MonkRome

When he was in front of the Senate confirmation hearing he was absolutely embarrassed. He knew everyone was watching while he was accused of sexual harassment. He basically stopped interacting with the media because he was so furious with how he was portrayed publicly. Dude hates being publicly shamed. Doesn't mean he's wise enough to stop doing shitty things.

The only thing Thomas likes more than money is respect. He would never take Oliver money because it would publicly embarrass him. He hates embarrassment more than anything.

Most of these places have numerous warnings to trucks to turn back. Anyone looking at several warnings and continuing on, or worse too distracted to notice, sorta deserves the chiding.

That bridge 11' 8" that always gets posted, has an over height sensor that stops the light to red, a sign warning you that you are over height, hazard lights, and the height bar is in bright yellow. People still hit it regularly.

People can say whatever they want, no one can stop you. But people still have every right to judge your character. Being in a free society works both ways, you can say mean shit and I can think you're mean.

People use "retard" to compare others or themselves to people they deem lesser than. It doesn't work as an insult if you don't look down on cognitively disabled people. You don't have to use it on someone cognitively disabled, the implication is already there whether you have intended it or not.

For me, I think there are much worse words. While I don't use it, I don't waste my brain space judging people who do.

What I think is funny about this is that food is most often (or probably always) used, and then you're still allowed to cook and eat it. Basically anyone that eats meat complaining about animal sacrifice is completely lacking in self awareness.

Animal sacrifice does seem to exist in Haitian culture, but not in the way racists are portraying it. I see no evidence that cats and dogs have ever been used. From what I understand, more common in some pockets of their culture would be sacrificing a chicken, and then cooking it and eating it. Which is the same thing anyone can do, just with extra religious steps...

I think you're missing the point of predictive modeling. It's probability of separate outcomes is built in. This isn't fortune telling, there is no crystal ball. Two predictive models can have different predictions and they both may have value. Just like separate meteorologists can have different forecasts, but predict accurately the same amount over time, all be it at different intervals. IIRC, the average meteorologist correctly predicts rain over 80% of the time. They are far over predicting by chance. But if you look at the forecast in more than one place you often get slightly different forecasts. They have different models and yet arrive at similar conclusions usually getting it mostly accurate. It's the same with political forecasts, they are only as valuable as your understanding of predictive modeling. If you think they are intended to mirror reality flawlessly, you will be sorely disappointed. That doesn't make the models "wrong", it doesn't make them "right" either. They are just models that usually predict a probable outcome.

His model has always been closer state to state, election to election than anyone else's, which is why people use his models. He is basically using the same model and tweaking it each time, you make it sound like he's starting over from scratch. When Trump won, none of the prediction models were predicting he would win, but his at least showed a fairly reasonable chance he could. His competitors were forecasting a much more likely Hillary win while he was showing that trump would win basically 3 out of 10 times. In terms of probability that's not a blowout prediction. His model was working better than competitors. Additionally, he basically predicted the battleground states within a half percentage iirc, that happened to be the difference between a win/loss in some states.

So he has exactly one chance to get it right.

You're saying it hitting one of those 3 of 10 is "getting it wrong", that's the problem with your understanding of probability. By saying that you're showing that you don't actually internalize the purpose of a predictive model forecast. It's not a magic wand, it's just a predictive tool. That tool is useful if you understand what it's really saying, instead of extrapolating something it absolutely is not saying. If something says something will happen 3 of 10 times, it happening is not evidence of an issue with the model. A flawless model with ideal inputs can still show a 3 of 10 chance and should hit in 30% of scenarios. Certainly because we have a limited number of elections it's hard to prove the model, but considering he has come closer than competitors, it certainly seems he knows what he is doing.

All prediction models only give you odds, not flawless accuracy. He has been closer in every election than most everyone else in the prediction market.

He's not polling, he is aggregating all of the polls into a prediction model. Either way it is just a snapshot in time.

but it does mean that Boeing got something wrong.

Comparing it to Boeing shows you still misunderstand probability. If his model predicts 4 separate elections where each underdog candidate had a 1 in 4 chance of winning. If only 1 of those underdog candidates wins, then the model is likely working. But when that candidate wins everyone will say "but he said it was only a 1 in 4 chance!". It's as dumb as people being surprised by rain when it says 25% chance of rain. As long as you only get rain 1/4 of the time with that prediction, then the model is working. Presidential elections are tricky because there are so few of them, they test their models against past data to verify they are working. But it's just probability, it's not saying this WILL happen, it's saying these are the odds at this snapshot in time.

Hopefully you mean ones still in construction... No need to cause an unprecedented environmental disaster after all.