Editing Talk:1131: Math

Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod

:Picture downloaded from xkcd, uploaded to the wiki with the correct license and "xkcd" added to the filename as a prefix, then filename changed in page source to correct image. Hope this helps in the future! - [[User:Coombeseh|Coombeseh]] ([[User talk:Coombeseh|talk]]) 10:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
:Can somebody please explain further? I guess the joke is about the forecast? thank you --[[Special:Contributions/89.144.192.97|89.144.192.97]] 14:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Randall's on the nose again.  This is why I just turned off all media yesterday, especially toward the end of the evening.  Unless you're up for contrived suspense, it's really just tediousness lived through: barely five minutes of "news" per hour, the remaining "empty" time filled with the drone of talking heads waxing obnoxious about irrelevancies.  This morning, the results are in, and I'm no worse for not having endured the conjectural drivel... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:As a note, the title text is referring to the consensus polls, including those at fivethirtyeight.com, which were referred to in the previous episode.  Another interpretation of the "numbers" comment is that the predictions based on polling numbers and proper statistical analyses of those, rather than mere punditry and opinion, were always the best predictors of what was going to happen in this election.  So not only could numbers retroactively tell us who won (based on actual votes) but numbers when used as individual data points with variance and sample sizes, and combined into an aggregate, were far more effective in telling us prospectively who was going to win.  [[Special:Contributions/128.104.149.65|128.104.149.65]] 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Numbers continue <ins>to be best</ins> system for determining? {{unsigned|204.191.29.154}}
:Yes and no.  In news stories (see newspaper headlines for an example), this is a typical format.  You didn't notice the "To surprise of pundits" part that came first? [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption. [[User:mwburden|mwburden]]

[http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}

I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I really like the term "dramatically equal." - Kieran
 Sorry, I don't know how to upload the correct image. - Artod
@@ Line 12: / Line 10: @@
 Numbers continue <ins>to be best</ins> system for determining? {{unsigned|204.191.29.154}}
 :Yes and no.  In news stories (see newspaper headlines for an example), this is a typical format.  You didn't notice the "To surprise of pundits" part that came first? [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 00:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
-:I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption. [[User:mwburden|mwburden]] 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
+:I believe the previous entry was addressing the missing article "the" in the caption. [[User:mwburden|mwburden]]
-::So was the answer. The caption, like many news headlines, omits the articles. "To [the] surprise of pundits, numbers continue to be [the] best system..." [[Special:Contributions/72.169.224.103|72.169.224.103]] 15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 [http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/06/comment-thread-3-live-blogging/ For more critical relevance], he texted along these lines yesterday to one of the more prominent non-Nate Silver analysts, Prof. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium {{unsigned|70.167.158.178}}
 I wish Randall had made the bar 538 pixels wide (it's only 400ish). - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
-"Explain the title text." What's there to explain? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.109|173.245.52.109]] 22:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
-I removed the tag, and expanded the title text explanation.
-Polling data gave trump a 30% or so chance of winning. That is more than it gave Romney, and probably a better chance than a lot of democrats thought he had. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
-:Statistical analysis of the polling data by FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a much better chance than it did Romney; but that was due to a number of factors not picked up by pundits, like the high number of undecideds in the run-up to the 2016 election, and that Nate Silver's models (correctly) showed the Electoral College as favoring Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2016 in case of a close popular vote. Raw nationwide polling numbers, without that statistical analysis, didn't look good for Trump. [[User:Pelosujamo|Pelosujamo]] ([[User talk:Pelosujamo|talk]]) 00:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
-::Nate Silver and most other analysts vastly underestimated the high levels of misogyny prevalent in the USA that caused Hilary to lose to Trump. [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 20:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)