Talk:3007: Probabilistic Uncertainty - Revision history

141.101.98.100 at 08:48, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T08:48:36Z

172.68.7.200 at 00:52, 20 April 2025

2025-04-20T00:52:10Z

MeZimm at 17:35, 7 March 2025

2025-03-07T17:35:45Z

MeZimm at 17:34, 7 March 2025

2025-03-07T17:34:37Z

172.70.91.11 at 23:21, 25 November 2024

2024-11-25T23:21:08Z

172.69.132.223 at 12:32, 25 November 2024

2024-11-25T12:32:45Z

172.71.94.215 at 06:15, 13 November 2024

2024-11-13T06:15:03Z

GammaRaul at 18:17, 9 November 2024

2024-11-09T18:17:13Z

GammaRaul at 18:14, 9 November 2024

2024-11-09T18:14:47Z

GammaRaul at 18:13, 9 November 2024

2024-11-09T18:13:38Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
-:Your candidate losing is not a big deal. Get a fucking grip.
+::Your candidate losing is not a big deal. Get a fucking grip. {{unsigned ip|172.68.7.200|00:52, 20 April 2025}}
 :And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 Emotional spirals are useless. I've been coping by pretending we're in scenario 1, it keeps me sane. If I'm wrong, I'll jump off that bridge when we come to it. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
 :And I have a friend whose strategy is baking. It's both therapeutic and delicious. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 I think it's funny that so many Democrats are genuinely terrified of the results and spend their days anxiously refreshing 538, whereas Republicans are filled with optimism and already know that the democrats have run the weakest candidate since Dukakis. Ah well, maybe in four years you'll actually get to vote for who leads your ticket instead of having them be appointed by the party elites directly without a vote. ;) {{unsigned ip|172.71.22.120|07:35, 5 November 2024}}
 :Given the indirect democracy system the US has, there's a number of problems with who gets to be President. And if Harris is weaker than H. Clinton, but it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting, does that mean that Trump's win was therefore less legitimate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
-::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.127|172.68.3.127]] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
+::Do I really have to remind you that election results are not the same thing as poll results? In 2016, [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 28.6% chance vs Clinton's 71.4% chance.] Most polls were even more egregiously in favor of Clinton. Yet Trump won. Now in 2024, you say "it's still on a knife-edge of popular/EC voting" - somehow pretending the PREDICTIONS of right now are in any way comparable to the ACTUAL RESULTS of 2016. Yet polls get "shy Tories" and pranksters and all kinds of complicating factors (even assuming the pollsters are being honest - which is not something you should EVER "simply assume"). Polls are a little bit better than astrology in terms of actual predictive power. So comparing "polls now" to "actual election then" is completely wrongheaded. You have to compare predictions to predictions. And the predictions of 2016 were "the odds are MASSIVELY in Clinton's favor" - yet now they are running a WEAKER candidate and rate her has having even LESS probability of winning than Clinton did. Don't worry, though, I'm sure they figured out some way to solve all the problems with their 2016 process, and are now 100% trustworthy again! /s [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]])] 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
 :::Whatever direction we're going with the rest of the arguments, don't lead us down the route of misanalysing (say) 28.6% vs. 71.4% as meaning anything other than that's the predicted chance (by a necessarily incomplete process) of the process coming out one way or another (even by just one vote that swings just one EC contribution). It doesn't mean that the popular vote will split by that proportion or the EC votes will split that way, it is just an assessment of how much the (each slightly biased) coins will fall either majority heads or majority tails. But we only see the one end result (itself a fudge of a fudge of many possibly imperfect opinions) and try to read the entrails all while hearing "but the predictions were 29/71, and it was much closer than that, so obviously those stats guys were wrong".
 :::Do try not to fall for such statistical fallacies. The polling will be refined for all the things that it can be refined for (accounting for the kinds of people who do vote but don't answer to pollsters, or don't vote even though they say they will, etc) and should come with error bars which can be very telling but rarely get mentioned in 'executive summaries' that get selectively quoted by the headlines of organisations with less integrity and more of their own message to try to promulgate.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 Created an account just to say this; don't get mad at me but in my opinion, both candidates are equally bad, which has led to a weird sense of calmness in me due to my belief that we'll be equally screwed no matter what, just in different ways. Tbh in my opinion both candidates are in between what their supporters think of them and what their opponents think of them. Please be civil if you reply, no ad hominem please. [[User:BurnV06|BurnV06]] ([[User talk:BurnV06|talk]]) 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
 :No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
-::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
+::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[User:MeZimm|MeZimm]] ([[User talk:MeZimm|talk]]) 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
 :::While I understand where you are coming from, you also gotta understand that the worries about Project 2025 aren't baseless, given the {{rw|Project_2025#Connections_to_Donald_Trump|several connections that the people behind it have with Trump}}. [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
 ::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not'' a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ::Why bring Reddit into this? [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
 :::Randall is the stereotypical Redditor: a smug liberal millennial that used to be really interested in technology before it became associated with conservatives. The fact that he picks the reddit candidate shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.132.223|172.69.132.223]] 12:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
