toddestan

Traditional station wagons just can't compete. Being classified as a car instead of a light truck means they have to adhere to stricter fuel economy and safety standards. They end up costing more, and ultimately that's what killed them.

With that said, the newer crop of low-roofed crossovers are essentially station wagons now, but they are still truck-like enough with their big tires and jacked up suspensions to classify as light trucks.

You're using a weird definition of profit, which to most people is some sort of financial gain. Saving money isn't the same as profiting. You're not turning a profit when you use a $1.00 off coupon on a package of Oreos at the grocer just like you're not turning a profit if you download a movie.

Also, go look up criminal copyright infringement. That's what is defined as a crime legally, and downloading a movie or a CD doesn't meet that threshold unless maybe you're torrenting it and therefore distributing it. Morally, well you can argue that, but not everyone is going to agree with you.

I guess it's up to you if want to trust it or not. He doesn't share all the details, but he (at least in the past) shared enough details on his blog that I felt pretty good that he knew what he was talking about it.

I will point out that he was one of the very few aggregators in 2016 that was saying "hey look, Trump has a very real chance of winning this". Which is why I find it so amusing when people say he got it wrong in 2016 when in actuality he was one of the few that was right. After 2008 there were a bunch of copycats out there trying to do similar things as Nate Silver, and many of them were saying things like 99.99% Clinton. If people are going to criticize, that's where I would direct it.

I find it interesting that (at least in my opinion) after 15 that I have to go all way to 40 before it seems like a solid improvement over what 15 offers.

Well, you can think that but realize that you're in the minority if you think breaking copyright for personal consumption is the same as breaking copyright for profit. That's like saying stealing a loaf of bread because you are hungry is exactly the same as stealing a car so you can strip it for parts for resale.

Also, despite what the RIAA and MPAA would like you to believe, downloading a CD or DVD for personal use isn't illegal, which is why it's a civil matter when someone is busted. There's a line that needs to be crossed before the criminal justice system gets involved, and it's above that sort of thing.

Sure, you could present your model and the data it is based upon and everyone could make their judgement.

You can't really falsify the claim “Clinton has a higher chance of winning”, at least the way Nate Silver models it. His model is based upon statistics, and he basically runs a bunch of simulations of the election. In more of these simulations, Clinton won, hence his claim. But we had exactly one actual election, and in the election, Trump won. Perhaps his model is just wrong, or perhaps the outcome matched one of the simulations in his model where Trump won. If we could somehow run the election hundreds of times (or observe what happened in hundreds of parallel universes) then maybe we could see if his model matched the outcome of a statistically significant number of election results. But nevertheless, Nate Silver had a model and statistics to back up his claim.

As for Michael Moore, I'm not sure exactly how he came up with his prediction, but I get the impression it was mostly a gut feeling based upon his observations of what was happening. Nevertheless, Michael Moore still could back up his statement by articulating why he was claiming that and the observations he had made.

Though one crucial difference is still the whole prediction thing. Michael Moore actually made a prediction of a Trump win. Whereas Nate Silver just stated that Clinton had a higher chance of winning, and once again that was not a prediction. So you're really comparing two different things here.

Why should the ideal temperature be right in the middle of the range?

It's no surprise that the maximum end of the range is right around the body temperature, as it's difficult for the body to keep itself cool once the environment is around or warmer than the body temperature. Sure, we can sweat, but that uses up a lot of water and people generally find that getting all sweaty to not be pleasant. Run out of water or raise the temperature too much and it gets dangerous pretty quickly.

On the other hand, if the environment is a lot cooler than the body temperature, then it is difficult for the body to keep warm. I'm sure for our distant ancestors who lived in what is now Africa, their minimum temperature was much higher, possibly putting the ideal temperature right around the middle of their range. Luckily for us, we have clothing and can put on more clothing to stay warm, which is how we can now make the minimum so low. But while we can use clothing to lower our minimum, we really don't have anything different to raise our maximum vs. our ancestors - we're both limited by how well we can cool ourselves by sweating. So for that reason it doesn't really surprise me that our ideal temperature is towards the upper end of what we consider the minimum and maximum temperatures.

Actually, it's the other way around. 100 degrees F weather is really hot. Driving 100 MPH is really fast.

In metric we have 40 degrees C weather is really hot, and driving....uhhh... (gets out a calculator)... 160 km/h is really fast.

The thing is, Nate Silver did not make a prediction about the 2016 race.

He said that Hilary had a higher chance of winning. He didn't say Hilary was going to win.

That may be how you see it, but that's not how the law works.

The pirate is looking to save money with their copyright infringement.

These AI companies are looking to make money from it.