Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

New thread title is so apropos.

[mainiac]

I don't think probabilities work exactly like that, MSH, you're describing without clarifying priors. "If soandso is something, then the odds of otherthing are x per y events" is different from "if y events take place, then the odds of otherthing are 100%" and different from a range of other types of probabilistic statements of odds.

In 100 trillion trillion years the odds of me flipping a coin non-stop and having it land on edge, begin rotating rapidly, and transforming into a singing and dancing frog wearing a tophat may be nonzero, but that prior assumption implies the universe will last for 100 trillion trillion years and that I will be flipping a coin the whole time and that my understanding of the physics involved are sound.

Million to one odds happen. There are much more then a million things you would hear about if they happened. U wouldn't say that trump was a million to one but certainly less the 50%.

[Zangi]

I've always chalked it up as there being uncounted for factors that were never in play during previous election cycles. 
Nate knows his shit, but that doesn't mean he is an all-seeing oracle.

[mainiac]

I've always chalked it up as there being uncounted for factors that were never in play during previous election cycles.

But it's very easy to over react when you get new information.  Suppose you were going to roll two dice and thought ahead of time that the odds of snake eyes are 1:36, about 3%.  If you get snake eyes should you assume there was something special about that roll?  Nate gave Trump ~2% odds. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/)  That's a little less likely then snake eyes.

It is possible to split the difference of course and say maybe there were new factors and maybe there weren't.

[PTTG??]

I'd kind of like to see a comparison of consequences for each presidential choice. As I see it:

Hillary: Continuation of Obama policies. The US is likely to have stable military commitments. No change in gun control laws. Replacement of 2-4 SCJs with liberal justices, probably a net 2 increase, which puts liberals in control of the court. Moderate increase in international respect. An insult to strongly misogynist countries and an embarrassment to ISIS. Expansion of the social net possible.

Trump: Mitigation of some Obama policies. Military action unpredictable due to contradictory rhetoric. No change in gun control laws. Replacement of 2-4 SCJs with conservative justices, probably a net 3 increase, which puts conservatives in total control of the court. Substantial decline in international respect. An affirmation to misogynist countries and potentially stronger ties with Russia. Expansion of the social net impossible.

Johnson: Radical change in policies. Likely reduction in military commitments. Replacement of 2-4 SCJ with potted plants. Congress loses what remain of its marbles. Pigs fly. Both party headquarters dissolve into witchhunts. EDIT: Apparently, Aleppo bombed into oblivion and all mention of it erased from records.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Unfortunately, this confirms for us that Johnson will be the winner of the election, as tachyons from his future instance are traveling back in time and blinding him of Aleppo's existence.

There is no war in Aleppo.

[MrRoboto75]

Johnson: Radical change in policies. Likely reduction in military commitments. Replacement of 2-4 SCJ with potted plants. Congress loses what remain of its marbles. Pigs fly. Both party headquarters dissolve into witchhunts. EDIT: Apparently, Aleppo bombed into oblivion and all mention of it erased from records.

Dogs and cats living together!

Mass Hysteria!

[Max™]

I've always chalked it up as there being uncounted for factors that were never in play during previous election cycles.

But it's very easy to over react when you get new information.  Suppose you were going to roll two dice and thought ahead of time that the odds of snake eyes are 1:36, about 3%.  If you get snake eyes should you assume there was something special about that roll?  Nate gave Trump ~2% odds. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/)  That's a little less likely then snake eyes.

It is possible to split the difference of course and say maybe there were new factors and maybe there weren't.

Thus the wars between the Bayesians and the Frequentists, with their neverbombs, mayberays, and fully automatic assumptioncannons accounting for potentially unknowable prior casualties (and casual priorities), with p > 0.05.

[PTTG??]

I've always chalked it up as there being uncounted for factors that were never in play during previous election cycles.

But it's very easy to over react when you get new information.  Suppose you were going to roll two dice and thought ahead of time that the odds of snake eyes are 1:36, about 3%.  If you get snake eyes should you assume there was something special about that roll?  Nate gave Trump ~2% odds. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/)  That's a little less likely then snake eyes.

It is possible to split the difference of course and say maybe there were new factors and maybe there weren't.

Thus the wars between the Bayesians and the Frequentists, with their neverbombs, mayberays, and fully automatic assumptioncannons accounting for potentially unknowable prior casualties (and casual priorities), with p > 0.05.

So do I mail this to Al Gore or like is there a form I fill out so you can win an internet for that? Also, relevant xkcd.

[Max™]

Huh, I think I merged some of the statistics jokes I've seen with Dr. Who there somehow.

[misko27]

I'm pretty sure Bayesian probability is witchcraft, so I'm going to support the frequentists.

[RedKing]

Yeah, the Aleppo thing was just...>_<

Dammit Gary, and I was starting to lean back in your direction too.

Although Lindsey Graham got good mileage out of it by tweeting: "He set back the cause of legalizing marijuana by 50 years." 

[Mephansteras]

Yeah. While I personally don't care too much one way or the other, stuff like this does hurt his chances of accomplishing anything.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if he somehow became president. Not because of what he'd want to do, which wouldn't happen because he'd have a hard time getting anyone in congress to cooperate with him, but because of the fallout this would have on the two major parties.

[saigo]

He admitted he was wrong though, that is very impressive.

[mainiac]

Yeah. While I personally don't care too much one way or the other, stuff like this does hurt his chances of accomplishing anything.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if he somehow became president. Not because of what he'd want to do, which wouldn't happen because he'd have a hard time getting anyone in congress to cooperate with him, but because of the fallout this would have on the two major parties.

By my Friedman style method of asking 6 waiters, nobody knows what Aleppo is anyway.

I think that Johnson would have a very easy time getting the GOP in congress to rubberstamp 80% of his agenda.