|
e_angst posted:Two people who didn't actually read the article spotted. i'm one person and also my posts were facetious, though no i didn't read a longass article about why boys have weiners Condiv has issued a correction as of 19:32 on Apr 22, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm one person and also my posts were facetious, though no i didn't read a longass article about why boys have weiners
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:your concerns are addressed in like the second paragraph of the bad article btw as i said, they're not really my concerns i can understand not going into detail about transgender people when a kid asks what the hell a weiner is for or why boys have them. sex, gender, and reproduction are pretty complex and i don't expect them to explain every detail of them to a little kid
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's the same person. Perhaps it is you who did not read? It is true. I am the turd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:as i said, they're not really my concerns Yeah it's a little absurd to go into a complex explanation that is only relevant to a tiny fraction of the population when explaining things to a 3 year old.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
smg77 posted:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/ quote:Instead of a crevice in a rock, you’ve got a crevice in the female’s body. I'm forwarding this to all my female collegues. Oh man. To be fair though, study of duck copulation, sex organs and the mechanism is pretty important and should be solidly funded. Sex (the mechanism of the physical act, the structures involved) vary radically and it's critical they do so because that entire process is fundimental to speciation. We need more data to see how many different ways nature solves the problem of bringing sperm and egg together to illuminate what elements can vary and what cannot. And ultimately where those conserved elements of sex are in the genetic code. This whole "cultural bias is why we dont study vaginas" is more than a little bit bullshit. Penises are literally salient. You can study and excite a male (generally) without killing him. You have to go digging around a female and that may require special tools to do so while the organism is alive or if you are doing a bunch of autopsies...you are trading a full interior view of the organ for limited information about how the organ fuctions in vivo. I'm sure there was bias and difficulty to get funding but slanting the article to say "it's the Patriarchy" which was very clearly the thrust from his edit is eyerollingly disingenuous. Helical Nightmares has issued a correction as of 08:21 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Tee-hee. Proto-weiners and hoo-has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/27/1520813/-Mindblowing-This-Republican-pollster-blew-a-race-by-96-points-on-Tuesday-night Gravis has a middle of the pack rating on 538
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Not 538 but since we've talked about the '5 ring circus,' this npr piece talks about 'lane theory,' which was invented by WaPo's The Fix and it's actually a lovely metaphor if you think about it. http://www.npr.org/2016/04/27/475848864/how-a-media-metaphor-took-root-in-gop-political-circles
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Just skimmed through 6 stages of doom, Nate still has it, folks. He can still be right!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
I'm laughing at how badly he's performed this season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm laughing at how badly he's performed this season. Just add him to the list of people that had their careers ended (hopefully in Nate's case) by the Trump 2016 campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Realtalk I've been working in forecasting myself for about six years and the primary thing it's taught me is that Nobody Likes Forecasters I mean when was the last time you thought 'drat thanks weatherperson' when they nailed the rain forecast to the hour Don't do forecasting kids
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Realtalk I've been working in forecasting myself for about six years and the primary thing it's taught me is that Nobody Likes Forecasters Not true at all there were plenty of 538 type dullards who worshiped at the cock of Nate Silver. Joementum the most prominent among them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Realtalk I've been working in forecasting myself for about six years and the primary thing it's taught me is that Nobody Likes Forecasters Tom skilling is a Chicago hero for actually predicting some of the bad blizzards
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just being bitter about my work environment then
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I think it happens when you are in an industry where even with 100% accurate forecasting of uncommon or rare events, people always assume that 1% event occurring is proof the forecaster sucks. The amount of time I have to explain that 20% of our wells will fall out of our P10-P90 range is depressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Tom skilling is a Chicago hero for actually predicting some of the bad blizzards Same for Don Paul in Buffalo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Maybe I'm just being bitter about my work environment then Nah, you were half right. People do dislike forecasters when they're wrong more than they like them when they're right. There was a mini cult of personality around Nate when he looked like a genius in 2012, but the backlash was pretty much inevitable as soon as he hosed up. He just really steered into the skid by making predictions that had nothing to do with math and doubling down on the type of conventional punditry he started out criticizing, so I think he's earned the backlash at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:I'm forwarding this to all my female collegues. Oh man. I read a pretty good paper pointing at some pretty good evidence that ecological research has suffered in the past from a biases reflective of patriarchal attitudes, although it made the point that female researches often fell into the same paradigms as their male colleagues. The author pointed out our understanding of female decision making in sexual selection was radically reworked in the 1960s, often by female scientists, in parallel to the popular sexual revolution. I can't remember the name of the paper or author now, but it was fairly convincing argument for the value of diverse perspectives in research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I read a pretty good paper pointing at some pretty good evidence that ecological research has suffered in the past from a biases reflective of patriarchal attitudes, although it made the point that female researches often fell into the same paradigms as their male colleagues. The author pointed out our understanding of female decision making in sexual selection was radically reworked in the 1960s, often by female scientists, in parallel to the popular sexual revolution. I can't remember the name of the paper or author now, but it was fairly convincing argument for the value of diverse perspectives in research. The most obvious of these is the insistence on female monogamy in various species. This was eventually conclusively disproven with DNA analysis, after which observation in some species demonstrated the surreptitious polyandry that had been taking place all along.