Radio silence from sally and trigged on the market...
Radio silence from sally and trigged on the market...
nate's model is back up.
darndest thing you'll ever see.
flip flop and flop flip.
joe left for dead and now almost a sure thing.
88% chance he'll get 50%+1 of the delegates.
They'll be talking about this one for a long time.
agip wrote:
nate's model is back up.
darndest thing you'll ever see.
flip flop and flop flip.
joe left for dead and now almost a sure thing.
88% chance he'll get 50%+1 of the delegates.
They'll be talking about this one for a long time.
It's not a good model.
moderates suck wrote:
agip wrote:
nate's model is back up.
darndest thing you'll ever see.
flip flop and flop flip.
joe left for dead and now almost a sure thing.
88% chance he'll get 50%+1 of the delegates.
They'll be talking about this one for a long time.
It's not a good model.
nate has addressed the giant swings of the model.
I'm not a professional stats guy but I'll go with his judgement.
But yeah it's been wicked volatile, which does not give confidence that it won't swing again.
nate:
"People intuitively like forecasts/trendlines that change slowly and smoothly, but that's not what the real world is like.
Instead, disproportionate amounts of information are revealed in short bursts of time or in high-leverage moments. So forecasts should reflect that."
"In presidential primaries, for instance, literally something like 50x more information is revealed on Super Tuesday than on a random day on the campaign trail. So to a first approximation, your forecast should be 50x more volatile surrounding Super Tuesday than on average."
agip wrote:
moderates suck wrote:
It's not a good model.
nate has addressed the giant swings of the model.
I'm not a professional stats guy but I'll go with his judgement.
But yeah it's been wicked volatile, which does not give confidence that it won't swing again.
nate:
"People intuitively like forecasts/trendlines that change slowly and smoothly, but that's not what the real world is like.
Instead, disproportionate amounts of information are revealed in short bursts of time or in high-leverage moments. So forecasts should reflect that."
"In presidential primaries, for instance, literally something like 50x more information is revealed on Super Tuesday than on a random day on the campaign trail. So to a first approximation, your forecast should be 50x more volatile surrounding Super Tuesday than on average."
That is fine, but then the predictive value of a model is not very good at all.
I have some stats understanding, but I'm certainly not an expert. I think generally the fivethirtyeight team is very good. Although they took a lot of flak for 2016, their actual model worked really, really well and they pretty much "predicted" what a Trump victory could look like with a normal size polling error.
It is possible that the primary process is just not a susceptible to good modeling. It is also possible that the model should just have a huge percentage that is marked as unknown. It is possible the inputs just are not very good (primary polling is pretty spotty in a lot of places)--GIGO. It is also possible that they will get better at modeling, as I am pretty sure that this is the first time they have tried to model the primaries and that this is (mostly) a reaction to poor punditry (on Nate's part) in the 2016 republican primary.
Anyway, I just don't put any stock in this model at this point.
Yosinglercz wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/sanders-russia-excerpts-archive.amp.html?0p19G=0038
This is a crap story. Steaming pile of dung.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/new-york-times-finds-scandal-in-bernie-sanders-cooperation-with-ronald-reagans-soviet-peace-plan.htmlYosinglercz wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/sanders-russia-excerpts-archive.amp.html?0p19G=0038
Did you have some kind of point? Perhaps you condemn the notion of "sister cities"? Or . . . well, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.
Yes, let’s have certainty & capitalism & whatever stupid catch-words come to mind with trump & biden.
Instead of fairness & respect with bernie & his crazy revolution.
London blue chips close at lowest since 2016.
Twitter exploding with people who can’t get tested, yet have all the symptoms. Only possible conclusion is that there are no tests & Administration is happy to give out low numbers that are false. Idiots!!!
jesseriley wrote:
Yes, let’s have certainty & capitalism & whatever stupid catch-words come to mind with trump & biden.
Whatever keeps the war machine dollars rolling.
You know it, baby!
Meanwhile, it’s a fvcking disaster, all Americans with the virus won’t be tested & are being sent home to spread it some more!
Coronavirus as Mike Myers in Halloween, keeps coming home to kill again.
Unfvckingbelievable.
jesseriley wrote:
Yes, let’s have certainty & capitalism & whatever stupid catch-words come to mind with trump & biden.
Instead of fairness & respect with bernie & his crazy revolution.
It’s unfair and unreasonable to lump Biden in with Trump, there are differences, significant differences.
What’s more is you know this, you’re better than that Jesse.
The Trump administration.
jesseriley wrote:
You know it, baby!
Meanwhile, it’s a fvcking disaster, all Americans with the virus won’t be tested & are being sent home to spread it some more!
Coronavirus as Mike Myers in Halloween, keeps coming home to kill again.
Unfvckingbelievable.
COVID-19 mortality rate is similar to the flu for anyone under 70 and without preexisting conditions like cardiovascular disease, etc. These statistics are rather easy to look up.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
You know it, baby!
Meanwhile, it’s a fvcking disaster, all Americans with the virus won’t be tested & are being sent home to spread it some more!
Coronavirus as Mike Myers in Halloween, keeps coming home to kill again.
Unfvckingbelievable.
COVID-19 mortality rate is similar to the flu for anyone under 70 and without preexisting conditions like cardiovascular disease, etc. These statistics are rather easy to look up.
Alan
Some of us have relatives who are if you can believe it over 70 years of age.
I’m guessing trump will eat the elderly after killing them off.
I know I sound cynical.
My point is that healthcare for all might be pragmatic if we’re going to survive & even have some dignity.