Did you trust Nate Silver more than Dilbert in predicting the election? That wouldn't have worked out for you either.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @michaelianblack
Did you actually listen to or read 538? I know you don't.
@NateSilver538 NEVER predicted anything.6 replies 2 retweets 249 likes -
Replying to @driven2drink @ScottAdamsSays and
He reports probabilities. If you had followed him to the day of the election you would know how hesitant he was with the data.
3 replies 1 retweet 216 likes -
Everyone understands what 98% chance means. You're hallucinating that I don't so you have something to debate.
23 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @driven2drink and
538's predeictions never went above about 67-68%, they never phblushed a 98% number.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shrikex0r @driven2drink and
Prior to the primaries he gave Trump 2% chance of getting nominated. So I'm being generous with him. That's a lower chance than 2%.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @shrikex0r and
He...didn't do anything. The model indicated what the model indicated given the data inputs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @driven2drink and
Wow. Mic drop. We need a better mic drop emoji. The actual podcast and spreadsheet with their odds.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.