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Nah, you were half right. People do dislike forecasters when they're wrong more than they like them when they're right. There was a mini cult of personality around Nate when he looked like a genius in 2012, but the backlash was pretty much inevitable as soon as he hosed up. He just really steered into the skid by making predictions that had nothing to do with math and doubling down on the type of conventional punditry he started out criticizing, so I think he's earned the backlash at this point. He needs to be beaten in the face with a crowbar for being a bitchass punk and a punkass bitch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:He needs to be beaten in the face with a crowbar for being a bitchass punk and a punkass bitch. i like the liberality index nate and hillbots keep pushing lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i like the liberality index nate and hillbots keep pushing lol who?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:who?  clinton is only 12 liberality points less liberal than sanders. maybe she could've got my vote if she specced into leftism a bit more
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Imagine what that graph would look like were Bernie not pro-gun
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
dunno that roughly checks out
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
You can quibble with the details there (like Jim Webb's liberal donors from 2006 dragging his score way further left than Jim Webb himself is), but that graph is pretty much a good summary of the Democratic Party's shift in the last 40 years. (The shift isn't the party going left, it's the right wing of the party going extinct). I think it'd be interesting to have Hillary Clinton 2000, Hillary Clinton 2008, and Hillary Clinton 2016 scores, though. She's consistently tried to position herself about at the median of the party, which led to her incarnations post-Clinton Administration slowly but surely drifting left as the party changed. If you did this scoring in 2000 when she was running for Senate her score would be where her husband's was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
are those metric or imperial liberal points
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
sorry, nate
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
For posterity.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
six stages was still the best cuz he conveniently forgot about the whole Bayesian thing and just figured they were all independent events
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Aren't Nate and his folks doing a live show tonight? Or was that last night? What I'm trying to say is, have we seen Nate lately and are we sure he's not off in a corner somewhere and crying.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Aren't Nate and his folks doing a live show tonight? Or was that last night? The staff post their thoughts on the results of each primary election night on the website as the night goes on. He hasn't totally gone through it yet, but I'm fully expecting him to revisit the six stages of doom and eat crow point-by-point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Nate Silver sat stunned alone, in a ratty old used recliner in an nearly empty New York apartment. Sporting a five o'clock shadow that took three weeks to go, a TV with a poo poo signal, and a floor full of empty whiskey bottles, Nate stared at the TV as Trump won state after state. He had spent the better part of a year swearing that Trump wouldn't be the GOP nominee, and after Trump was victorious there he swore up and down that Trump wouldn't, couldn't, beat Hillary. He staked his reputation, as the genius who called the 2012 election, as the man who conquered over the polls, on the back of Hillary. With Trump on his way to a landslide victory, all was lost. The two-week notice from ABC News came 13 days ago. His 538 staff quit long ago, refusing to go down on the ship with their mad captain. Even his grindr account had been terminated. Nate had nothing left, nothing but his polls and his graphs. He pulled his trusty laptop onto his lap, the one that spat out the first PECOTA projections long ago that made Nate Silver into the man he was today. Nate hit enter once more, trying to find where he went wrong. Instead the computer coughed and went silent with a poof of black smoke from the processor, not even giving him the decency of a BSOD goodbye. Now Nate was truly alone. Gulping the last of his whiskey and tossing the bottle aside, Nate took out a revolver and put it to his temple, cocking back the hammer. He never thought it would end like this, he thought, but at least I won't live a discredited polls analyst. His index finger twitched and a shot rang out, the revolver falling the floor. Nate jumped from his chair and shook his hand, looking back at the shadowy figure in the doorway. The man blew out his rifle and stepped into the vacant apartment, turning the overhead light on. "You're not getting off that easy," said Dean Chambers.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Harry Enten gave Trump a -10% chance of getting the nomination.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Bernice Anders posted:Harry Enten gave Trump a -10% chance of getting the nomination. Does anybody have that "these are all the hoops Trump will have to jump through to actually win the nomination" article from last year?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
smg77 posted:Does anybody have that "these are all the hoops Trump will have to jump through to actually win the nomination" article from last year? http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/ Nate Silver posted:If Trump made it this far, the Republican Party would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid nominating him. In “The Party Decides” view, parties are basically looking for two things from their nominees: They want them to be reliable (meaning, they can be counted on to enact the Republican agenda once in office), and they want them to be electable (meaning, they can win in November). It’s hard to think of a candidate who does worse on those two measures than Trump. He’s exceptionally unpopular among independent voters. But he also has a checkered political past that includes once having supported abortion rights and universal health care. For the Republican Party, he’s the worst of all possible worlds. https://twitter.com/Reince/status/727665447684820992
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
This was actually kind of interesting: Trump voters make more money than most people assume. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
 quote:Donald Trump is going to win the Republican nomination.   The fun continues.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
