Because smug numbers guys annoy me to no end. I have done modeling in the accounting world for 30 plus years and I have learned to be very humble about projections. Nate has no such humbleness and it grates at me.
Excellent comment. A big problem for Silver is that he doesn't note that his "Obama 83% likely to win" should read, even with his flawed model, "Obama 83% +/- 15%". He does not note that there is variance in his model.
And while PECOTA is a good model for baseball forecasting, you can grab any issue of Baseball Prospectus and see how far off many of his estimates were.
I don't think he's insincere, but I do think his models have flaws and he refuses to acknowledge those flaws; instead projecting an aura of certitude that you can't do in mathematical modeling.
I thought you were mocking him, but I wasn’t sure. Sarcasm is hard to interpret at times in text.
I’m not scolding or questioning but you do agree that Silver’s sole aim is to rile the left’s usual set of enemies?
Like so many of their kind, he’s not interested in discussing ideology, policy or any other subject that might act as a unifying theme for his side.
I’m admittedly biased but we have many such subjects and they are debated every day, every hour here and elsewhere. It gets heated but there is usually respect and fair play.
I hear literally nothing about principles, ideals, philosophers, historical figures, etc. from the left. To them, history began 5 min ago or the last time they got one over on the big bad conservatives. The word ‘nihilistic’ seems a bit over the top but what other term describes such actions and attitudes?
He simply wants to agitate and, obviously, draw attention to himself.