 I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 :::It's perhaps not ''bad'' advice, but it's mostly ''irrelevant'' advice. It's not in any way linked to the comic. To keep this information more relevant, I think it should be clearly linked to what Randall proposes as the appropriate way to think about it. In addition, the ChatGPT-like phrasing means it spends a lot of words on saying very little of substance. I'm not against keeping an explanation of the various strategies of coping with uncertainty, but I am against doing it in ''this'' format.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.213|172.71.182.213]] 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
 ::::Irrelevant? It's a direct answer to the nine question marks in the bottom row, a specific response to the one question raised as the whole point of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.226|108.162.245.226]] 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
 Perhaps as expected, this has gone outdated pretty quickly. [https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/will-trump-win-the-2024-election Manifold] and [https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024 Polymarket] are now both trading above 90% for Trump as of this comment. <span class="nowrap">—megan [[user talk:megan|talk]] [[special:contribs/megan|contribs]]</span> 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 :To follow upon this, maybe Randall should stop endorsing political figures? He always picks the reddit candidate and sets himself up for disappointment. At least we might get a new Electoral Precedent comic out of this.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.152|108.162.238.152]] 14:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
 ::Politics is not some spectator sport. It's not a victory to endorse a winning candidate if that candidate doesn't stand for something you actually believe in. Randall did not set himself up for disappointment. The political climate in the US set him up for disappointment, regardless of whether he chose to endorse Harris or not.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.119|172.70.46.119]] 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
 I'm reminded of some of my coding theory class, where the absolute worst bit error rate is 50%. Less than 50% and you can repeat the data to detect and correct the errors to some vastly low probability of an incorrect result, and more than 50% and you can invert the signal which flips it to less than 50%, then do the same. At exactly 50% you're essentially getting random noise, and there's nothing you can do about that (but allow allows a one-time pad encryption to be unbreakable if done correctly). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.214.13|172.71.214.13]] 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 :No, one of them is clearly worse than the other. How do you feel about LGBTQ+ rights? Abortion? Medicare? Teaching kids that racism and homophobia in schools is bad? Well, if Project 2025 is anything to go by, one side ''clearly'' is the unpreferable unless you're a white, Christian, rich, and male. This is not a "both sides" issue. One is clearly the worse option. And frankly, I wish centrists knew this. I can agree to disagree on some issues but I just cannot elect someone who wants to punish people for the egregious crime of, ''gasp'', not conforming to societal standard of gender and romance.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.22.85|172.71.22.85]] 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
 ::... And Project 2025 is absolutely nothing to go by. It's what a (private) conservative think tank (privately) wants to see implemented. Trump had no involvement in its contents or publication. The Heritage Foundation has been publishing things like it since 1981; it only attracted attention THIS year because politically-motivated people are trying to scare you, and were running out of ideas. It should not surprise you to learn that people who you already disagree with, have ideas that you also disagree with, and might publish compilations of those ideas you disagree with on a regular basis. Freaking out over Project 2025 is like if conservatives started freaking out over a set of published policy recommendations by the Center for American Progress. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 16:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC) MeZimm
-::Fair enough, but the point still stands that this is explicitly ''not''a both sides issue. Even taking Project 2025 out of account, one side is clearly worse.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.71.44|172.68.71.44]] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::While I understand where you are coming from, you also gotta understand that worries about Project 2025 aren't baseless, given the {{rw|Project_2025#Connections_to_Donald_Trump|connections people behind it have with Trump}}. [[User:GammaRaul|GammaRaul]] ([[User talk:GammaRaul|talk]]) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
 :"Equally bad" is highly subjective, Burn. More people would consider "a total disaster" vs "at least they're not a total disaster!" as a closer truth (whether their own personally-configured disastermeter comes in a Red or Blue casing), and consider balancing dead in the center of the fence to be the most inexplicable position to take. (Not to mention those like above, and also their antithesis opinions, who have a very definite good/bad opinion 9n the pair.)
 :Not that I'd support being mad at you, as the problem with politics today is ''too much'' extreme polarization (we need more moderate voices, rather than wedging open an ever wider void between both limits of opinion). But there's just no realistic middle-ground to gather support around, and what middle-ground there is might also be moving one way or another (depending upon who you ask), so I'm afraid that the strictly neutral "as bad as each other" types are just guaranteed to be setting themselves up to be disappointed. In the 'best' case scenario, disappointed that things aint turning out to be as bad as feared, but I'm not sure that's reassuringly likely enough to comfort you. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.106|172.68.186.106]] 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)