Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
But the issue is with the underlying data itself. The temptation in so many of these 'megahistories' is to develop a narrative based on personal biases or on very recent history, which is then simply projected backwards over vast periods for which the data doesn't exist.
If the data that sits beneath the model is broken, then the model itself is equally broken. Take for comparison the 538 guys and their election model. They are aggressively open about how, if the polls are wrong, then the model will also be wrong...
...consequently, they spend a lot of time stressing uncertainty. Turchin doesn't stress uncertainty *at all* in his comments. He stresses confidence, arguing that the huge date-brackets on his study give him the kind of high confidence to make hard future predictions.
And he openly compares himself to the historical-mathematicians from the Foundation books. What I am saying is - I *know* the data from some of these periods and, if you'll pardon the analogy - the polls are garbage.
Along these lines: the use of "proxies" in modelling ancient economic history always leaves me quite uneasy. I'll admit I haven't dug enough into how the models are built, so they might be more robust than that, but...
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
