crowley

Ignoring: @sog35, @TallestSkil, @apple][, @SpamSandwich, @marcNOK Love and hugs to everyone else.

About

Username
crowley
Joined
Visits
89
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,015
Badges
1
Posts
5,174
  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

    sdw2001 said:
    crowley said:
    sdw2001 said:
    crowley said:
    "Dumbass Nate Silver" :D

    Oh give it a rest, nonsense spouter, one missed call doesn't invalidate everything a person says.  Nate Silver was open about re-evaluating his assumptions, labelled Trump as a potential black swan, and on the eve of the election was far warmer on the idea of Trump winning than almost anyone else.

    He's an analyst, not a kingmaker, if you don't like what he says then just stop reading it.

     :D  :o :D   REALLY?  You and yours were practically sucking Nate Silver's wang back in 2012.  Nate Silver had cracked the code.  He was the Left's election analyst messiah.  These boards were dripping with condescension about all other predictions.  And when Silver was right on that election?  Oh my God.  You guys were not just gloating, you were climaxing all over the screen.  But now he's just an "analyst."    Silver doesn't know anything.  He's a stopped clock and nothing more.  Anyone who could actually argue that the Georgia 6th is even money in the runoff is either a dumbass or a partisan shill.  Maybe both.  I'm leaning towards the first.  
    Enough of this "you and yours" please, we're all people here, not stereotypes, and I don't recall ever gushing, or even talking about Nate Silver before. Put that broad brush away.

    People admired Nate Silver's methodologies, and still do, and I highly doubt anyone at any point has claimed that they are perfect, or anything more than a further interpretation of polling data, which is by definition a speculative and inaccurate science.

    I'd certainly say his methodologies are still far superior to your finger-in-the-wind guesstimating from inside your own bubble, and that won't change whatever the result in Georgia turns out to be.

    www.fivethirtyeight.com is an excellent website. Anyone arguing otherwise is definitely either a dumbass, a partisan shill, or both. 


    One, you're a liberal/progressive (at least on the US political spectrum), so let's stop pretending otherwise.  Your positions are not new here.  Many other members have espoused the same views over the years.  They are your ideological kin in most respects.  That's why I put you in that group.  If you say you didn't gush over Silver, fine.  

    Now, as for Silver:  You are making this about his website, his methodologies, and the concept of statistical analysis itself.  I disparaged none of that.  In fact, statistical election analysis is a valuable tool.   His methodologies are interesting and in many cases novel.   Again, this is not the point.  The point is that people look to Nate Silver as some kind of prediction God, perhaps as much as they did pre-election 2016.  I made the case here for months that while statistical analysis was valuable, it was not the "be all, end all" to predicting the outcome of the election.  There are many, many variables for which Silver (or really, any analyst) doesn't account.  Some of these (like intensity of the dislike for a candidate, for example) are difficult to quantify (and/or weight in terms of impact) at all.  I was roundly mocked here for daring to speak out against the statistical analysis gods.  Even after it was proven that these other, somewhat intangible factors outweighed the analysis (because Trump won), we're right back to trusting the Gods of Data.  

    This all leads to Silver's statement on the GA 6th race.  He's saying the race is "roughly even money."   According to his models, this may be true from a statistical perspective.    But we already know that he was way off on Trump (I grant you that he constantly seeks to adjust his methodology and did a good deal of reflection after the election).  We also know that the 6th is a deeply red district.  A recent ABC/WaPo poll shows that 96% Donald Trump voters "think they did the right thing" by voting for him and would do so again.  It also shows Trump winning the popular vote nationally if the election were held today.  Trump's approval is low by historical standards, so the Democrats can probably get some mileage out of making the election about him.  No politically aware person (who isn't flat out in the tank one way or the other) thinks it will be enough to overcome the other factors.  Moreover, the GOP is not going to let itself lose that seat.  They will match Democrats spending at minimum (I guess that literally would be even money).   The real indicator will be what the Dems do for the runoff.  Will they go all-in again?  Will they spend another $8m on one seat they likely won't win?  Will the celebrities come out again?  There are so many variables.  In fact, we don't even know what we don't know.  If the Dems do X, the GOP will react.  Then the Dems will react.  The whole race could shift because of a world event or even a major legislative event (say that healthcare gets passed).   Silver may be an excellent statistician, but he's a lousy political analyst because he's exclusively tied to quantifiable data.  That's the point I'm making.  
    No one is omniscient, everyone has blind spots, and knowledge is not perfect, particularly in elections encompassing 300 million people.  Congratulations on being sceptical, but that doesn't win you bragging rights to call anyone who doesn't guess everything 100% correctly a dumbass.  Doing so was nonsensically reductive, and made you look like the prancing ass.
    singularity
  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

    sdw2001 said:

    crowley said:
    spheric said:
    sdw2001 said:
    spheric said:
    sdw2001 said:

    By the way, calling the President Treasonous just causes me to take you less seriously.  There is zero evidence POTUS is a traitor.  

