck out there.
- stinkbeetle 5mo ago[flagged]
- simonw 5mo agoWhere did anyone suggest you were paid to post opinions of Nate Silver?
- stinkbeetle 5mo agoOh I was just skim reading it and I thought the angry paranoid one said something about sending checks in :( That makes it a little less funny. I thought he was imagining Putin sending me checks for expressing verboten opinions of Nate Silver on Hackernews, lol. I think actually deep down he knew it was not even an LLM, they were just a small insecure little person who had no better way to express their anger at my post.