    I find it amusing that deliberately taking a page from the Treasonous Trump Campaign Handbook ("funny-sounding alliterative derogatory nickname with no regard to truthfulness thereof") will piss off his supporters. 

    Your reaction illustrates nicely why the left never took Treasonous T seriously, and was so taken aback when he won. 

    Our biggest problem was and is trying to argue with facts and logic and reason against people content with anything that just sounds good. 

    See TS's post.  Wrote it better than I could.  
    I don't see tallest skil's posts, and I don't want to. 
    Amen brother.  Sadly for him, the frustration he undoubtedly feels at the current state of affairs is only going to drive him ever closer to his inevitable mental collapse.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

    TS actually finds you two hilarious.  Frustration?  Why would one be frustrated about exposing the Left's complete intellectual bankruptcy?  
    Two people on a message board are not "The Left", and refusing to engage with a foul mouthed ignoramus and proven liar is not a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, it's sign of plain sensibility.

    I highly doubt he finds it hilarious, whatever he claims. He's a big ball of self-righteous indignation and inadequacy rage, that one.
    sphericsingularity
  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

    sdw2001 said:
    crowley said:
    "Dumbass Nate Silver" :D

    Oh give it a rest, nonsense spouter, one missed call doesn't invalidate everything a person says.  Nate Silver was open about re-evaluating his assumptions, labelled Trump as a potential black swan, and on the eve of the election was far warmer on the idea of Trump winning than almost anyone else.

    He's an analyst, not a kingmaker, if you don't like what he says then just stop reading it.

     :D  :o :D   REALLY?  You and yours were practically sucking Nate Silver's wang back in 2012.  Nate Silver had cracked the code.  He was the Left's election analyst messiah.  These boards were dripping with condescension about all other predictions.  And when Silver was right on that election?  Oh my God.  You guys were not just gloating, you were climaxing all over the screen.  But now he's just an "analyst."    Silver doesn't know anything.  He's a stopped clock and nothing more.  Anyone who could actually argue that the Georgia 6th is even money in the runoff is either a dumbass or a partisan shill.  Maybe both.  I'm leaning towards the first.  
    Enough of this "you and yours" please, we're all people here, not stereotypes, and I don't recall ever gushing, or even talking about Nate Silver before. Put that broad brush away.

    People admired Nate Silver's methodologies, and still do, and I highly doubt anyone at any point has claimed that they are perfect, or anything more than a further interpretation of polling data, which is by definition a speculative and inaccurate science.

    I'd certainly say his methodologies are still far superior to your finger-in-the-wind guesstimating from inside your own bubble, and that won't change whatever the result in Georgia turns out to be.

    www.fivethirtyeight.com is an excellent website. Anyone arguing otherwise is definitely either a dumbass, a partisan shill, or both. 

    singularity
  • The Democratic Party is on Fire...

    spheric said:
    sdw2001 said:
    spheric said:
    sdw2001 said:

    By the way, calling the President Treasonous just causes me to take you less seriously.  There is zero evidence POTUS is a traitor.  

    I find it amusing that deliberately taking a page from the Treasonous Trump Campaign Handbook ("funny-sounding alliterative derogatory nickname with no regard to truthfulness thereof") will piss off his supporters. 

    Your reaction illustrates nicely why the left never took Treasonous T seriously, and was so taken aback when he won. 

    Our biggest problem was and is trying to argue with facts and logic and reason against people content with anything that just sounds good. 

    See TS's post.  Wrote it better than I could.  
    I don't see tallest skil's posts, and I don't want to. 
    Amen brother.  Sadly for him, the frustration he undoubtedly feels at the current state of affairs is only going to drive him ever closer to his inevitable mental collapse.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.
    singularity
  • After tricking govt regulators, Uber got caught breaking Apple's iOS App Store rules

    gatorguy said:
    John Gruber has an interesting post about why Uber did this and it's not for what we might assume:

    "At the time, Uber was dealing with widespread account fraud in places like China, where tricksters bought stolen iPhones that were erased of their memory and resold. Some Uber drivers there would then create dozens of fake email addresses to sign up for new Uber rider accounts attached to each phone, and request rides from those phones, which they would then accept. Since Uber was handing out incentives to drivers to take more rides, the drivers could earn more money this way".

    "the Uber app is deleted from the device and/or device is wiped. At this point, Uber knows the fingerprint for the device, but can’t use it to track the device in any way, and they don’t care, because until someone reinstalls the Uber app on the phone it isn’t being used to book fraudulent rides.

    The Uber app is reinstalled on the iPhone. When it launches, it does the fingerprint check and phones home again. Uber now knows this is the same iPhone they’ve seen before, because the fingerprint matches."


    If that's true, I'd say this is a fairly benign violation.

    Nevertheless, they're a shitty company and I'd love to see them kicked from the App Store.
    watto_cobra